After quite some time of thinking, this is a summing up and an elaboration on some of the issues that have been under scrutiny in my explorations in this series of blog posts. It represents a recursive process, or maybe a matter of bricolage, as it reveals itself in four parts that can be read as one fairly short piece and three quite long pieces with pauses in between, or as a genuinely long read tuning in on 1) pedagogies in an era of knowledge abundance, 2) learning modes and a posthuman perspective, 3) the state of participatory culture and digital literacies, and 4) knowledge management and learning for and from the future.
In “Do We Really Need Media Education 2.0? Teaching Media in the Age of Participatory Media” (2010), an article discussing the practices of media education in schools, but with perspectives of interest to education in general, David Buckingham comments on the question of staying relevant in education:
“Many contemporary teenagers are now growing up with the ensemble of participatory media collectively known as ‘Web 2.0’ – social networking, photo- and video sharing, blogging, podcasting, remixing and mashups, wikis, machinima, user-generated content, online games and social worlds, and so on. These new media have not replaced older media…Nevertheless, if we base our teaching on forms of media that are, if not completely outmoded, then at least only part of the environment that young people are now experiencing, there is clearly a danger that it may become irrelevant to their lives. This is not, I would argue, simply a question of curriculum content – of teaching students how to analyse websites as well as television ads, for example. Rather, enthusiasts for new media typically claim that they entail a distinctly different orientation towards information, a different phenomenology of use, a different politics of knowledge and a different mode of learning. If this is the case, it has potentially far-reaching implications for pedagogy – not just for what we teach but also for how we teach.” (Buckingham 2010:289)
So like Web 2.0 has implications for pedagogy, as my discussion of pedagogies in this series point to, Web 3.0 will only add to this. Whether your attitude towards technological change is ‘everything changes, nothing changes’ or you find that the world is becoming radically different due to the advances of technology , or maybe even that the world is being dominated by the hope for/the fear of the radical vision of ‘the singularity’, the advance of the digital and computational regime will only intensify this sense of ongoing challenges to the modes of teaching and learning, that is challenges not just to what we teach but also to how we teach, who we teach, where we teach, when we teach, and not least why we teach. The digital challenges are questioning not just the existing models of education but also the metaphors of learning, we live by, as recognized by Martin Weller, Caroline Haythornthwaite, Tony Bates and Catherine Loughlin and Mark Lee and discussed throughout this series.
In this blogpost I would like to zoom in from the broader perspectives of education and teaching and learning in the postmodern or late modern, being summed up in The End No 1 and The End No 2, and move below the old and new models of education and below my list of pedagogies adequate for the digital age onto some of the processes of teaching and learning where changes in the models of education, in legitimacy structures and in the metaphors of learning become visible. This means zooming in on the state of digital literacies in education today, on participatory culture and on participation as a metaphor of learning. I’ll introduce four approaches to digital literacies, I think it is relevant to reflect on. They take their examples from across education, ranging from K-12 schools to higher education, but due to the apparently somewhat unstable state of digital literacies at all educational levels at present, I think they may all inspire this encirclement of digital literacies, participatory culture and participation. And the question then is: what are the challenges to education just now when it comes to digital literacies?
Participation as a metaphor of learning
In The End No 2 I presented three metaphors of learning advocated for by Catherine McLoughlin and Mark J.W. Lee (2008) while building on Anna Sfard as well as Sami Paavola and Kai Hakkarainen: the metaphor of learning as acquisition, the metaphor of learning as participation and the metaphor of learning as knowledge creation. And eventually I suggested to add yet another metaphor of learning to the list to capture the recent developments within technology, theory and learning: the metaphor of learning as computation. I also introduced the concepts of Learning 1.0, which matches the ideas of teaching and learning and knowledge connected to the acquisition metaphor, and Learning 2.0, which likewise matches the participation metaphor, along with a cluster of definitions and perspectives around Learning 3.0. These metaphors and the conceptualization of learning as version 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 meddle with and help mapping the state of digital literacies and the present condition of participatory culture in education.
