In an era of knowledge abundance – The End No 3:2

24717888002_0217cd0455_mThe theory and practices of new literacies and the work of Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel has inspired Allan Martin and Jan Grudziecki’s model of digital literacy development, introduced in The End No 3:1, so new literacies is the second approach to digital literacies, I’ll plunge into. Seen through the lens of Martin and Grudziecki’s model, new literacies align especially with the levels of digital usage and digital transformation.

 

 

New literacies as digital literacies

In In an era of knowledge abundance – Part 1 I referred to Bonnie Stewart for seeing digital literacies as new literacies of participation and for framing the legitimacy structures and practices in education, she nails as in a sense literacies. And thus, she quoted Lankshear and Knobel on new literacies (2007):

“The more a literacy practice privileges participation over publishing, distributed expertise over centralized expertise, collective intelligence over individual possessive intelligence, collaboration over individuated authorship, dispersion over scarcity, sharing over ownership, experimentation over “normalization,” innovation and evolution over stability and fixity, creative-innovative rule breaking over generic purity and policing, relationship over information broadcast, and so on, the more we should regard it as a “new” literacy. (p. 21)”

This description is a snapshot in the evolution of new literacies as they are conceived of by Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel. In their book, “New Literacies: Changing Knowledge and Classroom Learning” (2003), they introduce new literacies in the context of New Literacy Studies and a sociocultural approach to literacy:

“In addition, the sociocultural approach to literacy overtly rejects the idea that textual practices are even largely, let alone solely, a matter of processes that ‘go on in the head’, or that essentially involve heads communicating with each other by means of graphic signs. From a sociocultural perspective literacy is a matter of social practices. Literacies are bound up with social, institutional and cultural relationships, and can only be understood when they are situated within their social, cultural and historical contexts (Gee et al. 1996:xii). Moreover, they are always connected to social identities – to being particular kinds of people. Literacies are always embedded in Discourses (Gee 2000). Texts are integral parts of innumerable everyday ‘lived, talked, enacted, value-and-belief-laden practices’ that are ‘carried out in specific places and at specific times.’ (Gee et al. 1996:3). Reading and writing are not the same things within a youth zine culture…, an online chat space, a school classroom, a feminist reading group, or within different kinds of religious ceremonies. People read and write differently out of different social practices, and these different ways with words are part of different ways of being persons and different ways and facets of doing life.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2003:8)

“This has important implications. From a sociocultural perspective, it is impossible to separate out from text-mediated social practices the ‘bits’ concerned with reading and writing (or any other sense of ‘literacy’) and to treat them independently of all the ‘non-print’ bits, like values and gestures, context and meaning, actions and objects, talk and interaction, tools and spaces. They are all non-substractable parts of integrated wholes. ‘Literacy bits’ do not exist apart from the social practices in which they are embedded and within which they are acquired. If, in some trivial sense they can be said to exist (e.g.) as code, they do not mean anything. Hence, they cannot meaningfully be taught and learned separate from the rest of the practice (Gee 1996).” (Lankshear and Knobel 2003:8)

Lankshear and Knobel distinguish New Literacy Studies from new literacies by seeing them using ‘new’ in a paradigmatic respectively an ontological way: “The paradigmatic sense occurs in talk of the New Literacy Studies (Street 1993; Gee 1996,2000) to refer to a specific sociocultural approach to understanding and researching literacy.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2003:16), whereas the ontological sense of ‘new’ is what is the main concern to Lankshear and Knobel :

“What we are calling the ontological sense of ‘new’ refers to the idea that changes have occurred in the character and substance of literacies associated with changes in technology, institutions, media, the economy, and the rapid movement toward global scale in manufacture, finance, communications and so on. These changes have impacted on social practices in all the main areas of everyday life within modern societies: in work, at leisure, in the home, in education, in the community, and in the public sphere.  Established social practices have been transformed, and new forms of social practices have emerged and continue to emerge at the rapid rate. Many of these new and changing social practices involve new and changing ways of producing, distributing, exchanging and receiving texts by electronic means. These have generated new multimodal forms of texts that can arrive via digital code…as sound, text, images, video, animations and any combinations of these.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2003:16)

“In this ontological sense, the category of ‘new literacies’ largely covers what are often referred to as ‘post-typographic’ forms of textual practice. These include using and constructing hyperlinks between documents and /or images, sounds, movies, semiotic languages (such as those used by the characters in the online episodic game Banja, or emoticons (‘smileys’) used in email, online chat space or instant messaging, manipulating a mouse to move around within a text, reading file extensions and identifying what software will ‘read’ each file, producing ‘non-linear’ texts, navigating three-dimensional worlds online and so on.“ (Lankshear and Knobel 2003:16-17; Martin and Grudziecki 2006:253)

Lankshear and Knobel operate with two broad categories of new literacies: 1) the post-typographic literacies just introduced above, and 2) literacies “…that are comparatively new in chronological terms and/or that are (or will be) new to being recognized as literacies – even within the sociocultural perspective. Literacies in this second category may have little or nothing to do with use of (new) digital electronic technologies. In some cases, however, they may well comprise new technologies within their own right.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2003:24-25)(my underlining). I see transmedia storytelling, online communities of practice, personal learning networks and network and networking literacies as examples of this.

Investigating and interpreting new literacies

A major achievement of the studies of new literacies is that they document the ongoing development of digital literacies and other new forms of literacies at the current point in their evolution and reflect on their relevance to school and educational settings. As a result of that, Lankshear and Knobel always give some typical examples of new literacies whenever they report on the state of affairs concerning new literacies, although it also causes some repetition in the quotations and the arguments as the uses of new literacies evolve. They suggest in their book, “…that to be useful, the investigation and interpretation of new literacies should involve descriptive, analytical and critical accounts.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2003:45)

A descriptive account will tell of and uncover practices: “The field needs rich descriptive sociological accounts of new literacies. Ideally these will be produced as much as possible by insiders who can ‘tell it like it is practiced’… (Lankshear and Knobel 2003:45). This priority of informants and an ethnographical approach anchors new literacies within the sociocultural understanding of New Literacy Studies introduced earlier.

An analytic account will expose how meaning making takes place: “Different forms of analytic work are relevant to studying and documenting new literacies…At one level of analysis one might identify and relate the Discourse and discourse aspects of a set of social practices (i.e. the ways of speaking, acting, believing, thinking, etc. that signal one as a member of a particular Discourse, along with the ‘language bits’ of this Discourse; Gee 1996). As a different analytic level, the work might involve a form of sociological imagination (Mills 1959): exploring how subjectivity and identity are related to participation in or membership of Discourses in which new literacies are developed, employed, refined and transformed.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2003:46-47)

Gee distinguishes between 1) Discourse with a capital D, grasping and conceptualizing ways of being in the world that integrates identities, and 2) discourse with a small letter which refers to the ‘language bits’, that is the language use of a specific Discourse (Lankshear and Knobel 2003:22, Note 1). This points to literacies as plural and context-dependent and to meaning making as socially negotiated, so these aspects of literacies are at the same time seen as determinant factors in new literacies as well as being means of doing, making and being in a culture and in the world.

A critical-evaluative account will consider the role and legitimacy of new literacies in formal literacy education: “Two types of critical-evaluative accounts of new literacies seem especially important in relation to literacy education…One type involves taking an ethical perspective toward new literacies, such that we can make sound and fair judgements that have educational relevance about the worth of particular new literacies and the legitimacy of their claims to places within formal literacy programmes.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2003:48)

“The second kind of critique we have in mind involves taking a curriculum and pedagogy perspective based on the criterion of efficacious learning. From a sociocultural perspective,

“the focus of learning and education is not children, nor schools, but human lives seen as trajectories through multiple social practices in various social institutions. If learning is to be efficacious, then what a child or adult does now as a learner must be connected in meaningful and motivated ways with ‘mature’ (insider) versions of related social practices.” (Gee et al. 1996:4)

For literacy education to be soundly based, we must be able to demonstrate the efficacy of any and every literacy that is taught compulsorily. This, of course, immediately questions the basis of much, if not most, of what currently passes for literacy education.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2003:48-49)

These questions of the legitimacy of new literacies within formal literacy education recall Bonnie Stewart’s framing of what she sees as literacies of participation:

“The more a literacy practice privileges participation over publishing, distributed expertise over centralized expertise, collective intelligence over individual possessive intelligence, collaboration over individuated authorship, dispersion over scarcity, sharing over ownership, experimentation over “normalization,” innovation and evolution over stability and fixity, creative-innovative rule breaking over generic purity and policing, relationship over information broadcast, and so on, the more we should regard it as a “new” literacy. (p. 21)”

Both the questions of legitimacy and the question of efficacious learning tell of practices, expose how meaning making is up for change, and inquire into the relevance of social, participatory and collaborative practices in education in general. So new literacies may be said to question and challenge the idea of education, as we associate it with the modern period and the industrial society. And at the second level of critique, it links the perspectives and ideas of Lankshear and Knobel to the debates on traditional and new models of education and teaching and learning taken into consideration by Martin Weller and Caroline Haythornthwaite, as they are summed up in The End No 1.

New literacies in the current historical period: ‘the new ethos stuff’

In other words, the critical-evaluative questions regarding new literacies operate on the continuum between two paradigms, moving away from the modern/industrial paradigm and towards the postmodern/post-industrial/knowledge society paradigm, which Lankshear and Knobel introduce in their article, “’New’ Literacies: technologies and values” (2012), as one of their updates on new literacies capturing the current point in their evolution.

In the article they emphasize this continuum, already mentioned in their book, and stress, that “…new literacies are best understood in terms of an historical period of social, cultural, institutional, economic, and intellectual change that is likely to span many decades – some of which are already behind us…From this perspective we suggest that the kinds of practices we currently identify as new literacies will cease to be ‘new’ once the social ways characterizing the ascending paradigm have become sufficiently established and grounded to be regarded as conventional.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2012:45-46). So Lankshear and Knobel outline the characteristics of the current historical period connected to this ascending new paradigm and the two core concepts concerning new literacies: ‘the new technical stuff’ and ‘the new ethos stuff’. ‘The new ethos stuff’ comes to the front, though:

“We have reached a point where it is necessary to draw some distinctions around the idea of ‘a new ethos’. We began by talking about an ascending paradigm that reflects a different way of thinking about people, social practices and processes, and social phenomena like expertise and intelligence from how such things were thought about under an earlier paradigm. We have talked briefly about how, during recent decades, economic activity – work – has been re-described, understood, and re-structured along lines in which values of participation, collaboration, distributed systems (of expertise, intelligence, team-orientation) have been emphasized. The ‘new’ capitalism pursues new ways of identifying workers and giving them new identities, in association with new ways of organizing their activity (roles, relationships, performances), with a view to enhancing the economic viability of enterprises and bureaucracies (Gee et al. 1996). This is a new angle on an existing game – a new way to create economic value/profit/capital accumulation/efficiency through leverage within a process of coaxing employees to take on new identities as members of a ‘community’ rather than as individuals who just happen to work in this place, for this boss  or this company. The end game remains more or less the same, but is now played under a new kind of ‘ethos’: by affiliates collaborating with each other in a shared mission”. (Lankshear and Knobel 2012:60)

“We have described how this kind of business model and ‘ethos’ was named for the web: as Web 2.0. A new architecture established the web as an interactive platform whereby enterprises could accumulate value by creating conditions and practices – literacies, no less – where uses could generate value that companies/site proprietors could harness. This is Web 2.0 as a business model. At the same time, the architecture supporting this business model represents something of a shift in applied ethos from the more oneway, broadcast-oriented model retrospectively named Web 1.0. We worked our way through a staged sequence of selected examples, seeking to shift the focus from web-mediated collaborations and distributions grounded in leveraging user activity in the interests of the economic viability of an enterprise toward an emphasis on ways in which the impressive affordances of Web 2.0 as an interactive platform enable users to participate in affinities. These are affinities where their participation and collaboration enact relationships to/with others and their shared interests, and contribute collectively to building the affinity and a sense of membership in that affinity.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2012:60-61)

So far, this analytic account has identified the Discourse and discourse aspects of a set of social practices and ways of being in the world: the ‘new’ capitalism and ‘Web 2.0’ coined by Tim O’Reilly as a business model, as well as the architecture of Web 2.0 as “…a specific concrete instance of the tendency toward thinking and acting, and otherwise organizing ways for doing everyday life – and particularly, for doing literacies – around values central to the currently ascending social paradigm…” like collaboration, distributed expertise, collective intelligence, communities of practice, and team orientation. (Lankshear and Knobel 2012:59).

