acta de constitución (Project charter)

As discussed above, the process of learning literacy has gone through different changes; one recent change is that many learners now frequently use digital technology and have become what is known as ‘tech-savvy’ (Ahmed, 2012, p.1554). What it means to be literate in the 21st Century is expanding rapidly and as the National Council of Teachers of English (2008) point out, literacy includes the ability to use technology, analyse, design and share information for different purposes. Such rapid changes are enabling people to live in what Chai and Lim (2011) describe as an ‘interconnected world’ (p.3) and this is bringing about the birth of new terms to the field of literacy.

Thomas (2011) for example makes use of a number of terms which have been formed from the technological revolution. A case in point is his reference to the ‘digital native’ – and related formulations such as the ‘digital generation’ and the ‘net generation’’ (p.i). The term ‘digital natives’ refers to Prensky’s (2001) view of those individuals who have grown up in the digital world, who are used to receiving information fast, like to multi-task and prefer graphics (Prensky, 2001). In his book ‘Deconstructing digital natives: Young people, technology and the new literacies’, Thomas (2011) provides a critical engagement with this concept and refers to the ‘digital native’ as any ‘young person who has grown up with digital technologies and the Internet as ever-present parts of their lives’ (p.3). Thomas (2011) further provides a critical analysis of this term and distinguishes between ‘technoevangelists, technoromantics or enlightment thinkers’ and

23

‘technophobes, antimodernists or luddites’ (p.1). Thomas argues that even though the term ‘digital native’ has been used for over a decade this term still ‘causes disdain as well as fervent acceptance’ (p.3).

Whilst describing students as ‘digital natives’ Prensky (2005) believes that today’s students are ‘empowered’ in many ways and their lives are surrounded by digital technological devices, claiming that they are living ‘e-lives’ (Prensky, 2004). Other key words which are associated with today’s students who are considered as ‘digital natives’ are, ‘tech-savvy’ (Ahmed, 2012), ‘screenagers’ (Rushkof, 2006), ‘digikids’ (Marsh, 2005) ‘clickerati’ (Harel-Caperton, 2003) and ‘cyberkids’ (Holloway and Valentine, 2003).

These terms and Prensky’s (2005) notion of the ‘digital native’ suggest generational definitions. Although Prensky (2005) argues that competence with digital technology is generational others contrast this view. Cody, Dunn, Hoppin and Wendt (2009) have shown how their participants, with the average age of eighty years, have been trained and were able to surf the Internet, send e-mails and communicate with others online even though the participants were not born in the digital age. Wallace (2002) has also referred to the idea of economic and social differences in her work whilst Selwyn’s (2004) study has showed how having children as relatives helps ‘silver surfers’ use digital technology. Thomas (2011) has also tackled this view and argued that ‘in adopting an international perspective the limitations of the generational argument are immediately apparent’ (p.4) whilst he further suggests that none of the contributors to his book accept ‘the undifferentiated “generational” viewpoint based on age alone’ (p.5).

With the drastic technological changes, the term ‘literacy’ has also been expanded and adapted and is including various forms such as e-literacy, media literacy, information literacy, lateral literacy, reproduction literacy, visual literacy and digital literacy. According to Merchant (2007) ‘digital literacy’ refers to writing and reading with new technologies, stating that ‘the future of writing is closely interwoven with the future of digital technology’ (p.126). In relation to this Ng (2012) refers to digital literacy as ‘the multiplicity of literacies associated with the use of digital technologies’ (p.1066).

24

‘The National Curriculum Framework’ (2012) for Malta explores the importance of ‘digital literacy’ and describes it as the experience when an individual communicates and presents information through digital technologies. Markham’s views (2004) refer to digital literacy as a very broad term for a set of social practices which are combined with contemporary ‘ways of being’. This idea is linked to Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan’s (2006) definition of digital literacy which for them, represents a person’s ability to effectively carry out tasks in a digital environment. They continue to argue that ‘digital’ refers to ‘information represented in numeric form and primarily for use by a computer’ whilst ‘literacy’ refers to ‘the ability to read and interpret media (text, sound, images), to reproduce data and images through digital manipulation, and to evaluate and apply new knowledge gained from digital environments’ (p.9).

The definitions of the term ‘digital literacy’ which were explored so far all refer to digital literacy as a skill and a concept which is related to the use of technology. However a number of scholars such as Eshet-Alkalai (2004) elaborated even further and suggested that there are five types of literacies that fall under the umbrella term ‘digital literacy’. He classifies these types as: reproduction literacy, photo-visual literacy, information literacy, branching literacy and socio-emotional literacy. Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan (2006) also believe that ‘digital literacy’ cannot be understood in isolation. They argue that ‘digital’ and ‘visual’ literacy are terms which often overlap, interact and are very similar in meaning.