Anna Sfard introduced the two metaphors of learning as acquisition and learning as participation in her article “On Two Metaphors of Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One” (1998) in order to dig out “the metaphors that underlie both our spontaneous everyday conceptions and scientific theorizing” (Sfard 1998:4). The two metaphors represent differing views on knowledge and learning, but Sfard sees them as simultaneously present in teaching and learning and in educational research today, and she states that they are both needed as complementary views on knowledge and learning. So although my intention is to focus on participation as a metaphor of learning it doesn’t work without also shortly addressing acquisition as a metaphor of learning.
Catherine McLoughlin and Mark Lee placed Sfard’s two metaphors of learning in the context of Web 2.0 and social software tools and introduced the two metaphors in their article “The Three P’s of Pedagogy for the Networked Society: Personalization, Participation, and Productivity” (2008) as quoted in The End No 2:
“Sfard (1998) distinguishes between two metaphors of learning: the acquisition metaphor and the participation metaphor. The former represents a passive receptive view according to which learning is mainly a process of acquiring chunks of information, while the latter perceives learning as a process of participating in various cultural practices and shared learning activities. In the participation metaphor, the focus is on the process (i.e., on learning to learn) and not so much on the outcomes or products. According to this view, knowledge does not exist in individual minds but is a product of participation in cultural practices, and learning is embedded in multiple networks of distributed individuals engaging in a variety of social processes, including dialogue, modeling, and “legitimate peripheral participation” (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Learning occurs through sustained interaction and conversation with practitioners.” (McLoughlin and Lee 2008:13-14)
Sfard points out that there is a great variety of terms describing learning connected to the acquisition metaphor: “…knowledge, concept, conception, idea, notion, misconception, meaning, sense, schema, fact, representation, material, contents. There are as many terms that denote the action of making such entities one’s own: reception, acquisition, construction, internalization, appropriation, transmission, attainment, development, accumulation, grasp. The teacher may help the student to attain his or her goal by delivering, conveying, facilitating, mediating, etcetera. Once acquired, the knowledge, like any other commodity, may now be applied, transferred (to a different context), and shared with others.” (Sfard 1998:5-6).
Sfard sees the participation metaphor as a new metaphor that by contrast has made the acquisition metaphor visible and marks a foundational shift, and she comments on the terms and the views on learning connected to the participation metaphor compared to the acquisition metaphor: “The talk about states has been replaced with attention to activities. In the image of learning that emerges from this linguistic turn, the permanence of having gives way to the constant flux of doing. While the concept of acquisition implies that there is a clear end point to the process of learning, the new terminology leaves no room for halting signals. Moreover, the ongoing learning activities are never considered separately from the context within which they take place. The context, in its turn, is rich and multifarious, and its importance is pronounced by talk about situatedness, contextuality, cultural embeddedness, and social mediation. The set of new key words that, along with the noun “practice”, prominently features the terms “discourse” and “communication” suggests that the learner should be viewed as a person interested in participation in certain kinds of activities rather than in accumulating private possessions.” (Sfard 1998:6)
In their adaptation of Sfard, in the article “The Knowledge Creation Metaphor – An Emergent Epistemological Approach to Learning”, Sami Paavola and Kai Hakkarainen add that “…the acquisition view represents a “monological” view on human cognition and activity, where important things are seen to happen within the human mind, whereas the participation view represents a “dialogical” view where the interaction with the culture and other people, but also with the surrounding (material) environment is emphasized.” (Paavola and Hakkarainen 2005:539). This dialogical view is what makes the participation metaphor (PM) promising to Sfard as a possible alternative complementary to the metaphor of learning as acquisition (AM):
“The vocabulary of participation brings the message of togetherness, solidarity, and collaboration. The PM language does not allow for talk about permanence of either human possessions or human traits. The new metaphor promotes an interest in people in action rather than in people “as such”. Being “in action” means being in a constant flux. The awareness of the change that never stops means refraining from a permanent labeling. Actions can be clever or unsuccessful, but these adjectives do not apply to the actors. For the learner, all options are always open, even if he or she carries a history of failure. Thus, quite unlike the AM, the PM seems to bring a message of an everlasting hope: Today you act one way; tomorrow you may act differently.” (Sfard 1998:8)
Describing the participation metaphor this way, it seems more suited for a time of change and complexity than the acquisition metaphor, but as already mentioned, Sfard’s point is that the two metaphors of learning are offering differing perspectives rather than competing perspectives (Sfard 1998:11; Dysthe 2013:50), and that they are both needed as complementary views on knowledge and learning to deal with the complexity of teaching and learning in the postmodern or the late modern.