This specific level of analysis points to discourse with a small letter, I would say, and reveals how people are ‘joining’ literacies as ways of doing, making and being in the world in order to learn the language of Discourse, so to speak, like “values and gestures, context and meaning, action and objects, talk and interaction, tools and spaces” (Lankshear and Knobel 2003:8):

“While our interest here is wider than learning per se, many of the key features of affinity spaces that enable learning are nonetheless the very ‘stuff’ of how contemporary literacies are constituted and experienced more generally by people engaging in them. Gee describes affinity spaces as:

“specially designed spaces (physical and virtual) constructed to resource people [who are] tied together…by a shared interest or endeavor…[For example, the] many websites and publications devoted to [the videogame ‘Rise of Nations’] create a social space in which people can, to any degree they wish, small or large, affiliate with others to share knowledge and gain knowledge that is distributed and dispersed across many different people, places, Internet sites and modalities (magazines, chat rooms, guides, recordings)”  (Gee, 2004:9,73)

Affinity spaces instantiate participation, collaboration, distribution and dispersion of expertise, and relatedness (ibid., Ch. 6th). These features are integral to the ‘ethos stuff’ of what we mean by ‘new’ literacies.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2012:58)

New literacies in the current historical period: ‘the new technical stuff’

It is not just the new ethos that needs to be in focus. Equally important is ‘the new technical stuff’ and the two need to be kept together within the frame of new literacies according to Lankshear and Knobel:

“The technical stuff of new literacies is part and parcel of generating, communicating, and negotiating encoded meanings by providing a range of new or more widely accessible resource possibilities (‘affordances’) for making meaning. The technical dimensions of digital technologies greatly enlarge ways of generating encoded meanings available to people in comparison with what we might call conventional literacies.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2012:51)

They give an example of generating a version of the Sad Keanu (Reeves) meme – an encoded multimodal text from 2010, still to be found online in reports on its life cycle but by now followed by other Keanu Reeves memes – that to a great extend imitate ‘the processes of digital literacy’ described by Allan Martin and Jan Grudziecki while performing a range of digital competences to produce a remixed version of the meme: “Someone with access to a family standard computer or other mobile digital device and internet connection, and who has some basic knowledge of standard software applications can create a diverse range of meaningful artifacts using a strictly finite set of physical operations or technologies (keying, clicking, selecting, copying, dragging), in a relatively tiny space, with just one or two (albeit complex) ‘tools’.“(Lankshear and Knobel 2012:51). And at a more general level, this example illustrates that:

“The shift from material inscriptions to digital coding, from analogue to digital representations, has unleashed conditions and possibilities that are massively new. In the case of the shift from print to the post-typographic, Bill Cope (in Cope et al., 2005) describes what this means for the visual rendering of texts. He explains that digital technologies reduce the basic unit of composition from the level of character to a point below character level. In the case of a text on a screen, the unit of composition is reduced to pixels. This means that text and images can be rendered together seamlessly and relatively easily on the same page and, moreover, that text can be layered into images both static and moving – (and viceversa) in ways that were very difficult, and in some respects impossible to do physically with the resources of print.

“…[Moreover] if you go back one layer beyond pixels, the same compositional stuff produces sound as well. So you have got these basic things about human communication – namely language, visuals and sound – which are all being manufactures in the same raw material on the same plane in the same platform (in Cope et al., 2005:200)””  (Lankshear and Knobel 2012:53)

Along the same lines, the kinds of possibilities for ‘enabling’ and ‘sharing’ are new:

“Even the concept of ‘text’ as understood in conventional print terms becomes a hazy concept when considering the array of expressive media now available to everyday folk. Diverse practices of ‘remixing’ – where a range of existing materials are copied, cut, spliced, edited, reworked, and mixed into a new creation – have become highly popular in part because of the quality of product ‘ordinary people’ can achieve.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2012:54-55)

So whether it is about digital remix practices or uploading and distributing user-generated content to a social network site or platform, the new is about enabling:

“This enabling capacity of what essentially is binary code and associated hardware – the new technical ‘stuff’ – is integral to most of the new literacies that will concern us here. A lot of this enabling is by now so commonplace that we take it for granted, such as in everyday templates and interfaces.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2012: 55)

New literacies in the current historical period: participatory forms

With ‘the new technical stuff’ being part of generating, communicating and negotiating encoded meaning, and the ‘new ethos stuff’ emphasizing ways of doing, making and being that instantiate participation, collaboration and distributed expertise, Lankshear and Knobel draw up a participatory configuration of ‘the new ethos’ as an ideal:

Participatory configurations of the new ethos are intimated in the difference between someone who wants to create, say a podcast for some kind of personal purpose or as a personal expression, and those whose podcasting activities arise from motivations like ‘an urge to create a shared space where, for example, fans can discuss their mutual interests in Severus Snape, or where church members can hold prayer circles, or where comic book buffs can interview writers and artists’ (Jenkins, 2010:234). In other words, participation, collaboration, and distributed systems of expertise, knowledge/wisdom/ intelligence and cultural production assume participatory forms within communities and networks of shared interests or affinities that have the kinds of characteristics associated with current conceptions of ‘participation in affinity spaces’ (Gee, 2004), ‘participatory cultures’ (Jenkins et al., 2006), ‘communities of practice’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991), and so on. These terms are widely used to capture the idea of networks and communities of shared interests where people associate, affiliate, and interact in kinds of ‘collective enterprise’ in order to pursue and go as deeply as they wish into their ‘affinities’ or what they are especially interested in.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2012:63)

“Such activity involves collectively building, resourcing, and maintaining interactive spaces, whether face to face, virtual, or mixes of both, where participants can contribute to and draw upon myriad resources and means for building and enacting identities based on interests, in collaboration with others. Participants play diverse roles and learn from each other ‘in the process of working together to achieve shared goals.’ From a new media literacies perspective, Jenkins and colleagues (2006:3) define a participatory culture in terms of environments and social practices where there are

“relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations, and some type of informal mentorship where what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices. A participatory culture is also one in which members believe their contributions matter, and feel some degree of social connection with one another (Jenkins et al., 2006:3) “” (Lankshear and Knobel 2012:63-64)

“…members of participatory cultures are involved in building and resourcing entire ‘systems’ and networks for developing and enacting identities (and ways of creative doing and being and making) within the very processes of pursuing and enacting these identities. They are collectively building, and developing the conditions and terrain for their interest-based engagements, as an entire enterprise, as distinct from  participating in ‘an enterprise of others’ (proprietary), or drawing on established enterprises to engage in individual or personal goal-directed pursuits with no entrinsic or necessary investment in furthering the community, networks, or affinity space per se.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2012:64)

So when all the pieces come together – the definitions, the concepts, and the descriptive, analytic and critical-evaluative accounts investigating and interpreting new literacies, their digital contexts and their place within an ascending social paradigm – they reveal an ideal ‘frame’ for understanding the character and role of new literacies:

“…we believe that the closer the ‘new ethos’ dimension approximates to the forms of engagement, collaboration, sharing and distributed expertise and ‘authorship’ that define ‘participatory cultures’ (ibid.), the more we should regard a literacy practice as ‘new’. This involves a values stance based on an ideal of social learning that is actively undermined by existing educational arrangements and the wider social structures and arrangements they support (e.g. credentialing, differential allocation of scarce rewards, consumer commodity production, ownership and property relations, etc.). Paradigm [strongest possible] cases of new literacies confront established social structures and relationships in ways we consider progressive, or ‘better’. They are more inclusive, more egalitarian, more responsive to human needs, interests and satisfactions, and they model the ideal of people working together for collective good and benefit, rather than pitting individuals against one another in the cause of maintaining social arrangements that divide people radically along lines of success, status, wealth, and privilege.” (Lankshear and Knobet 2012:67)

In other words, it is this broad ‘ethos’ of new literacies that differentiates new literacies from being conventional literacies in digital form (Lankshear and Knobel 2014:98).

Skills, knowledge and tools in use within social practices

In their article, “Studying New Literacies” (2014), Lankshear and Knobel follow up on their previous work on new literacies once again. They elaborate on how new literacies research has focused on skills, knowledge and tools in use within social practices, and they gather how researchers are interested in how participants have been producing, distributing, sharing and negotiating meaning in a range of contexts outside school and aim at introducing changing literacy practices in teaching and learning in schools in order to educate for the future (Knobel & Lankshear 2014:97). In the article Lankshear and Knobel offer a list of classroom practices gained from learners, participants and informants from informal practices outside school. The list reveals findings from new literacies research they reckon are worth teachers’ consideration in relation to design, facilitation and teaching in K-12 schools, but, still, they are just as relevant to discussing digital literacies in higher education. I will give a short version here, but do check out the entire list in the article:

  • Not everyone has to know or be good at exactly the same thing; often outcomes are richer when young people bring different bits and pieces of knowledge and know-how to collaborative efforts (Gee & Hayes, 2013). Schools, however, tend to insist on everyone knowing the same thing in the same way.
  • Ongoing cycles of feedback, mentoring, and support from others – novices and experts alike – who share the same interest or goals play a crucial role in learning and practicing new literacies (Black, 2008). Schools usually privilege teacher feedback over peer feedback on work-in-progress; assessment tends to be summative and focus on technical details, with little in-progress advice or mentoring regarding production within a particular specialized space or domain.
  • Doing, contributing, making, and sharing are significant activities (Alverman, 2010; Ito et al., 2010). Schools approach knowledge in terms of consuming information and practicing teacher-taught strategies, often driven by packaged curriculum and textbooks, rather than in terms of production by insiders to a field and novices learning to become insiders.
  • Young people “pull” on available resources – content, materials, people – right at the point of need as they are working on something (Leander & Mills, 2007). This just-in-time approach to learning contrasts with schools and their tendency to “push” a broad range of content at students for abstract, “just-in-case” purposes (Hagel & Brown, 2005).
  • Remixing cultural items to produce new works is valued and central to cultural development within societies (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). This challenges schools’ assumption about the importance of individualized authorship and the production of “original” work.
  • Distributing effort and the ability to communicate with others across distance, cultures, and languages matters (Curwood, Magnifico, & Lammers, 2013; Lam, 2009). Practical experiences entailing such things are less than common in schools.
  • Playing with and exploring the affordances of a technology or online space balanced with serious work is a key element in learning to “be” someone, like a machinima artist, a games designer, a video editor, etc. (Ito et al., 2010). After the early grades, schools are concerned most with students being “on task” with little room for playful and exploratory experimentation. (Knobel & Lankshear 2014:99-100)

In the article Lankshear and Knobel stress the idea of new literacies and its sociocultural orientation this way:

 “A practice orientation to new literacies examines new literacies in terms of technology, knowledge and skills – where skills are understood as “co-ordinated sets of action”, and practices as “socially developed and patterned ways of using technology and knowledge to accomplish tasks [that are] directed to [realizing] socially recognized goals [or purposes].” (Schreibner & Cole, 1981,p. 236). As practices, literacies – all literacies, “new” or conventional – involve bringing technology, knowledge, and skills together within contexts of social purpose.”  (Knobel & Lankshear 2014:98)

The examples of classroom practices listed above are descriptive and critical-evaluative accounts of this practice orientation, but at the same time they show how new literacies challenge old systems of legitimacy like control and validation, and they exceed the traditional model of education, as mentioned earlier, when they emphasize participation and participatory culture as core values:

“New technical stuff can be, and typically is, introduced into classrooms without challenging the established culture of classroom education one iota (Cuban, 2003; Lankshear and Knobel, 2006: Ch.2; Jenkins, 2010). It is impossible, however, to engage with learning from the standpoint of participatory culture without seeing how its learning model challenges ‘the cultural context that surrounds contemporary education’. (Jenkins 2010:241).”  (Lankshear and Knobel 2012:67)

So altogether new literacies go along with participation as a metaphor of learning and with Learning 2.0 as a more personalized and experiential form of learning that “…involves engaging learners in apprenticeship for different kinds of knowledge practice, new processes of inquiry, dialogue, and connectivity” as Beetham and Sharpe have put it (McLoughlin and Lee 2008:12) as quoted in The End No 2.

‘Learning to be’: text production and meaning making & social learning processes

In a recent article, “Education and ‘new literacies’ in the middle years” (2018), Lankshear and Knobel revisit their mapping of new literacy practices and more explicitly plot the course of learning , although they are still interested in more than learning ‘per se’. Their view on what new literacies might mean now is seconded by what they call a broad ‘philosophy of education’ as their answer to the questions about what education is for and what education is about. Still, the starting point is that new literacies are characterized by two things: 1) the shift from analogue to digital code and literacies being mediated by digital tool which is characterized as ‘a new technological dimension to ‘new literacies’’ – earlier introduced as ‘the new technical stuff’ – and 2) the possibilities of “…participating in collaborative ways in the creation, editing, refinement, etc. of the same text”, which is seen as “…a new kind of ‘ethos’ possible in ways and on a scale not previously imaginable” (Lankshear and Knobel 2018:8)(my underlining) – earlier characterized as ‘the new ethos stuff’.  Lankshear and Knobel are summing up these two dimensions of new literacies much in accordance with their book and earlier articles, but with the difference that ‘texts’ and ‘text production’ in the broadest possible sense are now being coined as a part of the vocabulary within new literacies:

“The technical and ethos dimension of ‘new’ practices of text production is to create, communicate, share and negotiate meanings come together in ways that have been captured in concepts like ‘participatory culture’ (Jenkins et al., 2016; Jenkins, Ito & boyd, 2015) and ‘affinity spaces’ (Gee, 2004). While both concepts are relatively recent coinings, forms of participatory culture and affinity spaces have always existed where people join together to participate and collaborate in forms of shared activity; to build fields of shared interest; to share expertise and resources and so on. The local sports field is as much a space for participating in a shared activity as an app-based service like Musical.ly (a music video generating and sharing network).” (Lankshear and Knobel 2018:8)

“Affinity spaces refer to any kind of physical or virtual space that has been specially designed to resource the activity of people who are ‘tied together by a shared interest or endeavor’ (Gee, 2001, p.9). They are social spaces that enable people, to whatever extent they choose, to ‘affiliate with others to share knowledge and gain knowledge [relevant to engaging in their interest] that is distributed and dispersed across many different people, places, Internet sites, and modalities (magazines, chatrooms, guides, recordings)’ (Gee, 2004, p.73). Of course, what has happened in the age of digital electronic technologies and networks is that online affinity spaces have vastly amplified the possible scope, speed, diversity, scale, and range of affiliation and knowledge sharing and gaining.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2018:8)

In the article Lankshear and Knobel introduce two levels of new literacies to grasp the double processes of new literacies as both text production and meaning making and learning processes inherent to the concepts of participatory culture and affinity spaces: the specific level of new literacies and the level of ‘structure’ of new literacies. This way they add a focus on texts and artefacts, resources, modes and modalities, originating from a socio-semiotic view on literacy (Kabel and Storgaard Brok 2018:230-231), to their ethnographic perspective and their interest in new literacy practices as social and cultural practices. And as usual Lankshear and Knobel give examples of the present paradigm (strongest possible) cases of new literacies focusing on both the new technological dimension and the new ethos dimension including a set of competences, strategies, learning strategies and values nurtured and developed in collaborative cultures:

“At a specific level of ‘new literacies’, participants engage in meaning making, mediated by tools and communicated and negotiated as ‘texts’ (i.e., inscribed cultural artifacts), of the kinds involved in pursuing their particular interests and purposes. At the level of the ‘structure’ of new literacies, however, they encounter a profoundly social approach to learning, driven by shared passions, and steeped in collaboration and companionship. And it is this structure that is most important for reforming education: the ‘lesson’ for educators to take from new literacies. In the context of cultural production, the knowledge and understanding and skill and resourcing needed for mastery, participants (learners at all levels) rub shoulders, share values, and offer insider advice on what makes the work ‘good’. And there is seemingly no limit to where this resourcing could come from. There is usually someone ‘there’ to provide an audience and to mutually share and build enthusiasm within the process of learning to be a fanfiction writer, a photoshopper, a music video or spoof movie trailer creator, game designer, etc. Brown and Adler capture much of the educational significance of such ‘social learning’ when they note (2008, p.19) that:

“Mastering a field…involves not only ‘learning about’ the subject matter but also ‘learning to be’ a full participant in the field. This involves acquiring the practices and the norms of established practitioners, in that field or acculturating into a community of practice [or affinity].”” (Lankshear and Knobel 2018:8-9)

‘Learning to be’: challenging the established culture of education

By introducing these double processes of new literacies, Lankshear and Knobel explain more thoroughly what they mean, when they state that in fact ‘the new technical dimension’ challenges the established culture of classroom education, as quoted above: the engagement with participatory culture and affinity spaces includes a move towards social learning. In “Minds on Fire – Open Education, the Long Tail and Learning 2.0” (2008), the article quoted from above by Lankshear and Knobel, Brown and Adler have pointed out that:

“The most profound impact of the Internet, an impact that has yet to be fully realized, is its ability to support and expand the various aspects of social learning. What do we mean by “social learning”? Perhaps the simplest way to explain this concept is to note that social learning is based on the premise that our understanding of content is socially constructed through conversations about that content and through grounded interactions, especially with others, around problems or actions. The focus is not so much on what we are learning but on how we are learning.” (Brown and Adler 2008:18)

Brown and Adler promote social learning as a contrast to the traditional Cartesian view of knowledge and learning, emphasizing that “…the social view of learning says, “We participate, therefore we are.”(Brown and Adler 2008:18), and adding that “[t]his perspective shifts the focus of our attention from the content of a subject to the learning activities and human interactions around which that content is situated.” (Brown and Adler 2008:18). By placing the Cartesian view of knowledge and learning in contrast to social learning and participation, Brown and Adler align with Anna Sfard’s metaphors for learning as acquisition and as participation, but by contrasting them they seem to deny the complementarity of the two metaphors which is fundamentally important to Sfard, as introduced in The End No 3:1. So somehow Brown and Adler seem to contradict themselves to some extent, as they claimed in the quote above, that mastering a field means both ‘learning about’ a subject matter but also ‘learning to be’ a full participant within a field. And here Lankshear and Knobel follow in Brown and Adler’s footsteps when they promote ‘learning to be’ rather than ‘learning about’ as an essential dimension of new literacies:

“… the ‘structure’ of new literacies provides a basis for moving education away from its traditional form of learning about –  content knowledge absorbed from curriculum subjects – toward a model of learning as collaborating producers of knowledge within processes of learning to become ‘kinds of people’ who take on ‘ways of being in the world’. We will argue that what is important for education is not merely finding ways of getting specific ‘new’ literacies, such as digital storytelling, remixing fiction, or programming 3D printers to produce artefacts to our own designs, into classrooms/education – although this might at least be a step in the right direction. Rather the point is to reconstitute education around ‘learning to be’; reorganizing education along the lines James Paul Gee describes in terms of involving people working together to resolve ‘tough problems’ in ways that produce knowledge within social learning processes that are mediated by affinity spaces (Gee, 2013).” (Lankshear and Knobel 2018:7)

‘Learning to be’ as introduced by Brown and Adler – or “becoming a participant” and “belonging, participating, communicating in community building” in Sfard’s terminology – is compatible to communities of practices which are being connected directly to participatory culture and affinity spaces by Lankshear and Knobel as it was already evident when they encircled the participatory forms of a new kind of ethos earlier:

“This is [educational] work that provides opportunities for collaborative production of knowledge and solutions to material as well as ‘academic’ problems rather than continuing to emphasise individualised consumption and assessment of subject area content. It should reflect Gee’s insight that ‘affinity spaces have been, and will be even more in the future, the source of new ideas, new solutions to hard problems, and skills for jobs not yet in existence’ (2013, p.178). It should leverage young people’s experiences of and commitment to the values and satisfactions, derived from their investments in ‘participatory culture’, defined by Jenkins and colleagues in terms of environments and forms of activity where there are

“relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices…[and where] members believe their contributions matter. And feel some degree of social connection with one another (Jenkins et al., 2006, p. 3)”

It is work that meets Gee’s requirement that education

“focus on giving every member of society a valued life and the ability to contribute, to learn how to learn, and to adapt to changing times. It has to create a sense of equality at the level not of status of jobs per se, but at the level of participation in knowledge, innovation, and national and global citizenship for a smarter, safer and better world (2013, p. 205).””(Lankshear and Knobel 2018:11-12)

With affiliation to Gregory Bateson’s and Zygmunt Bauman’s forms of learning, presented in The End No 2, Gee positions education in the context of both citizenship and globalization and change and uncertainty. In his article, “Affinity Spaces and 21st Century Learning” (2017), also referred to by Lankshear and Knobel, Gee describes and defines affinity spaces today as “…often really squishy. They are fluid and ever changing and hard to strictly demarcate.” (Gee 2017:29). In other words, they exist as networks in flux with clusters and weak connections, ever changing and reflecting the complexity and uncertainty of today. And in that sense, Gee’s idea and concept of affinity spaces is being re-defined in accordance with ideas of communities of practice, networks, rhizomes and assemblages introduced in this series and thus supplement the idea and concept of participatory culture in Lankshear and Knobel’s focus on ‘the level of ‘structure’ of new literacies’: “Attending to the structure of new literacies (e.g., participatory culture, social practices, affinity spaces, appreciative systems) necessarily shifts the structure of schooling away from a concern with learning about stuff and towards learning to collaborate, contribute, share, understand, resource, empathise etc. as new ways of learning to be in the world.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2018:15).

The model of ‘new literacy practicies’

It might seem that there has been a slight change in Lankshear and Knobel’s work from their book in 2003 to the article of 2018, sliding from a focus on the current historical period and on new forms of literacies and literacy practices to zooming in on introducing changing literacy practices in teaching and learning in order to educate for the future. But the ideal of social learning has been present all along, accompanying the questions of what currently passes for literacy education, although the reflections on the educational relevance of new literacies are none the less also taking new directions in the 2018-article, “Education and ‘new literacies’ in the middle years”. As Lankshear and Knobel say: “Schools should focus on enabling knowledge and knowhow that middle years youth need but cannot readily access elsewhere – especially by posing what Gee (ibid.) calls ‘tough problems’ that involve working in and across disciplinary areas and engage students with experts beyond the school who can provide useful and important knowledge and insights into the problem being studied. Many of these tough problems will be – ideally – real world, functional or life enhancing problems; problems to be resolved by knowledge and understanding that develop minds within processes of learning to become the kinds of people who meet an ideal of educated persons.”  (Lankshear and Knobel 2018:12).

As the context of education is now to create a sense of equality when it comes to participation, knowledge production and innovation, and national and global citizenship “for a smarter, safer, and better better world”, Lankshear and Knobel still emphasize their practice orientation to new literacies by maintaining “…the importance  of students producing real knowledge of all kinds by attending to the model of ‘new literacy practices’ rather than simply trying to import new literacies into the classrooms and making them the focal point of learning”, as quoted earlier (Lankshear and Knobel 2018:15). This model of ‘new literacy practices’ can be said to have evolved in time in the shape of a set of concepts and terms that contains the dimensions and the contexts of new literacies, so to speak:

current historical period                            educational relevance and structure of schooling

post-typographic                                         chronologically new

new technical stuff:                                     new ethos stuff:

skills, tools, enabling, sharing                      practices, participatory forms

specific level of new literacies:                  ‘structural’ level of new literacies:

‘texts’, cultural artefacts                                CoP’s, participatory culture, affinity spaces

textual dimension:                                       social dimension:

text production and meaning making         social learning processes

producing knowledge                                    from ‘learn about’ to ‘learning to be’

Like a puzzle picture, new literacies gradually emerge and develop as an approach that includes both a textual and a social dimension, although it is not interested in approaches to textual analysis, interpretation or the like. So although the left column in ‘the model’ above is indispensable, there is no doubt that the right column in ‘the model’ is the heart of the matter. It highlights what is at stake in the model of ‘new literacy practices’: the ideal of social learning and of people working together for collective good and benefit (Lankshear and Knobel 2012:67) in combination with the structure of schooling shifting away “…from a concern with learning about stuff and towards learning to collaborate, contribute, share, understand, resource, empathise etc. as new ways of learning to be in the world.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2018:15).

User productivity and producing knowledge

The practice orientation accentuated by Lankshear and Knobel signals the sociocultural background to their model of ‘new literacy practices’, and as such it is mainly user and production oriented. The perspective regarding texts has moved from the sender to the recipient – but in the sense of seeing the recipient as a user and producer of ‘texts’ within the broader conception of ‘texts’ that new literacies provide. The linear model of communication by Claude Shannon: sender → message → receiver (Hartley 2012:2) is being crossbred with the producer → text/commodity → consumer model (Hartley 2012:9) and transformed into a two-way dialogical model evolved from the altered conditions for communication and participation in digital media and on digital platforms and from the present uses of the internet and digital communication: author/sender/ producer ↔ ‘text’/cultural artefact/product ↔ reader & audience/recipient/user & producer. Now literacy/literacies mean reading and writing as interconnected social and cultural activities and practices, but even with an understanding of reading and writing as production in all kinds of media, modalities and modes, including navigating on the web, as new literacies represent, it leaves the questions of how ‘texts’ and knowledge are understood in the context of a domain, a discipline or a subject matter. Among other things, this calls for dialogical and reception oriented approaches to ‘texts’, meaning making and interpretation, that are able to embrace hypertexts and the networks growing from them, when the communication turns from one-to-many towards many-to-many.

Producing knowledge requires understanding, interpretation, analyzing and seeing the problem or issue concerned in several relevant perspectives, including the historical context of the domain, the discipline or the subject matter, I would suggest. That means knowing its repertoire of ‘texts’ in the broader sense, its practices, and the ways and mechanisms of producing new ’texts’ and actively relate to and take part in the ‘texts’, the repertoire and the knowledge already existing in the domain, the discipline or the subject matter through production, and this way engage in its historicity and in questioning the existing and emerging knowledge. This is crucial and the starting point for participating in and becoming a member of the community of practice and the culture of a domain, a discipline or a subject matter. And it takes social learning, too. In other words, this is what Lankshear and Knobel have called a participatory configuration of ‘the new ethos’.

New literacies have the intention of contributing to the growth of knowledge and learning, and seen in the light of digital media and their present uses, John Hartley mentions in his book, “The uses of digital literacy” (2009), that there is a tendency to self-expression and communication in people’s uses of digital literacy in informal contexts and everyday practices, but also that: “…there is more to language than self-expression and communication: there is also knowledge.” (Hartley 2009:137). Hartley suggests that this tendency has to be acted on and the uses of digital literacy have to be elaborated and developed to meet the requirements for producing knowledge. While discussing digital storytelling he takes up Karl Popper’s levels of language in his argument:

“In fact, the philosopher Karl Popper (1972) has produced a typology of the ‘levels’ of language:

  1. Self-expression
  2. Communication
  3. Description
  4. Argument…

For Popper, the first two levels produce subjective knowledge, the second two can lead to objective knowledge. For us, it is noteworthy that digital storytelling, in common with the media-entertainment complex in general, is obsessively focused on the first level. To take a further step toward the two ‘higher’ levels of language, the question of expertise needs to be expressed: how can everyone in a given community be in a position to contribute to the growth of objective knowledge?” (Hartley 2009:137-138)

So as a precondition for knowledge production, subjective understandings need to be connected and related to explicit and validated ‘objective’ knowledge. On the other hand, Hartley still stresses, that “With the internet and digital communication, mediated communication had been restored to a two-way dialogic model in which everyone is understood as productive.” (Hartley 2012:22). This opens up to questions about what defines knowledge and who defines what kinds of knowledge are needed. And as a kind of counterpart to Bonnie Stewart’s opening quote from Lankshear and Knobel, Hartley comments on the current state of the internet and its affordances:

“Like printing, the internet was invented for instrumental purposes (security, scholarship), but it has rapidly escaped such intentions and is evolving new ‘affordances’ unlooked for a mere decade ago. The most important change is that the structural asymmetry between producers and consumers, experts and amateurs, writers and readers has begun to rebalance. In principle (if not yet in practice), everyone can publish as well as ‘read’ mass media. Users play an important role in making the networks, providing the services, improving the products, forming the communities, and producing the knowledge that characterize digital media. We are entering an era of user productivity, not expert representation. It is now possible to think of consumers as agents, sometimes enterprises, and to see in consumer-created content and user-led innovation not further exploitation by the expert representatives but rather ‘consumer entrepreneurship’ (once a contradiction in terms).