21st _{Century students are exposed to various apps like WhatsApp, Viber, Instagram} and Snapchat which can be considered as a visual form of communication which is created and transmitted using digital technologies. This further suggests that there is a strong relationship between ‘digital literacy’ and ‘visual literacy’ in the 21st Century classroom and this was also confirmed in the results of this study. It was also noted that although the literature seems to correlate a strong bond between ‘digital literacy’ and ‘visual literacy’, speech seems to be given less importance and focus in the literature.

Ng (2015) also focused on the concept of ‘digital literacy’ and used Eshet-Alkalai’s (2004) as well as the New London Group’s (1996) multi-literacies concept to

25

devise a digital literacy model which is shown in Figure 2.3. Through Figure 2.3 Ng (2015) shows that digital literacy is segmented into three main dimensions which can be listed as, the technical, the cognitive and the social-emotional strands.

The ‘technical’ dimension of being digitally literate ‘broadly means possessing the technical and operational skills to use ICT for learning and in everyday activities’ (Ng, 2012, p.1067). Ng (2012) points out that this refers to one’s capability of using technological devices and to be able to operate technologies adequately. The ‘cognitive dimension’ refers to one’s capability of thinking critically and evaluating whilst the ‘social-emotional dimension’ of digital literacy refers to ones’ ability ‘to use the Internet responsibly for communicating, socializing and learning’ (p.1068).

This section has shown that since the world is constantly changing, defining the term ‘digital literacy’ is not straight-forward because ‘nothing could be more obvious than the ways in which writing is changing’ (Merchant, 2007, p.126). Furthermore literature shows that the future of reading and writing is closely linked with the future and progress of digital technology (Merchant, 2007). It can be argued that although a number of scholars have identified a definition of ‘digital literacy’ (Merchant, 2007; Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan, 2006) other scholars

Figure 2.3: Digital literacy framework Source: Ng, personal communication, August 15, 2016

26

believe that the nature of reading and writing of text is meant to be changed and adapted through time as new technologies are introduced. This aligns with my findings which will be discussed later in the thesis.

Although many have attempted to define ‘digital literacy’ it can be further argued that a number of scholars believe that it cannot be understood in isolation and that it forms part of, and is linked to, other types of literacy such as ‘multimodal literacy’. ‘Multimodal literacy’ has been related to ‘digital literacy’ and has been first proposed by Kress and Jewitt (2003). Kress and Jewitt (2003) state that this type of literacy focuses on the contribution of semiotic resources such as gestures and images which are further employed to various modalities such as aural and visual.

‘Multimodal literacy’ refers to the integration of these two strands which in turn form a ‘coherent multimodal text’ (Kress and Jewitt, 2003). Walsh (2010) refers to ‘multimodal literacy’ as the type of literacy that is ‘needed in contemporary times for reading, viewing, responding to and producing multimodal and digital texts’ (p.211). Furthermore Walsh (2010) relates multimodal literacy to digital literacy and further argues that the definitions of language and literacy have changed because digital technologies have changed social communication practices. This was also evident from the study presented in this thesis.

More recently Rowsell (2013) refers to the definition of a ‘mode’ in her work and defines this as ‘a unit of expression and representation’. She further argues that ‘as long as a person and community treats something as able to express and represent meanings, then it meets the criteria of a representational and communicational mode, unit or element’ (p.3). Like Kress and Jewitt (2003), Rowsell (2013) argues that the term ‘mode’ has been extended and also includes ‘non-verbal elements’ (p.4). Rowsell’s (2013) argument however is more elaborated as she argues that although messages rely on one mode or a combination of modes, ‘the particular meaning that is made is always culturally shaped, and materially and socially situated’ (p.4). Anderson (2013) shows agreement with the latter in her work whereas she argues that ‘multimodality has gained prevalence not simply because of these changes in the communication landscape, however,

27

but also because of the social turn of the past thirty years and ensuing theoretical and methodological perspectives on literacy, discourse, and social semiotics’ (p.277).

It can be argued that due to such advancements, change is also being evidenced in today’s classrooms. The studies discussed in this section all seem to agree that these changes are present and are therefore affecting the way reading and writing are being taught and learned in schools. One of the main aims behind this study was to explore what teachers’ and students’ views on the role of technology in reading and writing in the classroom are. In order to have a better understanding of this, the following section will focus on what the literature presents in relation to the learning and teaching of reading and writing in the digital age.