In her article Sfard introduces a model mapping a comparison between the two metaphors of learning as acquisition and learning as participation:
The Metaphorical Mappings
Acquisition metaphor Participation metaphor
Individual enrichment Goal of learning Community building
Acquisition of something Learning Becoming a participant
Recipient (consumer), Student Peripheral participant, apprentice (re-)constructor
Provider, facilitator, Teacher Expert, participant, preserver mediator of practice/discourse
Property, possession, com- Knowledge, concept Aspect of practice/ discourse/ modity (individual, public) activity
Having,possessing Knowing Belonging, participating, com- municating
The definitions of the two metaphors and the mapping of them in the model above link the participation metaphor to social and cultural practices and participatory culture, to the idea of communities of practice, to the idea of networks and rhizomes, and to socio-cultural and social constructivist theories of learning as they have been discussed throughout this series. But with a ‘splash’ of the acquisition metaphor added now and again.
Digital literacies within a model for digital literacy development
Digital literacies are part of the preconditions for navigating, learning of and understanding oneself, ‘the other’ and the world in a digital age, and they play a crucial role in debating education, what it is for and what it is about. Digital literacies are often said to be comprised of ICT/computer literacies, information literacies, media literacies, and more recently data literacies. There doesn’t exist one general accepted definition of digital literacy/digital literacies, but I think it is fair to propose, that digital literacies are more than digital skills, they are the multiplicity of literacies that occur when digital literacies are converging and used in practice in a specific context, a domain, a discipline or a subject matter (Martin and Grudziecki 2006:253), or as Allan Martin and Jan Grudziecki have put it, balancing individual agency against social action and social learning:
“Digital Literacy is the awareness, attitude and ability of individuals to appropriately use digital tools and facilities to identify, access, manage, integrate, evaluate, analyse and synthesize digital resources, construct new knowledge, create media expressions, and communicate with others, in the context of specific life situations, in order to enable constructive social action; and to reflect upon this process.” (Martin and Grudziecki 2006:255; Martin 2006:155)
In the article “DigEuLit: Concepts and Tools for Digital Literacy Development” (2006), Martin and Grudziecki propose a model for digital literacy development building on the evolution of literacy concepts:
“Bélisle (2006) characterizes the evolution of literacy concepts in terms of three models. The functional model views literacy as the mastery of simple cognitive and practical skills, and ranges from the simple view of literacy as the mechanical skills of reading and writing to a more developed approach (evinced by e.g. UNESCO, 2006) regarding literacy as the skills required to function effectively within the community. The socio-cultural practice model takes its basis that the literacy is only meaningful in its social context, and that to be literate is to have access to cultural, economic and political structures of society; in this sense, as Brian Street (1984) has asserted, literacy is ideological. The intellectual empowerment model argues that literacy can bring about the transformation of thinking capacities, particularly when new cognitive tools, such as writing, or new processing tools, such as those relying on digital technology, are developed. In viewing literacy within the context of a digital society as, at one level functional, at another engaged with the social context, and at the third as transformative, we can see it as a powerful tool for the individual and the group to understand their own relationship to the digital.” (Martin and Grudziecki 2006:250)
These three models of literacy seen as levels of literacy form the model of digital literacy development consisting of digital competence as level 1 (the functional aspect), digital usage as level 2 (the socio-cultural aspect) and digital transformation as level 3 (the empowerment aspect). Martin and Grudziecki define the three levels this way:
Level 1: “At the foundation of the system is digital competence. This covers a wide range of topics, encompasses skill levels from basic visual recognition and manual skills to more critical, evaluative and conceptual approaches and also includes attitudes and awarenesses. Individuals or groups draw upon digital competence as is appropriate to their life situation, and return to gain more as new challenges are presented by the life situation…In moving from competence to literacy, however, we take on board the cruciality of situational embedding. Digital literacy involves the successful usage of digital competence within life situations. “ (Martin and Grudziecki 2006:255-256)