Once again, as was the case for print in early modern Europe, a means of communication has become an agent as well as a carrier of change, extending the capabilities of the publisher across social and geographical boundaries and producing unintended consequences that have hardly begun to be exploited.“ (Hartley 2012:25)

What to think about the question of expertise clashing with the affordances of the internet and digital communication, then? John Hartley’s double perspective on digital media and the internet both meets and challenges the intentions new literacies have to contribute to the growth of knowledge when they focus on changing literacy practices in teaching and learning in schools – challenges where Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel’s ‘philosophy of education’ can be said to frame their view on ‘the stuff’ that knowledge is made of in a digital age – and that includes both self-expression, communication, description and argument after all.

A philosophy of education

Lankshear and Knobel seem to be about to make a move beyond the affordances of Web 2.0 and the architecture of participation, or maybe rather they are in the move to build on top of these affordances, providing their thinking with new layers of ethics and the present horizon of Web 3.0 and so forth, on the grounds of the critical-evaluative accounts provided by Gee. Gee touches on both kinds introduced earlier: the sound and fair judgement of the educational relevance of particular new literacies and a critical evaluation of what is efficacy learning seen from a curriculum and pedagogical perspective, as quoted above: “[Education] has to create a sense of equality at the level not of status of jobs per se, but at the level of participation in knowledge, innovation, and national and global citizenship for a smarter, safer and better world (2013, p. 205).” (Lankshear and Knobel 2018:12).

As their way of answering the questions of what education is for and what education is about in this perspective, Lankshear and Knobel supplement Gee’s requirement for education with four dimensions of human development and wellbeing that make up their ‘philosophy of education’ by now:

  1. Knowledge and building minds:

“By ‘mind’ we mean a combination of cognitive capacity and certain kinds of attitudes, such as a concern for relevance, impartiality, being reasonable, and so on. It is about knowing when information is relevant to a question or issue in ways that mean it counts as valid evidence, and about being willing to weigh evidence on its merits, rather than on the basis of our preferences. It is the willingness to follow arguments where the evidence leads, in order to make the best quality judgements about the matter in question. It is to do with caring enough about our thinking to get it as clear and logical and elegant as we can. It involves appreciating the values and criteria and ways of evaluating and judging within an area of activity and respecting them up to the point where it is reasonable and appropriate to modify them… It involves creating opportunities for learners to develop these values within contexts of acquiring and actively producing knowledge about things, that matter for their lives and the lives of others.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2018:9)

  1. Becoming ethical persons and kind and decent members of our communities:

“The role of formal education institutions is, we believe, different. It is about providing opportunities for young people to understand and experience what it means to develop and act on principles rather than to follow rules and simply obey authority. Acting on principles comprises opportunities to reflect ethically: to move beyond rules and to consider the ‘whys’ that lie behind them, and to develop a strong sense of caring for the principles in question. One way of thinking about this is in terms of coming to understand persons and communities as systems that have their integrity…While schools cannot ensure that learners in fact do come to care about this, and develop respect for all persons, they can and should – as learning institutions – provide social learning opportunities for conceiving ‘bigger pictures’ and grasping ethical concepts through conversation and experiences.” (Lankshear and Knobel 2018:10)

  1. Learning to become ‘stewards of the universe’:

“We believe that a parallel argument holds with respect to our place in the universe, within the ‘larger order’ of things. Our humanity enables us both to grasp the totality of everything that exists as a complex and interconnected system and to appreciate the complexity and interconnectedness of that system and to respect its integrity. There is no argument to prove that we should do this. Rather, we believe, that perhaps the greatest outcome of an education is to be capable of expressing appreciation of and respect for the integrity of ‘wonderful things’ – as something we do for its own sake, not (merely) because doing so maximizes our chances of survival (which, of course, it does)…” (Lankshear and Knobel 2018:10)

  1. Caring for our personal integrity:

“While it is absolutely possible to attain wellbeing on the basis of intuition, habit, and imitation, a good education can enhance awareness and appreciation of the importance of caring for the integrity of our selves as part of a larger dialectic of caring for others and our communities and our world. For us, this is all about providing learners with the wherewithal to help themselves keep body, mind and spirit nurtured and healthy – and developing a very real commitment to their own and others’ wellbeing…The first thing required of formal education in terms of building the disposition to respect and care for personal integrity is to optimize opportunities to experience genuine success in meaningful forms of learning. This is not about ‘passing’ work that is inadequate. Rather, it involves re-organising learning in ways that reflect the ‘structure’ of social practices of new literacies understood as contexts for social learning, collaborative engagement, and membership in participatory culture…” (Lankshear and Knobel 2018:10-11).

This almost manifest-like ‘philosophy of education’ both elaborates on and replaces the ‘ideal’ frame for understanding the character and role of new literacies that is closing Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel’s article “New literacies: technologies and values” (2012:67).

Anna Sfard’s participation metaphor and her point that “[t]he vocabulary of participation brings the message of togetherness, solidarity and collaboration” (Sfard 1998:8) are more or less embedded in this ‘philosophy of education’ and thus in the definition of ‘the new ethos stuff’/‘a new kind of ethos’ combined with the idea of communities of practice, participatory culture and affinity spaces. Ethos is concerned in how people act and interact within a community or culture and in the norms, the values and the attitudes they are socialized into or ought to be involved with due to their personal integrity. Aristoteles coined three aspects of establishing ethos: 1) showing kindness and good-will towards your audience, 2) having a high standard of morality, and 3) being competent and qualified within your domain (Bergstrøm 2015: 311-312). With the terms ‘the new ethos stuff’/‘a new kind of ethos’, new literacies seem to draw on Aristoteles while foregrounding the aspect of showing kindness and good-will towards other connections and participants, although not neglecting the other two, to stress that new literacies are more participatory, collaborative and distributed than conventional literacy. Being focused on social learning, on relationships, connections and networks requires both a high moral standard and being competent and qualified within one’s domain, discipline and subject matter. And that is still worth favouring according to Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel and their ‘philosophy of education’, although they are now also embracing Web 3.0, ‘smart’-concepts and the Internet of Things when they pitch upon the examples of an online global project hub and of youth making ‘smart’ athletic wear in a workshop and makerspace.

Characterizing what they see as the qualities about humans, about things, about the world and about humanity, Lankshear and Knobel value the good, the true and the beautiful in their ‘philosophy of education’. It almost seems like an aspiration for Bildung. They advocate for understanding oneself, ‘the other’ and the world in ways that correspond to the idea of ‘digital Bildung’ (Drotner 2018:9) – a much debated concept – that inform the definition of digital literacy by Martin and Grudziecki in The End No 3:1. Seeing digital tools and facilities as part of a whole life, they build on Morten Søby when they introduce ‘digital Bildung’ as a founding concept for digital literacy:

“”Digital bildung expresses a more holistic understanding of how children and youths learn and develop their identity. In addition, the concept encompasses and combines the way in which skills, qualifications, and knowledge are used. As such, digital bildung suggests an integrated, holistic approach that enables reflection on the effects that ICT has on different aspects of human development: communicative competence, critical thinking skills, and enculturation processes, among others. (Søby, 2003:8)”

Søby uses the german term Bildung to suggest the integrated development of the individual as a whole person. The processes of Bildung goes on throughout life, affects all aspects of the individual’s thought and activity, and affects understandings, interpretations, beliefs, attitudes and emotions as well as actions. It represents the making of the individual both as a unique individual and as a member of a culture.” (Martin and Grudziecki 2006:255)

Within the framework of digital literacy development

Lankshear and Knobel’s model of ‘new literacy practices’ aligns with and works on all three levels of Martin and Grudziecki’s model of digital literacy development introduced in The End No 3:1. ‘Skills’ and ‘practices’ are equivalent to the ideas of ‘the new technical stuff’/the new technical dimension and ‘the new ethos stuff’/a new kind of ethos, and with their definition of a practice orientation to new literacies Lankshear and Knobel turn more directly toward common grounds with the model for digital development: ‘skills’ and ‘practices’ align with the levels of digital competences and digital usage in Martin and Grudziecki’s model. The level of digital competence gets a more modest discussion in Lankshear and Knobel’s writings, though, as the model of ‘new literacy practices’ especially works at the levels of digital usage and digital transformation.

Digital usage involves “…using digital tools to seek, find and process information and then to develop a product or solution addressing the task or problem” in a specific situation and a specific context (Martin and Grudziecki 2006:258), but within the community of practice of a domain, a discipline or a subject matter. And it is with the important addition, that the result of a specific digital usage “…will itself be the trigger for further action in the life context.” (Martin and Gruziecki 2006:258). Knowing is coming to the front in the shape of knowledge processes. This indicates that a community of practice is not just to be seen as a stable ‘entity’ and culture, building solely on trajectories leading from ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ to ‘full participation’, a view McLoughlin and Lee represent as quoted in The End No 2. Instead a community of practice is to be seen as both stable and dynamic and interacting with the world through networks, as both Lankshear and Knobel and Etienne Wenger-Trayner have emphasized, and thus it is representing a dialogical view on learning. Learning through ‘doing’, ‘making’ and ‘being in action’ is being supplemented by learning through ‘productivity’, including ‘producing knowledge’ and ‘knowledge creation’, so  “[d]igital usage becomes 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). To Lankshear and Knobel that applies to participatory culture and affinity spaces, too.

This is not just a link to the level of digital transformation, “…achieved when the digital usages which have been developed enable innovation and creativity, and stimulate significant change within the professional or knowledge domain.” (Martin and Grudziecki 2006:259), but it also makes a link to the model of ‘new literacy practices’. Here social learning, knowledge production and creative innovation merge together and support the ontological sense of ‘new’  and its focus on change that was the starting point for Lankshear and Knobel.

To be continued…

Further reading:

Bergstrøm, Ditte Maria (2015): Online retorik, Christiansen, H-C. og Rose, G. B. (red.): Online kommunikation, København: Hans Reitzels Forlag, 301-329

Brown, John Seely and Adler, Richard P. (2008): Minds on Fire. Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0, Educause Review, January/February, 17-32

Drotner, Kirsten (2018): Hvad er digital dannelse og hvordan fremmer skolen den?, Unge Pædagoger Årg. 79, nr. 2, 6-14

Gee, James Paul (2017): Affinity Spaces and 21st Century Learning, Educational Technology, 57 No 2, 27-31

Hartley, John (2012): Digital Futures for Cultural and Media Studies, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons

Hartley, John (2009): The uses of digital literacy, St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press

Kabel, Kristine og Storgaard Brok, Lene (2018): Didaktik og kontekst – vi trænger til en teoretisk afklaring af kontekstbegrebet i literacy-didatikken, Christensen, T. S., Elf, N., Hobel, P., Qvortrup, A. og Troelsen, S. (red.): Didaktik i udvikling, Aarhus: Klim

Knobel, Michele and Kalman, Judith (Eds.)(2016): New Literacies and Teacher Learning. Professional Development and the Digital Turn, New York: Peter Lang

Knobel, Michele and Lankshear, Colin (2014): Studying New Literacies, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58 (2), 97-101, DOI: 10.1002/jaal.314

Lankshear, Colin and Knobel, Michele (2018): Education and ‘new literacies’ in the middle years, Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, Vol. 26 No 2, 7-16

Lankshear, Colin and Knobel, Michele (2012): ’New’ literacies: technologies and values, Revista Teknokultura, (2012), Vol. 9 Núm 1, 45-69

Lankshear, Colin and Knobel, Michele (2003): New Literacies: Changing Knowledge and Classroom Learning, Buckingham: Open University Press

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

Sfard, Anna (1998): On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One, Educational Researcher, March 1998, 4-13

Stewart, Bonnie (2013): Massiveness + Openness = New Literacies of Participation? , MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and teaching Vol. 9, No.2, June 2013, 228-238

Elna Mortensen

Photo by WeMake Milano on Flickr – CC BY-NC-SA

Advertisements
In an era of knowledge abundance – The End No 3:2

In an era of knowledge abundance – The End No 3:1

2506968434_a18f557a2e_mAfter 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

(Sfard 1998:7)

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:

Digital transformation

  • Innovation/creativity
  • LEVEL 3

Digital Usage

  • Professional/discipline application
  • LEVEL 2

Digital Competence

  • 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.

Adding up

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:

Belshaw2-300x234

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…

Further reading:

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

Elna Mortensen

In an era of knowledge abundance – The End No 3:1

In an era of knowledge abundance – Part 4

536068094_69f72b259f_mRhizomatic learning is a variation of ‘open networked learning’, I stated in part one of this series of blog posts while looking into what a pedagogy of abundance might look like. At first sight this might not seem the most likely conclusion to make, but to me the design for learning laid out in Dave Cormier’s conception of rhizomatic learning is in alignment with the definition of networked learning:

Networked learning is learning in which information and communications (ICT) is used to promote connections: between one learner and other learners, between learners and tutors, between a learning community and its lear-ning resources. (Goodyear et al 2004, p.2) (Ryberg, Buus and Georgsen 2012:45)

In their focus on communities, networks, participation and participatory culture, collaboration and negotiation of meaning the four examples of rhizomatic learning and networking across the educational system, presented in part two and part three of this series, show that the educational and pedagogical values in rhizomatic learning as a pedagogical approach overlap the educational and pedagogical values in networked learning as a theory and a pedagogy:

…networked learning can be seen to be derived from critical and humanistic traditions (e.g. those of Dewey, 1916; Freire, 1970; Mead, 1934) and that learning is social, takes place in communities and networks, is a shared practice, involves negotiation and requires colla-borative dialogue (Hodgson, McConnell and Dirckinck-Holmfeld, 2012). (Hodgson, De Laat, McConnell and Ryberg 2014:2)

So while seeing the world, including learning and teaching, from a socio-cultural standpoint, networked learning “offers the theory and practice for a pedagogy that is appropriate or suited to live in a digitally and networked world where sharing and collaborative ways of working are the norm rather than the exception”, as it is defined by Vivien Hodgson, David McConnell, and Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld (Hodgson, McConnell and Dirckinck-Holmfeld 2012:292). Hence, my comment on rhizomatic learning as ‘open networked learning’ seems to be an unnecessary doubling, as openness is to be seen as an inherent and implicit characteristic of networked learning today:

Over the years, interest has widened to include the social aspects of networked learning, with a focus on building and cultivating social networks and seeing technology as a part of the phenomenon rather than as an end in itself. Networked learning focuses therefore on the diversity of social relationships that people develop, the strategies that they use to maintain them and the value that the relationships creates for learning. (De Laat 2012:27)

So let me rephrase my statement: rhizomatic learning is a variation of networked learning, as I see it.