To be more specific, Martin and Grudziecki have listed thirteen processes that make up digital competence in their opinion. The processes are “…more-or-less sequential functions carried out with digital tools upon digital resources of any type, within the context of a specific task or problem.” (Martin and Grudziecki 2006:256). These processes of digital literacies are here mentioned from the start to the end and they are almost identical with the definition of digital literacy quoted earlier: statement, identification, ascession, evaluation, interpretation, organisation, integration, analysis, synthesis, creation, communication, dissemination, reflection. These abstract concepts are followed by helpful descriptions, that can be found in the article (Martin and Grudziecki 2006:257).
Level 2: “The central and crucial level is that of digital usage: the application of digital competence within specific professional or domain contexts. Users draw upon relevant digital competences and elements specific to the profession, domain or other life-context. Each user brings to this exercise his/her own history and personal/professional development. Digital usages are thus shaped by the requirements of the situation. The drawing upon digital competence is determined by the individual’s existing digital literacy and the requirements of the problem or task. Digital usages are therefore fully embedded within the activity of the professional, discipline or domain community. They become part of the culture of what Wenger has called “communities of practice”:
Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis. (Wenger et al., 2002:4)
In communities of practice, learning becomes a communal activity intimately linked with everyday practice. Digital usages become embedded within the understandings and actions which evolve within the community and cause the community itself to evolve: the community of practice is thus also a community of learning.” (Martin and Grudziecki 2006:257-258)
So at this level digital literacies are put into action while individuals or groups are working on building the necessary digital competences relevant for the specific task or problem, and thus the term ‘digital usages’ gets a specific meaning within the situation: “…the informed use of digital competences within life-situations are termed here digital usages. These involve using digital tools to seek, find and process information, and then to develop a product or solution addressing the task or problem. This outcome will itself be the trigger for further action in the life context.” (Martin and Grudziecki 2006:258). Learning – and pedagogies, too, building on communities and networks – go before tools, so to speak, but it involves improving one’s digital competences to engage in digital usages, as shown in a figure in the article depicting the processes in which digital literacies are put into action. This way, digital usages imply both personalization, participation and productivity, that were stressed by McLoughlin and Lee as pedagogical principles and clusters of practice in Learning 2.0: production as demonstrating learning and digital production as a means of becoming a part of the community and the culture of a domain, a discipline or a subject matter today.
Level 3: “The ultimate stage is that of digital transformation, and is achieved when the digital usages which have been developed enable innovation and creativity, and stimulate significant change within the professional or knowledge domain. This change could happen at the individual level, or at that of the group or organization. Whilst many digitally literate persons may achieve a transformative level, transformation is not a necessary condition of digital literacy.” (Martin and Grudziecki 2006:259)
Thus, the idea of digital usages as sources for creativity, innovation and change within a domain places the level of digital transformation and intellectual empowerment within the context of knowledge creation, too. The levels of digital competence and digital usage suffice in framing digital literacies and becoming confident with functional uses and skills, understanding, concepts, approaches and attitudes, as well as with the social and cultural practices within a profession, a domain, a discipline or a subject matter that put digital literacies in action as informed usages. But this also means, that there is no strict progression in working with digital literacies apart from the processes of digital literacies introduces at level 1: “Users do not necessarily follow a sequential path at each stage. They will draw upon whatever is relevant for the life-project, they are currently addressing; the pattern is more one of random rather than serial access, although there will be many cases where certain low level knowledge and skill is necessary in order to develop or understand material from a higher level.” (Martin and Grudziecki 2006:259). This situational embedding of digital literacies is the backdrop for Martin and Grudziecki’s model of digital literacy development:
- LEVEL 3
- Professional/discipline application
- LEVEL 2
- Skills, concepts, approaches, attitudes, etc.
- LEVEL 1
The model encapsulates Gregory Bateson’s theory of learning introduced in The End No 2 but especially draws on the three forms of learning in Bateson’s theory that are emphasized by Zygmunt Bauman: primary learning, which is ‘to learn’ – although it is not connected to a specific content or curriculum in Martin and Grudziecki’s case – is at stake at the level of digital competence, while secondary learning, that stresses ‘learning how to learn’ and the understanding of ‘learning to learn’, is at work at the level of digital usage, and tertiary learning, which cultivates ‘re-learning’ and “means training the capacity for ‘changing the frames’” as Bauman put it, might take place at the level of digital transformation. But it is not a must in Martin and Grudziecki’s model, whereas Bauman highlights cultivating tertiary learning as a “supreme adaptational value”, a precondition for living in a rapidly changing world, and an indispensable “equipment for life” as quoted in The End No 2. In other words, the model of digital literacy development is a model that makes room for uncertainty, complexity and change as well as it is nurturing agency and intellectual empowerment.
A project taking off from the model of digital literacy development
An example of how the model has been expanded and integrated in a research and development project in primary and secondary school can be found in Karin Tweddell Levinsen and Birgitte Holm Sørensen’s article “Digital Literacy and Subject Matter Learning” (2015). In the project “…students worked with digital production of subjects and cross-disciplinary learning objects that were aimed at other students. These learning designs appeared to produce arenas in which students challenged and developed their digital literacy.” (Levinsen og Sørensen 2015: 305)(Sørensen og Levinsen 2017). As Levinsen and Sørensen write, they expanded Martin and Grudziecki’s model of digital literacy development in the research and development project. They briefly introduce their theoretical framework this way:
“We have chosen Martin’s (2006) interpretations of digital literacy, as it combines specific digitally related competencies with bildung. We expand Martin’s digital literacy-perspective with Castells’ general literacy or bildung-perspective of the self-programmable person who meets challenges in informal ways and who collaborates when new knowledge and competences are needed in order to cope with an ever-changing environment (Castells 2000). The self-programmable person breaks with downloading, which is the habitual practice of repeating previous experiences and routines (Hildebrandt et al. 2012). In relation to our suggested approaches to acquiring digital literacy, we look to Martin’s and Castell’s work as the providers of learning objectives. Achieving these learning objectives demands creativity, which is also a twenty-first century competency (EU-Commission 2006). As neither creativity nor digital literacy always emerge spontaneously, however, but have to be facilitated, we use Boden’s (1990) work as the provider of a learning design-frame, as Boden defines creativity as the ability to generate new and valuable ideas, as well as offers practices that invite creativity.” (Levinsen og Sørensen 2015:308)
“Boden (1990) identifies three ways of exercising creativity:
- Combinatorial creativity – unfamiliar combinations of the familiar inspire associations that allow new ideas to materialize;
- Explorative creativity – when a ‘space’, defined by domain-specific generative rules, is explored for potentials and limitations, and the space is subsequently expanded;
- Transformative creativity – when a ‘space’, defined by domain-specific generative rules, is not only expanded, but the defining rules are changed into new and fundamentally different rules and ideas.
According to Boden, it is not possible to plan for specific creative products or processes. It is possible, however, to design obstructions that challenge students in various ways towards creative agency, and that in this context are aimed at digital literacy.” (Levinsen og Sørensen 2015:309)(Skovbjerg og Ejsing-Duun 2017).