The landscape of networked learning

The landscape of networked learning is formed by shared pedagogical values, although the shared values can lead to a variety of learning designs. Nevertheless, Hodgson, McConnell and Dirckinck-Holmfeld estimate that most networked learning practitioners agree in valuing these aspects of networked learning:

  • Cooperation and collaboration in the learning process.
  • Working in groups and in communities.
  • Discussion and dialogue.
  • Self-determination in the learning process.
  • Difference and its place in a central learning process.
  • Trust and relationships: weak and strong ties.
  • Reflexivity and investment of self in the networked learning processes.
  • The role technology plays in connecting and mediating. (Hodgson, McConnell and Dirckinck-Holmfeld 2012:295)

And they suggest that the practice of networked learning should be seen from a holistic perspective, where each aspect of networked learning has to be present and integrated in the practice and has to contribute to the educational values underpinning networked learning (Hodgson, McDonnell and Dirckinck-Holmfeld 2012:295)

Originating as an approach and a theory interested in understanding the developments in technology to support learning and engrossed in exploring socio-cultural designs of learning, networked learning is linked to the traditions of open education and to radical emancipatory and humanistic educational ideas and approaches such as critical pedagogy and democratic and experiental learning, as referred to in the quote earlier. These educational values of dialogue, independence and interdependence become visible in the six areas of pedagogy that David McConnell has emphasized as areas that need to be addressed when designing for networked learning. And of course, the shared pedagogical values mentioned earlier must be contained in these six areas of pedagogy, too:

1 Openness in the educational process.

Openness leads to meaningful learning and can be facilitated by the development of a learning community, where one works for oneself and for others and where development occurs.

2 Self-determined learning.

Self-determined learners take primarily responsibility for identifying their own learning needs, and help others in determining theirs. In these processes, learners become aware of how they learn, and develop deep approaches to learning.

3 A real purpose in the cooperative process.

Much higher education learning is abstract and often unrelated to real situations, and many students struggle to see the purpose of it. If learners have a real purpose in learning, they engage with the learning process in a qualitatively different way.

4 A supportive learning environment.

A supportive learning environment is one where learners encourage and facilitate each other’s efforts. Being supportive does not, however, mean a lack of intellectual challenge.

5 Collaborative assessment of learning.

Collaborative self-peer-tutor-assessment processes are central to networked learning: they are a corollary of cooperative learning and support the cooperative process.

6 Assessment and evaluation of the ongoing learning process.

Assessing and evaluating the networked learning course is also a cooperative tutor-learner process. Learners must feel that there is a real opportunity to change the design of the course; this can be achieved by the tutor and learners working together in regular group processing. (McConnell 2006)”(McConnell, Hodgson and Dirckinck-Holmfeld 2012:8-9)

Accordingly, in order to sum up, collaborative and cooperative learning, learning through dialogue and group work together with online resources and collaborative knowledge construction is the hearth of the matter in networked learning (McConnell, Hodgson and Dirckinck-Holmfeld 2012:10). With Web 2.0 the participatory aspect of networked learning gives possibilities for focusing on the learner as a node in a network while designing for “the relational interdependencies and connections between learners in their mutual meaning construction.” (Hodgson, McConnell and Dirckinck-Holmfeld 2012:300). This way learning and knowledge construction happens in a dynamic, ongoing process of connecting knowledge and negotiating meaning:

However, the ideas of relations and connections suggest that learning is not confined to the individual mind or the individual learner. Rather, learning and knowledge con-struction is located in the connections and interactions between learners, teachers and resources, and seen as emerging from  critical dialogues and enquiries. As such, networked learning theory seems to encompass an understanding of learning as a social, relational pheno-menon, and a view of knowledge and identity as con-structed through interactions and dialogue. (Ryberg, Buus and Georgsen 2012:45)

This is what Maarten de Laat terms ‘learning as a social network relationship’ (De Laat 2012:27). And rather, this intersection of networks and community leaves space for rhizomatic learning to fit in: the focus on independence and interdependence underlines my view, I think. But there needs to be some kind of balance to see rhizomatic learning as a variation of networked learning: a balance between the messy and sometime chaotic self-directed learning processes where individuals form and determine their own routes and learning through connecting to people and resources, and the open and mutual engagement in a learning community based on participatory culture and knowledge construction. And in Dave Cormier’s case the motto “The community becomes the curriculum” is the expression of this. With Cormier the community is a community of practice (Wenger 1998), as introduced in part two of this series of blog posts, but networked learning does not privilege a particular pedagogical model, so the kind of community that can be applied in networked learning might just as well be:

  • A learning community with a focus on learning together, sharing and developing relationships.
  • Communities of inquiry with a focus on inquiring about issues of common interest.
  • Knowledge communities with a focus on developing knowledge.(Hodgson, McConnell and Dirckinck-Holmfeld 2012:297)

So needless to say, but still, designing for rhizomatic learning must 1) take the structures, principles and attitudes of networks and a community of practice into account, 2) while implementing the six areas of pedagogy in networked learning and creating learning activities that support them, 3) and seeing to that the shared values of networked learning end up being a part of the basis of the rhizomatic learning processes. It almost seems like an act of bricolage itself that must also activate and embody the rhizomatic vision in order to make rhizomatic learning happen:

In the rhizomatic view knowledge can only be negotiated, and the contextual, collaborative learning experience shared by Constructivist and Connectivist pedagogies is a social as well as a personal knowledge-creation process with mutable goals and constantly negotiated premises. (Cormier 2008)

Networking

As a model for the construction of knowledge, rhizomatic processes are based on the interconnectedness of ideas, on the boundless exploration across many domains with many different starting points (Innovating Pedagogy 2012:33) and on serendipity and bricolage. While accepting complexity as a condition, the focus on connectivity and networks is making the rhizomatic learning process multi-nodal, multi-directional and multi-perspective: the rhizome is navigating the complexity as Dave Cormier expresses it in his talk in the video “The rhizomatic lense – seeing learning from the perspective of abundance” (2015). Here Dave Cormier challenges the problem of abundance and points out that:

“…a weird historical process has happened: as we have got a more abundant access to knowledge, we have reduced the complexity of the teaching.” (Cormier 2015)

Rhizomatic learning is working on reinstalling the complex domain in disciplines and subject matters and on being an innovating pedagogy in an era of knowledge abundance. Maarten de Laat has characterized this as “New Learning” in his talk on “Networked Learning in Open Practices” (2015):

maarten-de-laat-networked-learning-in-open-practices-slide1

In the talk De Laat presents the results of research on teachers’ professional deve-lopment that was introduced in his address “Enabling professional development networks: How connected are you?” (2012). The research has been based on a networked learning perspective, and although it focuses on teachers’ professional development, I think quite a few of the insights from the research are relevant and useful to teaching and learning in schools and higher education as well – and especially relevant to understanding rhizomatic learning as a variation of networked learning. De Laat defines networked learning as a perspecitive:

…that aims to understand social learning processes by asking how people develop and maintain a ‘web’ of social relations used for their learning and development (Good-year, Banks, Hodgson & McConnell, 2004; Haythorn-thwaite &  De Laat, 2011; Sleeples & Jones, 2002). (De Laat 2012:26)

De Laat suggests to combine formal and informal learning, and with an emphasis on participation, construction and becoming as metaphors for learning (De Laat 2012:26) he identifies these aspects as important for learning in an informal-formal environment – much in alignment with rhizomatic learning and with Martin Weller’s educational model of abundance introduced in part one of this series on knowledge abundance:

maarten-de-laat-networked-learning-in-open-practices-Slide2.jpg

Maarten de Laat: Networked Learning in Open Practices

Networking and communities are inevitable here, and in an interview with Steve Whee-ler after the talk, Maarten de Laat emphasizes the importance of learning networks to education and learning today:

As De Laat puts it:

“Networks are everything. I don’t think you can do anything on your own anymore, so for me networked learning is about creating a social web around you, if you like, so you have access to people who you can talk to, who you can share issues with, who you can do things together with….In terms of educational future I think it is very important to learn and teach those learning and thinking skills in order to participate in the debate and being able to contribute. So for me networking or communities or any social circulation is a very important part of education.” (Maarten de Laat – Interview with Steve Wheeler EDEN Conference 2015)

Apart from being networked, the skills we need to equip learners with in an age of digital abundance are the skills and the competences that are necessary for learning in the 21st century. De Laat refers to the framework of Partnership for 21st Century Skills which is one of the 15 frameworks analysed when establishing the model of the 21st century learning, I presented in the last blog post. And although social networking and technology are not identical, Web 2.0 and Learning 3.0 has placed social networking online as a part of networked learning. And likewise, De Laat explains in his address:

By social networking we mean the configurations of con-nectivity that exist when people interact with each other by communicating, sharing resources, and working, learning or playing together, supported through face-to-face interaction as well as through the use of information and communication technology (Hay-thornthwaite & De Laat, 2011). Each interaction defines a connection between people, known as a social network tie. These ties vary in strength from weak to strong according to the range and types of activities that people engage in. In other words, networked relationships – ties – connect the dots between otherwise isolated people. (De Laat 2012:23)

Here Maarten de Laat refers to Mark Granovetter’s theory of the strength of weak ties (1973/1983):

“In a favorite article on the strength of weak ties, Granovetter (1973) demonstrated that weak ties are important for gaining access to new knowledge, perspectives and alternative conversations. Strong ties with those who are close to you, on the other hand, are needed to deepen and embed knowledge closely related to day-to-day shared practice, as well as commitment to joint activities.” (De Laat 2012:27)

Communities of practice are often based on strong ties as the process of moving towards full participation usually builds on strong relationships, as I mentioned in part two of this series, but as Maarten de Laat defines it in the interview and Wenger–Trayner has said it: “Rather than contrasting a community here and a network there…it is more useful to think of community and network as two types of structuring processes. Community emphasizes identity and network emphasizes connectivity.” (Wenger 2010:10)

This way networking can be seen as both an important aspect of self-directed learning and of developing communities or communities of practice as places/spaces for practicing self-directed learning: the relationships and resources in a personal learning network (PLN) can be put forward as challenging or confirmatory perspectives in the negotiations of meaning with peers and facilitators/educators in a domain and in the community or the community of practice.

Personal learning networks – on the road to collaboration

In their article “Understanding personal learning networks: Their structure, content and the networking skills needed to optimally use them” (2012) Rajagopal, Brinke, Van Bruggen and Sloep engage in defining networks that support individuals’ learning:

In our understanding, the skills at the centre of network-ing involve an ability to identify and understand other peoples’ work in relation to one’s own, and to assess the value of the connectivity with these others for potential future work. The result of networking is a personal professional network, i.e., an egocentric, personally and intentionally created network of people set up by an individual specifically in the context of her professional activities. This network gathers a heterogeneous circle of people, distributed across different groups and places, and connected to the individual with connections of varying degrees of strengths (Granovetter, 1983; Nardi, et al., 2000). (Rajagopal, Brinke, Van Bruggen and Sloep (2012))

For personal networks, Grabher and Ibert (2008) propo-sed a three-layered approach, consisting of a communa-lity layer (strong ties), a sociality layer (weak ties) and a connectivity layer (very weak ties)…By including weak links in their personal networks, learners can create an envi-ronment for learning (Kester and Sloep, 2009). We be-lieve the intentionality of the professional is the strongest at the sociality layer, as contacts in this layer are the most mobile within someones’s personal network. Depen-ding on the intentions of the professional, these ties have the potential to become stronger connections or develop into even weaker ties. An individual can therefore create and orchestrate ties to effectively support learning needs and potentially use technology to support this network, effectively making it a personal learning network (PLN). (Rajagopal, Brinke, Van Bruggen and Sloep (2012))

And so the focus on social networking seen from an individual’s personal perspective offers bridges to collaboration and participation in communities and communities of practice:

“Both strong and weak connections contribute to the individuals’s learning: strong ties allow for active collaboration on knowledge creation, whereas weak ties are sources for new information, knowledge and ideas (Bell, 2010; Gargiulo and Benassi, 2000; Jones, 2008; Jones, et al., 2008; Ryberg and Larsen, 2008; Wenger, 1998).” (Rajagopal, Brinke, Van Bruggen and Sloep (2012))

A personal learning network requires, as mentioned, all three types of ties: strong, weak, and very weak, and while both Rajagopal, Brinke, Van Bruggen and Sloep and Maarten de Laat focus on the importance of weak and strong ties for learning, I think the very weak ties are equally important to rhizomatic learning as they might lead to serendipity and growing networks in a ‘nomadic’ fashion. And this is a real potential for new learning, too.

According to Rajagopal, Brinke, Van Bruggen and Sloep the following factors influence the choises taken in each of the three stages of building, maintaining and activating personal learning networks:

  • Communality
  • Organisation of the contact
  • Network of a contact
  • Reputation
  • Benevolence
  • Like-mindedness
  • Real potential for collaboration
  • Real potential for learning
  • Trends in work environment.