‘Learning to learn’, ‘re-learning’, self-directed learning, agency and innovation are some of the issues in this theoretical framework that also have been discussed in relation to networked learning and to rhizomatic learning throughout this series of blog posts, at the latest in the closing sections of The End No 2. So potentially the approaches in this project on digital production in K-12 schools might prepare for and lead to any of the pedagogies and pedagogical approaches on my list being practiced in higher education. But it starts off with digital literacies.
So to add up, digital literacies are plural, context-dependent and socially negotiated, as I quoted Doug Belshaw in an earlier blogpost ,“Web literacies – a part of digital literacies” (August 2015). Belshaw’s definition of digital literacies – recaptured in “Recognising, developing & credentialing digital literacies” (2017) – and his eight essential elements of digital literacies are the result of a meta-analysis of digital literacy frameworks that reveals what the frameworks have in common and names the elements involved in digital literacies:
But at the same time Belshaw is also stressing a point made by Allan Martin: “Digital literacy is an ongoing and dynamic process – it is not a threshold which, once achieved, guarantees familiarity with the digital for ever after; it is rather a temporary achievement which will be good as long as the current environment does not change…Digital literacy is a condition, not a threshold.” (Martin 2006:157). So digital literacies development is a ‘constraint’ and an ongoing challenge whenever technological, social and cultural changes occur. The model of digital literacy development, the listing of the processes of digital literacies and the visualization of digital literacies in action in Allan Martin and Jan Grudziecki’s model help conceptualizing and understanding this condition of the digital age. They see the digital as implicated in “the genesis and maintenance” of the “post-modern” society (Martin and Grudziecki 2006:250), inspired by Zygmunt Bauman and Ulrich Beck, and as mentioned earlier, the model of digital literacy development is a model that makes room for uncertainty, complexity and change as well as it is nurturing agency and intellectual empowerment. And this is, as quoted earlier, a main concern to Martin and Grudziecki:
“In viewing literacy within the context of a digital society as, at one level functional, at another engaged with the social context, and at a third as transformative, we can see it as a powerful tool for the individual and the group to understand their own relationship to the digital.” (Martin and Grudziecki 2006:250)
But it is not just a matter for students and learners to understand their own relationship to the digital, it is also a matter of concern for teaching and learning to understand its relationship to the digital and its role in digital literacy development. At the beginning of this blog post David Buckingham comments on the question of staying relevant in education: “Rather, enthusiasts for new media typically claim that they entail a distinctly different orientation towards information, a different phenomenology of use, a different politics of knowledge and a different mode of learning. If this is the case, it has potentially far-reaching implications for pedagogy – not just for what we teach but also for how we teach.” (Buckingham 2010:289) And exactly this argument is the backdrop for placing Sfard’s two metaphors of learning in the context of Web 2.0 and social software tools and platforms, as McLoughlin and Lee does. The metaphor of learning as participation represents this foundational shift in how learning and knowledge is understood that has been strongly connected to the advance of the affordances of Web 2.0 and social and participatory platforms and networking sites. But in fact, David Buckingham doesn’t uncritically accept this idea of a foundational shift and reflects thoughtful on these claims as a kind of answer to his own wondering:
“New media can offer new opportunities for participation, for creative communication and for the generation of content, at least for some people in some contexts. However, the competences that people need in order to take up those opportunities are not equally distributed, and they do not arise simply because people have access to technology. Furthermore, it would be wrong to assume that participation is always a good thing or that it is necessarily democratic, countercultural or liberating. Creative production can be a powerful means of learning – whether it involves remixing of various kinds, appropriating and adapting existing texts, or creating wholly new ones, or simply exploiting the potential for networked communication. However, all of this needs critical reflection, and it needs to be combined with critical analysis – although how that combination happens is a genuinely difficult question.” (Buckingham 2010:301)