Rajagopal, Brinke, Van Bruggen and Sloep conclude, that ”…networking for networked learning is not only a skill to be developed, but also an attitude towards learning to be cultivated…networking revolves around a complex ability of (i) recognizing and identifying the other’s qualities; and, of (ii) making (valuable) associations of these qualities with the learner’s own qualities that could take place when interacting with a contact or even in the contact’s absence. Learners have different levels of proficiency in this skill, but can also differ in the actual application of the skill, due to the attitude with which they approach learning.”  (Rajagopal, Brinke, Van Bruggen and Sloep (2012))

Networking is crucial to Rajagopal, Brinke, Van Bruggen and Sloep not only as a key skill for individual learners but also as a starting point for learning to learn and for future collaboration. This is also what Maarten de Laat hints at in the interview with Steve Wheeler quoted earlier. I would add, that this is the basics learners need to know about networks and networking, so that they can understand and practice the skills, the strategies and the attitudes required “to adopt a networking style” for their learning as De Laat calls it (De Laat 2012:29), and so that they are able to participate, collaborate, reflect and construct new knowledge – eventually through serendipity, rhizomatic structures and bricolage.

In his talk De Laat mentions the close relationship between networked learning and open practices, while he presents his model of education as “New Learning”. As mentioned earlier it is a model that resembles Martin Weller’s educational models of scarcity and abundance described in part one of this series. But De Laat’s  model of “New Learning” is also a model that includes perspectives and understandings from the theory of communities of practice and maybe from rhizomatic learning, as I see it. I think learners need to know these educational models and their implications on teaching and learning as part of the basics of networks and networking, too, and Maarten de Laat has summed it all up in these slides:

maarten-de-laat-networked-learning-in-open-practices-Slide3.jpg

maarten-de-laat-networked-learning-in-open-practices-Slide4.jpg

Maarten de Laat: Networked Learning in Open Practices 

But how to get started?

Being a student entering a domain, a discipline or a subject matter, one of the first nodes in the network could be the educator opening up his/her professional network for students to connect to online. In many ways there is nothing new in educators introducing their students to resources, interesting people, stakeholders and different positions in a field, but the accessibility, the spreadability, the searchability and the ease and speed with which connections can be made is new and made possible by social media and participatory environments. Starting this way, the students get to know experts, members of communities, resources, ideas and links while they are getting a grip of networks and networking in the domain or the discipline, and they can begin exploring and networking across domains and disciplines from a diversity of starting points. As in rhizomatic learning. And as Dave Cormier exemplifies in his article “Rhizomatic Education: Community as Curriculum” (2008). And eventually, the student turns into a learner who discovers that there are different kinds of problems and knowledge in education, and that they call for different types of networks to make collaboration emerge in a productive fashion. This must also be practiced and taught as part of digital literacies and networked literacies in the domain or discipline along with foundational knowledge, meta knowledge and humanistic knowledge due to the model of 21st learning presented in the last blog post.

And so, once again I have met the challenge of Martin Weller and have tried to look into to what extend rhizomatic learning can be regarded as a pedagogy of abundance, as Weller suggested in his article “A pedagogy of abundance” (2011):

“Exploring pedagogies of abundance will be essential for educators to meet the challenge and equip their learners with the skills they need in an age of digital abundance.” (Weller 2011:233)

But what then, when Martin Weller also mentions these two characteristics of the fundamental change in education, he is mapping in his educational model of abundance:

  • A change to a more participatory, socially constructed view of knowledge is needed to suit a demand-pull model of education.
  • New technologies are the basis in realizing this new conception of knowledge as networked and socially constructed. (Weller 2011:228)

Well, then there are still issues to return to and to explore while asking: where do different types of network fit in in a pedagogy of abundance, and – apart from what has already been said  – how does rhizomatic learning realize this new conception of knowledge as networked and socially constructed? And is rhizomatic learning really a version of networked learning, as I have been claiming until now?

This blogpost has been edited on 14. June 2016 in order to make the distinction between ‘community’ and ‘community of practice’ clearer in three passages and in order to make my exploratory approach more visible in another two passages.

Further reading:

Dave Cormier (2015): The rhizomatic lense – seeing learning from the perspective of abundance. IATED talks

Cormier, Dave (2008): Rhizomatic Education: Community as Curriculum, Dave’s Educational Blog

De Laat, Maarten (2012): Enabling professional development networks: How connected are you?, Open Universiteit, The Netherlands

Granovetter, Mark (1983): The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited, Sociological Theory, volume 1, pp. 201-233

Granovetter, Mark (1973): The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, pp. 1360-1380

Hodgson, Vivien, De Laat, Maarten, McConnell, David, and Ryberg, Thomas (2014): Researching Design, Experience and Practice of Networked Learning: An Overview. In V. Hodgson et al. (eds.), The Design, Experience and Practice of Networked Learning, pp. 1-26, Springer New York

Hodgson, Vivien, McConnell, David, and Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Lone (2012): The Theory, Practice and Pedagogy of Networked Learning. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld et al. (eds.), Exploring the Theory, Pedagogy and Practice of Networked Learning, pp. 291-305, Springer New York

McConnell, David, Hodgson, Vivien, and Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Lone (2012): Networked Learning: A Brief History and New Trends. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld et al. (eds.), Exploring the Theory, Pedagogy and Practice of Networked Learning, pp. 3-24, Springer New York

Networks are Everything – Maarten de Laat – Interview with Steve Wheeler #EDEN15, EDEN Conference 2015

Rajagopal, Kamakshi, Brinke, Desirée Joosten-ten, Van Bruggen, Jan, and Sloep, Peter B. (2012): Understanding personal learning networks: Their structure, content and networking skills needed to optimally use them, First Monday, Volume 17, Number 1-2 January 2012

Ryberg, Thomas, Buus, Lillian, and Georgsen, Marianne (2012): Differences in Understandings of Networked Learning Theory: Connectivity or Collaboration? In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld et al. (eds.), Exploring the Theory, Pedagogy and Practice of Networked Learning, pp. 43-58, Springer New York

Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., Mor, Y., Gaved, M. and Whitelock, D. (2012): Innovating Pedagogy 2012: Open University Innovation Report 1, The Open University

Weller, Martin (2011): A pedagogy of abundance, revista española de pedagogia año LXIX, no 249, mayo-agosto, 223-236

Wenger, Etienne (2010): Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept. In Social learning systems and communities of practice, pp. 179-198, Springer London

Wenger, Etienne (1998): Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University Press

Photo by Kris A on Flickr – CC-BY-NC-ND  Some rights reserved

Networks are Everything – Maarten de Laat Interview by Steve Wheeler #EDEN15 on YouTube – CC-BY-NC-SA

Elna Mortensen

 

In an era of knowledge abundance – Part 4

In an era of knowledge abundance – Part 1

2061381703_a57d8d4cb4_qWe live in an era of knowledge abundance – but what does that mean and what are the impli-cations for learning and education? In his article “A pedagogy of abundance”, Martin Weller stresses that “We are witnessing a fundamental change in the production of knowledge and our relationship to content. This is producing an abundance of content which is unprecedented.” (Weller 2011:232). Weller strives for mapping and conceptualizing the effect the abundance of lear-ning content and resources has on how we approach learning and education, while he presents the assumptions that any pedagogy of abundance must take into account. This perspective of abundance extends the presen-tation of the Visitors and Residents framework and  the discussions about credibility and what counts for valid knowledge in an age of digital abundance, I wrote about in my most recent blogposts.

As a background for his examinations of how education may shift as a result of abundance, Martin Weller anticipates and describes a shift in education from ‘a pedagogy of scarcity’ to ‘a pedagogy of abundance’.

A traditional model of education is based on that:

  • Expertise is scarce.
  • Learners come to the place where the experts are located.
  • The lecture is the place for students’ physical interaction with the expert.
  • Content – books and journals – are manufactured according to demand.
  • Access to content is scarce and only accessible through libraries. (Weller 2011:226)

and hence a pedagogy of scarcity has developed promoting:

  • A one to many model to make the best use of the scarce resource – that is the expert.
  • The lecture.
  • An instructivist pedagogy as a direct consequence of the demands for scarcity. (Weller 2011:226)

Now facing a necessity for education to be relevant to the digital society, another model of education emerges  where:

  • Expertise is still rare, but access to content associated with it is now much easier – e.g. resources, critical analysis, dialogue, discussion and reflection are abundant.
  • The traditional model of supply-push needs to be replaced with one of demand-pull due to the growing demand for education and lifelong learning.
  • A shift to active participation will characterize students’ interaction with content and expertise.
  • A change to a more participatory, socially constructed view of knowledge is needed to suit a demand-pull model of education.
  • New technologies are the basis in realizing this new conception of knowledge as networked and socially constructed. (Weller 2011:226-228)

This view on new technologies as the cause of a shift from an era of knowledge scarcity to an era of knowledge abundance is elaborated on by Bonnie Stewart:

“Prior to the digital era, scholarly knowledge was traditionally organized around the premise that knowledge is scarce and its artifacts materially vulnerable. Eye’s (1974) seminal article on knowledge abundance asserts, “[M]aterial can be transformed from one state to another but the original state is diminished…materials are exhaustible “ (p. 445). Manuscripts and books as knowledge artifacts are exhaustible, and costly to produce and distribute. Digital content, however, is persistent, replicable, scalable and searchable (boyd, 2011, p. 46); digital knowledge artifacts can be distributed with negligible cost to the originator or user, and without being consumed or diminished in the process. Thus widespread and increasingly mobile access to digital knowledge artifacts in “an abundant and continually changing world of information” (Jenkins, 2006, Netwotking section para. 1)) marks a shift from an era of knowledge scarcity to an era of knowledge abundance, even though access remains inequitably distributed.“ (Stewart 2015)

The shift to an era of knowledge abundance leaves Weller with one key question:

This scale and range of learning related content at least raises the question of whether we have developed the appropriate teaching and learning approaches to make best use of it. In short, what would a pedagogy of abundance look like? (Weller 2011:227).

Assumptions for a pedagogy of abundance

In order to pin down the assumptions for any pedagogy of abundance, Martin Weller provides a list to reflect on when looking for a pedagogy of abundance:

  • Content is free – not all content is free and not yet.
  • Content is abundant.
  • Content is varied – content is no longer predominantly text based.
  • Sharing is easy – through the use of tools like social bookmarking, tagging and linking the ‘cost’ of sharing has largely disappeared.
  • Social based.
  • Connections are ‘light’ – as with sharing, it is easy to make and preserve connections within a network since they do not necessitate one to one maintenance.
  • Organisation is cheap – Clay Shirky (2008, 31) argues that the ‘cost’ of organising people has collapsed, which makes informal groupings more likely to occur and often more successful.
  • Based on a generative system – Zittrain (2008) argues that unpredictability and freedom are essential characteristics of the internet and the reasons why it has generated so many innovative developments.
  • User generated content – related to the above, the ease of content generation will see not only a greater variety of formats for content, but courses being updated and constructed from learner’s own content. (Weller 2011:228-229).

This list might seem obvious to many, but I think it is important to keep it in mind to be able to figure out what abundance in all its complexity means to teaching and learning. Weller points to that we may not be needing new pedagogies to meet the assumptions on his list, although we can’t just continue designing and practicing teaching and learning the traditional scarcity way in an era of knowledge abundance, and to stress this apparent contradiction he quotes  Grainné Conole (2008):

Arguably, then there has never been a better alignment of current thinking in terms of good pedagogy – i.e. emphasizing the social and situated nature of learning, rather than a focus on knowledge recall with current practices in the use of technologies – i.e. user-generated content, user-added value and aggregated network effects. Despite this, the impact of Web 2.0 on education has been less dramatic than its impact on other spheres of society – use for social purposes, supporting niche communities, collective political action, amateur journalism and social commentary. (Weller 2011:227-228)

Weller concludes while pursuing this line of thinking:

Many of our approaches to teaching and learning were developed in a different age, and this basic shift from moderate scarcity to excessive abundance constitutes a challenge to higher education, and to individual information processing abilities. It may well be that our existing theories are sufficient, they just need recasting and reimagining for a world of abundance. (Weller 2011:232)

iIn his article Martin Weller examines some of the pedagogies that emphasize the benefit of social and situated learning and also meet at least some of the assumptions on his list. Problem based learning, Constructivism, Communities of practice and Connectivism end up being the ones that are positively evaluated as pedagogies suited for recasting and reimagining for a world of knowledge abundance. All  of these pedagogies and learning theories are convertible into supporting participatory culture as well as collaborative and situative learning as key ingredients in any pedagogy of abundance, although connectivism has been criticized for not being a theory of learning but rather a theory about education. These theories can be recasted and reimagined towards building learning on connections, on networks, in communities and in communities of practice in order to align with a more participatory and socially constructed view of knowledge. Anyhow, the quest for a pedagogy of abundance resembles the move from Learning 2.0 to Learning 3.0 as Steve Wheeler has described it:

Learning Modes Grid

Steve Wheeler: Next generation learning

And indeed, the shift from moderate scarcity to excessive abundance is a challenge, not only to Higher Education but to the educational system altogether. Martin Weller comments the challenge this way:

The issue for educators is twofold I would suggest: firstly how can they best take advantage of abundance in their own teaching practice, and secondly how do they best equip learners to make use of it? It is the second challenge that is perhaps the most significant. Exploring pedagogies of abundance will be essential for educators to meet the challenge and equip their learners with the skills they need in an age of digital abundance. (Weller 2011:232-233)

This final challenge leaves all the hard work to the educators, so I think it is only fair to give further attention to the double question put to educators by Weller and recast the two questions within the mode of Learning 3.0 dominated by learner-centered learning, networks and communities, and rhizomatic structures.

Rhizomatic learning

Rhizomatic learning is Dave Cormier’s metaphor for ‘chaotic learning’ (Wheeler 2015:42-43), that is learning that takes you across borders when hyperlinks take you to places, content and things you didn’t expect to learn, or connect you with people you have never heard of before:

Rhizomatic learning invokes the biological metaphor of a rhizome where the stem of a plant sends out roots and shoots, each of which can grow into a new plant. Rhizomes resist organizational structure and have no distinct beginning or end; they grow and propagate in a ‘nomadic’ fashion, the only restrictions to growth being those that exist in the surrounding habitat. Seen as a model for the construction of knowledge, rhizomatic processes hint at the interconnectedness of ideas as well as boundless exploration across many fronts from many different starting points. (Innovative Pedagogy 2012:33)

Cormier describes these rhizomatic processes as a way of going beyond the canon of what has traditionally been considered knowledge and the way knowledge traditionally has been validated and verified in an era of scarcity:

“In the rhizomatic view, knowledge can only be negotiated, and the contextual, collaborative learning experience shared by constructivist and connectivist pedagogies is a social as well as a personal knowledge-creation process with mutable goals and constantly negotiated premises. The rhizome metaphor, which represents a critical leap in coping with the loss of a canon against which to compare, judge, and value knowledge, may be particularly apt as a model for disciplines on the bleeding edge where the canon is fluid and knowledge is a moving target.” (Cormier 2008)

And so, rhizomatic learning is Cormier’s theory of learning in a time of abundance. In the video “Rhizomes and Open Learning”, Dave Cormier introduces rhizomatic learning and how he sees it in relation to education:

With the rhizome as his metaphor for learning in an era of abundance, inspired by Deleuze and Guattari, Dave Cormier draws on pedagogies and approaches to learning like connectivism,  paragogy based on peer-to-peer learning and knowledge exchange, and distributed cognition including communities.

Self-directed learning is a keyword in this landscape of pedagogies meant to accommodate and deal with knowledge abundance. How to find, handle, interpret, validate, negotiate, create, improve, apply and share information and knowledge through connecting, communicating  and collaborating with online resources, experts, peers, networks, communities and communities of practice is essential in the processes of knowledge creation. They are also an inherent part of current practices in the use of technologies and emphasize the social and situated nature of learning in a culture of knowledge abundance.

In connectivism learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources (Weller 2011:231), and Dave Cormier takes the idea of connectivism a step further when he introduces rhizomatic learning as a learning theory underlining a non-linear, experimenting, multiperspectivist and participatory approach to learning. In rhizomatic learning serendipity, that is accidental discovery, is an important dimension of networking, and bricolage becomes an aspect of knowledge creation within the context of a community that helps finding, interpreting, validating, negotiating and sharing informations and knowledge while co-creating new, accurate and up-to-date knowledge. As Dave Cormier says it in the video:  “to know what it is to know inside this space” is what you need  to learn, whether it is a subject matter, a problem based task, a case or a theme that is your common purpose and the reason why you got together in the community. This way ‘the community becomes the curriculum’:

In the rhizomatic model of learning, curriculum is not driven by predefined inputs from experts; it is constructed and negotiated in real time by the contributions of those engaged in the learning process. This community acts as the curriculum, spontaneously shaping, constructing, and reconstructing itself and the n subject of its learning in the same way that the rhizome responds to changing environmental conditions… (Cormier 2008)

And so, rhizomatic learning is a variation of open networked learning and a model for the construction of knowledge suited for an era of ever changing knowledge.

I think rhizomatic learning is one way to go, when it comes to finding a pedagogy of abundance that corresponds with the affordances of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 while predicting and shaping Learning 3.0. But I don’t think rhizomatic learning is an as seamless process to engage in for many people as it might seem. In Bonnie Stewart’s opinion it requires networked or digital literacies to navigate in an open networked  learning environment, and she has nicely put this into words in “Learning in the Open: Networked Student Identities”, a blogpost written some years ago:

“But I believe learning – whether in online social networks or straight from the canon, bound in leather – involves being able to read and make sense of the codes and signals being given off by those you interact with, particularly those you expect to learn from. These are what I refer to when I talk about “legitimacy structures” within academia and networks…” (Stewart 2013a)

Screen-shot-2013-02-10-at-4.15.47-PM

Bonnie Stewart: Learning in the Open: Networked Student Identities

These two sets of legitimacy structures and practices are reflected in Cormier’s traditional and rhizomatic models for knowledge validation – and they are both essential to understanding the pedagogies and the two models of education, the traditional scarcity model and the model of abundance and open practices, that are up for discussion in this blogpost.

As Bonnie Stewart says, her legitimacy structures and practices are in a sense literacies, and to me the challenging part for education is to make students  and learners embrace these digital and networked literacies that belong to networked learning while learning how to engage online in a Residents mode as mapped by Alison Le Cornu and David White and presented in my most recent blogposts . Bonnie Stewart talks about these digital and networked literacies as new literacies of participation in relation to learning in MOOCs in her article “Massiveness + Openness = New Literacies of Participation?”. As I see it, this also applies to rhizomatic learning:

“The studies in new literacies (Barton, 1994) established the use of the plural “literacies” rather than the singular “literacy” in order to push beyond the binary of “literate” and “illiterate” that still shapes our cultural threshold-based conceptions surrounding literacy (Belshaw, 2012). Lankshear and Knobel (2007) frame new literacies as follows:

The more a literacy practice privileges participation over publishing, distributed expertise over centralized expertise, collective intelligence over individual possessive intelligence, collaboration over individuated authorship, dispersion over scarcity, sharing over ownership, experimentation over “normalization,” innovation and evolution over stability and fixity, creative-innovative rule breaking over generic purity and policing, relationship over information broadcast, and so on, the more we should regard it as a “new” literacy. (p. 21)

… Belshaw (2012) notes that skills are subject to objective thresholds, whereas “literacy is a condition, not a threshold … you cannot become literate merely through skill acquisition – there are meta-level processes also required”…

To be digitally literate is to be able to engage the connections and communications possibilities of digital technologies, in their capacity to generate, remix, repurpose, and share new knowledge as well as simply deliver existing information. Many people have no experience or conception of these types of possibilities: simply being online does not necessarily build social and communicative familiarity with what Lankshear and Knobel (2007) refer to as the “distinctive ethos” of participatory culture (Jenkins, 2006). But interacting within an environment that exposes and encourages meta-level processing as well as knowledge generation, remixing, repurposing, and sharing can help create that condition of literacy.” (Stewart 2013b)

These digital and networked literacies correspond with Le Cornu and Whites definition of the Resident mode and with my own views on digital and learning literacies, and they can be results of rhizomatic learning as a pedagogy of abundance, too, but they are also learning literacies and dimensions of social and situated learning that needs to be deliberately and consciously developed to keep rhizomatic learning a relevant  pedagogy of abundance. I think this focus on digital and networked literacies could be an answer to Martin Wellers second question to educators: how do you best equip learners to make use of abundance?

Rhizomatic learning is a suggestion for a pedagogy of abundance that has been born of open networked learning and Higher Education, but this leaves an extra question for educators, as I see it: Is it possible to introduce rhizomatic learning and the principles behind it as a pedagogical perspective on knowledge abundance across the entire educational system from primary school to Higher Education?

This blogpost has been edited on 5. June 2016 in order to make the distinction between ‘community’ and ‘community of practice’ clearer in three passages.

Further reading:

Conole, Grainné (2008): New Schemas for Mapping Pedagogies and Technologies, Ariadne, 56

Cormier, Dave (2008): Rhizomatic Education: Community as Curriculum

Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., Mor, Y., Gaved, M. and Whitelock, D. (2012): Innovating Pedagogy 2012: Open University Innovation Report 1, The Open University

Stewart, Bonnie E (2015): In Abundance: Networked Participatory Practices as Scholarship, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, Vol 16, No 3

Stewart, Bonnie (2013a): Learning in the Open: Networked Student Identities

Stewart, Bonnie (2013b): Massiveness + Openness = New Literacies of Participation?, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Vol. 9, No.2

Weller, Martin (2011): A pedagogy of abundance, revista española de pedagogia año LXIX, no 249, mayo-agosto, 223-236

Wheeler, Steve (2015): Learning with ‘e’s. Educational theory and practice in the digital age, Carmarthen

Photo:  AttributionNoncommercialNo Derivative Works Some rights reserved by . .Jef Safi.  on Flickr

Elna Mortensen

In an era of knowledge abundance – Part 1

Visitors and Residents approaches – crossing boundaries, bridging the gap

3209856136_111f60b925_mMapping Visitors and Residents approaches to the web as different ways of engaging online today was up for consideration in my last blogpost. I’m quite intrigued by the at once simplicity and complexity of the Visitors and Residents framework as it puts forward a possibility to explore and explain not only what we are doing on the web but also how and why and with whom we are engaging. At the same time this mapping gives possibilities for teaching digital and learning literacies that nurture and provide students with Residents approaches towards studies and learning in higher education. This ambition links the Visitors and Residents framework to the shift in learning modes from Learning 2.0 to Learning 3.0: these are digital and learning literacies that come from immersion into a present context and into a present culture.

The development of the Visitors and Residents framework is connected with the work of David White and Alison Le Cornu, but to be more precise the background for the extended framework, I mentioned in my last blogpost, is a research project, The Visitors and Residents project, presented in the Jisc Guide “Evaluating digital services: a visitors and residents approach” (2014) by David White, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Donna Lanclos, Erin M. Hood and Carrie Vass.

The Visitors and Residents project investigated:

  • if individual approaches shift according to learners’ educational stage starting with students in their last year of high school/secondary school and first year undergraduate college/university students and following three later educational stages through to an experienced academic stage
  • what motivates different types of engagement with the digital environment for learning
  • which sources learners turn to when they search for information and which sources learners choose to interact with online and offline as part of their learning process
  • the learners’ modes of engagement in both personal and institutional contexts
  • potential cultural differences between two countries, as learners from both the UK and the US participated in the project.
  • (Project background In: White et al (2014))

Open practices

From an educational point of view the project has assessed to what degree students and scholars are prepared for the open, networked and participatory practices the Resident web build on:  the practices of web 2.0 and social media and the possibilities of Learning 3.0. The research results show that in early educational stages students are not terribly well-prepared for participating in Residents modes in professional and institutional contexts. The concerns and the possibilities in relation to open practices in higher education are introduced by David White in this video drawing on the results from The Visitors and Residents project:

So to foster experiences with open practices, educators can choose to engage students online in communities of practice, while facilitating Resident modes of interaction within these online spaces/places. The benefits of this are according to The Visitors and Residents project that:

In this way both the teaching and the learning process become Resident in nature and students are challenged to develop their thinking and express their thoughts as part of an open discourse… (Stakeholder snapshots – resident mode In: White et al (2014))

It is also relevant to any discipline at the point where individuals feel it is important for their point of view to become part of the discourse around a given subject. In this way Resident practices can be an important part of students developing their ‘voice’ within their chosen field. (Stakeholder snapshots – resident mode In: White et al (2014))

Credibility

As David White stresses, the Resident web is a space/place where we can be co-present, but it involves identity, reputation and credibility. So it also challenges what counts for valid knowledge when education engages students and educators in the Resident web and open practices. This issue of credibility is at stake in the results from the research project, too: it is not just a question of discourse but also a question of what knowledge is and how it can be acquired. In a manner of speaking students’ everyday practices, based on ‘we search and connect’, meet and clash with the traditional scholarly practices of how knowledge is acquired, tested, validated and shared in our culture. David White comments and reflects on these matters in the following video:

The informal learning of students’ everyday open practices on social media and the web seems to be difficult to transfer to the contexts of the mainly closed world of formal learning in higher education, as David White sums it up in the video. So the discussion on how to integrate students’ informal learning into formal learning in meaningful ways has moved from being an important issue at primary and secondary educational levels to be a relevant issue for higher education, too. Here the Visitors and Residents framework comes in as a way of mapping and reflecting on students’ informal and formal learning spaces/places and practices and as a starting point for meeting the open, networked and participatory practices of the Resident web in an institutional context. And so, a concluding comment from David White on the research project could be this:

Taking a more Resident approach to education is more than just a question of technology. It confronts under-lying conceptions of what it means to learn and what it means to know. (Visitors and Residents Part 2: Credibility (2014))

A double agenda

The research project on Visitors and Residents approaches has a double agenda, although the development of students’ digital and learning literacies appears to be the heart of the matter. Because the challenges and possibilities of a more Resident approach to education also meet the educators. So, while aiming at turning students into contributors, collaborators and co-creators within connected learning communities of practice, educational institutions should also encourage and embrace the increasing value of online currency that goes along with educators’ presence online. Educators’ open, networked, and participatory practices are a precondition for teaching and designing learning activities that foster digital and learning literacies by using open practices. Donna Lanclos and David White elaborate on this aspect of The Visitors and Residents project in their article “The Resident Web and Its Impact on the Academy” (2015). Here they challenge the understanding of what scholarship is:

In the industrialized, commodified model of intellectual labor that has come to dominate late 20th and early 21st century academia, the focus has historically been on producing units (articles, books, grants awarded, etc.) to be consumed rather than on forming the relationships and networks from which work can emerge. This now needs to be reconsidered as the Web influences the academy to re-position itself within a larger knowledge landscape in a more connected manner. The academy can no longer simply serve its own communities in the context of the networked Web, and it is under increasing cultural pressure to reach out and appear relevant. The web breaks us out of a product-centered publishing cycle and allows us to become part of an ongoing flow, in which knowledge is perpetually negotiated within networks. (Lanclos and White (2015))

Lanclos and White reflect on and work up their understanding of the Resident web in accordance with the concept of ‘Networked Participatory Scholarship’ defined by George Veletsianos and Royce Kimmons:

Networked Participatory Scholarship is the emergent practice of scholars’ use of participatory technologies and online social networks to share, reflect upon, critique, im-prove, validate and further their scholarship.(Veletsianos and Kimmons (2012:768))

And as students might resist the open practices of the Resident web in an institutional context, educators in higher education might resist institutional expectations of true openness and networked participatory scholarship, as I have touched on in a previous blogpost. So in many ways the double agenda in The Visitors and Residents project leaves students and educators alike to cross the borders and align with networked participatory scholarly practices and epistemological issues.