“More broadly, media education itself needs to adopt a stronger and more critical stance towards the celebration of technology in education and the kind of market-driven techno-fetishism that is mistakenly seen by some as the cutting edge of educational change. There is a risk here that media education might be seen as just another way of importing computer technology into schools – or indeed as a sexy alternative to the wasteland of spreadsheets, file management, and instrumental training that constitutes most “information technology” courses in schools. There is an opportunity here, but it should not involve abandoning the traditional critical imperatives of media education – which are about much more than practical skills or the sentimental appeal to “creativity”. (Buckingham 2010:301)
However, Buckingham’s concerns might not be that far from Anna Sfard’s point of view and Martin and Grudziecki’s model as it might seem. Sfard’s mapping of the metaphor of learning as participation is easy to recognize in Martin and Grudziecki’s model and in Belshaw’s definition and also shows up in the present discussions about how to define digital literacies and how to integrate them in teaching and learning. These discussions often circle around aspects of doing, being in action, usage and practice while stressing ‘belonging’, ‘participating’, ‘communicating’ as learning objectives, core activities and ways of meaning-making, and they are often based on a dialogical view on human cognition and activity. (Dysthe 2013:51-52). But to follow Sfard, the metaphor of learning as acquisition also always needs to be present as complementary to the metaphor of learning as participation: they are both needed as complementary views on knowledge and learning to deal with the complexity of teaching and learning in the postmodern or the late modern. And that sometimes seems to be forgotten. It is here Buckingham’s call for critical analysis and critical reflection comes in relevant. Martin and Grudziecki’s model for digital literacy development makes room for differing views on literacy and digital literacy/literacies, combining them in a united approach, it relates to Gregory Bateson’s and Zygmunt Bauman’s three forms of learning focusing on ‘to learn’, on ‘learning how to learn’ and on ‘re-learning’, and, not least, the model meets the need for the metaphor of learning as acquisition as well as the metaphor of learning as participation in teaching and learning, although the central and crucial level of their model is that of digital usage and participation.
To be continued…
Belshaw, Doug (2017): Recognising, developing & credentialing digital literacies, Presentation at iEdTech 2017
Buckingham, David (2010): Do We Really Need Media Education 2.0? Teaching Media in the Age of Participatory Media, Drotner, K. and Schroder, K. (eds.): Digital Content Creation, 287-304, New York: Peter Lang
Dysthe, Olga, Bernhardt, Nana, Esbjørn, Line (2013): Dialogue-based teaching: the art museum as a learning space, Copenhagen: Skoletjenesten, Bergen: Fakbokforlaget
Levinsen, Karin Tweddell and Sørensen, Birgitte Holm (2015): Digital Literacy and Subject Matter Learning, Jefferies, A. & Cubric, M. (Eds.): Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on e-Learning – University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK, 305-312, Reading, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited
Martin, Allan (2006): A european framework for digital literacy, Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy Nr. 02, 151-161
Martin, Allan and Jan Grudziecki (2006): DigEuLit: Concepts and Tools for Digital Literacy Development, Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5:4,249-267, DOI:10.11120/ital.2006.05040249
McLoughlin, Catherine and Lee, Mark J.W (2008): The Three P’s of Pedagogy for the Networked Society: Personalization, Participation, and Productivity, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Volume 20, Number 1, 10-27
Paavola, Sami and Hakkarainen, Kai (2005):The Knowledge Creation Metaphor – An Emergent Epistemological Approach to Learning, Science & Education, 14, 535-557, DOI: 10.1007/s11191-004-5157-0
Sfard, Anna (1998): On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One, Educational Researcher, March 1998, 4-13
Skovbjerg, Helle Marie og Ejsing-Duun, Stine (2017): Kreativitetsprocesser, Sørensen, Birgitte Holm, Levinsen, Karin og Skovbjerg, Helle Marie (red.): Digital produktion. Deltagelse og læring, 61-81, Frederikshavn: Dafolo
Sørensen, Birgitte Holm og Levinsen, Karin Tweddell (2017): Elevernes digitale produktion og eleverne som didaktiske designere – Introduktion, Sørensen, Birgitte Holm, Levinsen, Karin og Skovbjerg, Helle Marie (red.): Digital produktion. Deltagelse og læring, 11-26, Frederikshavn: Dafolo
Photo by Mezdoce on Flickr – CC BY-NC-ND