Crossing boundaries, bridging the gab

In my last blogpost I came up with a small list on what students need to know about open practices and how to participate on the Resident web. Some of my suggestions overlap the initiatives the research project recommends explicitly and implicitly. So to give a further idea of how to understand and anticipate the digital gap and the clash between informal learning and formal learning, students experience in higher education according to the research project, I would like to turn to Catherine Cronin. She addresses the challenges of being open in higher education in her keynote speech “Navigating the Marvellous: Openness in education” (2014) in the video below.  For a very short moment during the speech, the sound is not the best, but I think it is worthwhile to listen through the minute it takes, if you are interested in the process of opening up education.

Further reading:

Lanclos, Donna and David White (2015): The Resident Web and Its Impact on the Academy, Hybrid Pedagogy, October 8

Veletsianos, George and Royce Kimmons (2012): Networked Participatory Scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks In: Computers & Education 58 p. 766-774

White, David, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Donna Lanclos, Erin M. Hood and Carrie Vass: (2014): Evaluating digital services: a visitors and residents approach, Jisc

Photo: AttributionNoncommercial Some rights reserved by tanakawho on Flickr

Elna Mortensen

 

 

 

Visitors and Residents approaches – crossing boundaries, bridging the gap

A digital gap

15199950717_95822308c4_n’Digital natives’ and ’digital immigrants’ often turn up as part of an argument about digital media, digital literacies and the use of the internet and the web in education, in everyday life, or in peoples professional lives. A few days ago I experienced it again. The two concepts have become the truth, and in many cases people don’t realize that Marc Prensky’s distinction between ‘digital natives’ (those born in the era of digital and social media) and ‘digital immigrants’ (those born before the internet and the web became part of everyday live) is a myth. And a much-criticised myth. So although Marc Prensky was right about the existence of a digital gap, a gap between people who are at ease within digital environments  and people who are not, the digital gap is not about age, as Prensky claimed, but has to do with attitude and motivation. This is the main critique against Prensky as it goes according to David White and Alison Le Cornu.

In the article “Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement” (2011) White and Le Cornu introduce the concepts “visitors” and “residents” to describe people’s engagement online and to analyse  the different ways people use tools and social media:

We propose that Visitors understand the Web as akin to an untidy garden tool shed. They have defined a goal or task and go into the shed to select an appropriate tool which they use to attain their goal. Task over, the tool is returned to shed. It may not have been perfect for the task, but they are happy to do so long as some progress is made…Ultimately to Visitors the Web is simply one of many tools they can use to achieve certain goals; it is categorized alongside the telephone, books, pen and paper and off-line software. It is not a ‘place’ to think or to develop ideas and to put it crudely, and at its most extreme, Visitors do their thinking off-line. So, Visitors are users, not members, of the Web and place little value in belonging online. (White and Le Cornu 2011:5-6).

Residents, on the other hand, see the Web as a place, perhaps like a park or a building in which there are clusters of friends and colleagues whom they can approach and with whom they can share information about their life and work. A proportion of their lives is actually lived out online where the distinction between online and off-line is increasingly blurred. Residents are happy to go online simply to spend time with others and they are likely to consider that they ‘belong’ to a commu-nity which is located in the virtual…

Residents see the Web primarily as a network of indivi-duals or clusters of individuals who in turn generate content. Value online is assessed in terms of relationships as well as knowledge. (White and Le Cornu 2011:6).

The two concepts ‘visitors’ and ‘residents’ are not to be seen as a dichotomy but as a continuum where people slide to and fro:

Our Visitors and Residents typology should be under-stood as a continuum and not a binary opposition. Individuals may be able to place themselves at a particular point along this continuum rather than in one of two boxes. Nor is a predominantly Visitor approach necessarily any less effective or of less value than a predominantly Resident approach since the value of either has to be set against a given context and set of goals. Similarly, we don’t consider the Visitor to be necessarily any less technically adept than the Resident. (White and Le Cornu 2011:6).

As Wenger (1998) has highlighted, we are all members of multiple communities and have to negotiate our roles and identities as we navigate the ‘nexus’ of communities we belong to. In a similar manner an individual’s approach to the Web is likely to change dependent on context. For example, an individual might take a Resident approach in their private life but a Visitor approach in their role as a professional.  Similarly it is not unusual for someone in a leadership role in a special interest group to manage that responsibility in a Resident style online while in a personal or professional context they choose to act as a Visitor. (White and Le Cornu 2011:7).

An extended framework

David White has been engaged in developing this first model for analyzing online engagement into a framework that sees the visitor and resident modes in relation to private and institutional contexts as well. We have to take into account, too, that context decides our mode of engagement online. In this video David White presents this extended framework and the critique of Marc Prensky’s concepts that set off the work on developing a new typology in the first place:

The question is now, what education can do about the digital gap, that started the hullabaloo? An answer could be, that since the digital gap isn’t running between generations but is an established fact across generations, the visitors – residents framework can be a basis for designing activities and teaching digital and learning literacies, so that students get the chance to develop residential modes relevant to their subjects, their disciplines and the contexts they engage in as students. So to me, students at least need to know how to:

  • be present in places/spaces online where goals and activities lead to dialogue, collaboration, cooperation, and sharing.
  • develop digital literacies relevant to their subjects, disciplines and studies through using tools and developing modes of engagement and participation while evolving civic education/civics.
  • build communities as places/spaces through connecting with individuals, groups and resources while developing participatory culture and sharing.
  • go on developing skills, competences and digital literacies to be able to take up both visitors’ and residents’ modes in the future – and in my last two blogposts I have suggested that Mozilla’s web literacies could be a place to start.

This blogpost has been edited on 25. November 2015 where two extra titles – often referenced to on this blog – were added to the reading list below.

Further reading:

Jenkins, Henry et al. (2009): Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century, MacArthur, The MIT Press

Wenger, E. (2010): Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept. In Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 179-198), Springer London

White, D. & Le Cornu, A. (2011): Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday, 16(9).

Photo: AttributionNoncommercialNo Derivative Works Some rights reserved by Alex Harbich on Flickr

Elna Mortensen

A digital gap

Digital literacies, spreadable media and gifting

3703145222_428db0fdbc_mCultural and social understanding are important aspects of digital literacies, and while touching on digital literacies once again in my last blog post on web literacies and The Mozilla Web Literacy Map, I also came up with a model of forms of knowledge to recognize that literacy is a culturally defined social act, as defined by McVerry, Belshaw & O’Byrne (2015:633). The model is containing four forms of knowledge and knowledge building that are involved in developing digital literacies:

Culture

Digital literacies

– including critical thinking and reflexivity, imagination, creativity, innovation, social and cultural understanding –

Competences

Skills

Some of the inspiration to this model came from Steve Wheeler, who has made a model for digital literacies in the context of communities of practice, but I have adapted and enhanced his model and added ‘culture’ as the fourth knowledge form. I did that to stress the socio-cultural and anthropological perspective that is inherent in this understanding of digital literacies as knowledge building and knowledge forms that reflect context and culture as substantial aspects of defining digital literacies in your specific case. Thus, the model is not to be seen as just another taxonomy, but as an assemblage that contains of interdependent knowledge forms qualifying each other, overlapping each other and interacting with each other through combinations in order to develop digital literacies in a specific context and culture.

So which ever framework on digital literacies you start off with to work out your own definition of digital literacies – as suggested in my last blog post with the inspiration from Doug Belshaw – my model takes into account that cultural analysis and your concept of culture is relevant to catch the practices, the social and cultural understanding, and the context you need to apply to your definition of digital literacies. Institutional, local, national, regional or global contexts and cultures might influence the way you frame digital literacies.

Culture or cultures?

It might be worthwhile to consider if the concept at the top of my model of knowledge forms and knowledge building should be culture in singular or cultures in plural as a consequence of my broad understanding of culture. The context chosen for framing a specific understanding of digital literacies would be in singular, but the cultures and communities of practice that are meaningful to digital everyday practices and experiences would be in plural and make up a complex weaving of people’s sense of place, history, identity, community and relationship to learning as the backdrop to developing digital literacies. And it most certainly would be the case if we narrow down digitial literacies to concern web literacies. Then it is most likely that participatory culture would turn up as a practice and a space for reflexive articulation and sharing that links the social and cultural understandings of the context not only to web cultures but also to the broader concept of culture behind them.

Participatory culture is associated with a networked culture where dialogue, interactivity, collaboration, sharing and circulation are at the core of web practices and web literacies. And often participatory culture is equated with the architecture of participation and web 2.0, (I have also done that), although that is misleading according to Henry Jenkins, Sam Ford and Joshua Green in their book “Spreadable Media. Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture” (2013). Here they state that:

Some people have confused participatory culture with Web 2.0, but Web 2.0 is a business model through which commercial platforms seek to court and capture the participatory energies of desired markets and harness them toward their own ends. While Web 2.0 platforms may offer new technical affordances that further the goals of participatory culture, friction almost always exists between the desires of producers and audiences, a gap which has resulted in ongoing struggles around the term of participation. (Jenkins, Ford & Green 2013:297).

Spreadable media and gifting

I have touched on Henry Jenkins’ work on participatory culture before on this blog, but in “Spreadable Media” the project is not just to understand new media, participatory culture and convergence culture. Instead Jenkins and his co-authors Ford and Green want to qualify the media and entertainment industries for “a moment of transition” where:

…audiences and producers make competing bids for the new moral economy that will displace the broadcast paradigm which has dominated cultural production and distribution throughout the twentieth century. (Spreadable Media 2013:295).

So the book is to be anticipated as:

…appeals to construct a system which pays more attention to the public interest – defined not through elite institutions but by public itself, through its acts of appraisal, curation, and circulation. (Spreadable Media 2013:295).

And so, sharing in accordance with the spirit and values of participatory culture will be spreading and “…transforming commodities into gifts, turning texts into resources, and asserting  [people’s] own expanding communication capacities.” (Spreadable Media 2013:292). This way a ‘spreadable media’ environment could hold the potential for social and cultural change in a wider perspective. And then, I would add, the audiences and visitors of Web 2.0 would become active users and participants that are not only shaped by culture but are also co-creating and shaping culture and forming possible futures.

As a joint project between scholars and industries, “Spreadable Media” is a cultural analysis of the current influence of global cultural flows on new media and entertain- ment, and  spreadability includes:

  • The flow of ideas
  • Dispersed materials
  • Diversified experiences
  • Open-ended participation
  • Motivating and facilitating sharing
  • Temporary and localized communication
  • Grassroot intermediaries who advocate and evangelize
  • Collaborating among roles – which causes blurring relations between producers, marketers and audiences.

This way spreadability and practices of participatory culture become relevant to web literacies as part of understanding and critically reflecting on what is going on on the web and likewise relevant as the basis for visions of a more informed and engaged society:

The spreading of media texts help us articulate who we are, bolster our personal and professional relationships, strengthen our relationships with one another, and build community and awareness around the subjects we care about. And the sharing of media across cultural boundaries increases the opportunity to listen to other perspectives and to develop empathy for perspectives outside our own. We believe that building a more informed and more engaged society will require an environment in which  governments, companies, educational institutions, journalists, artists, and activists all work to support rather than restrict this environment of spreadability and the ability of everyone to have access – not just technically but also culturally – to participate in it. (Spreadable Media 2013:307-308).

As a consequence of this plea for accessibility for everybody in the future, the joint project in “Spreadable Media” is put forward as a reconceptualisation of ‘participation’ and ‘participatory culture’ through a cultural analysis of what participatory culture has been in the past and is in the present. And through a dialogue with governments, companies, educational institutions, journalists, artists and activists the book also sketches out what ‘participation’ and ‘participatory culture’ could be in the future. Participatory culture meets cultural analysis and civics, and it is interesting to notice that the plea for gifting, appraisal, curation and circulation as cultural practices goes well with the open movement and build on top of open licencing like Creative Commons (CC).

This dialogue about how to create an environment of spreadability continues in the essays by scholars and industries which are accessible in what Jenkins, Ford and Green call ‘the enhanced book’. But the strong advocacy for a more informed and more engaged society  based on a new moral economy and gifting is also on the agenda for philosopher Tim Rayner who recently made a contribution on his blog: “Sharing, Gifting and the Moral Evolution of the Social Web”. From a web perspective he argues that a new way of understanding sharing  is needed and highlights that:

These days, when we think about life online, it’s all about ‘sharing’. This has created the perception that sharing is all the social web is good for. I think this is a grand mistake. The concept of sharing blinds us to the moral potential of the social web, gifting.

Sharing is cool, but it’s not the potential of the web. The potential of the web as a connective tissue for human beings is gifting — that is, sharing for impact.

What we need is cultural innovation. We need a philosophical evolution in the way that we think about sharing online in order to focus ourselves on creating valuable content and flourishing environments.

One thing is clear: we cannot capture this activity using the language of sharing. We need the discourse of gifting and gift economics to appreciate the moral potential of the social web and create online communities based in trust, reputation, collaboration, and creativity.

Further reading:

Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford and Joshua Green (2013): Spreadable Media. Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture, New York University Press

Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford and Joshua Green: Spreadable Media. Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture – the enhanced book, http://spreadablemedia.org/

McVerry, J. Gregory, Doug Belshaw and W. Ian O’Byrne (2015): Guiding Students as They Explore, Build, and Connect Online, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 58(8) May 2015

Photo: Attribution Some rights reserved by stevendepolo on Flickr

Elna Mortensen

Digital literacies, spreadable media and gifting