dougbelshaw.com - Latest Comments in ‘Literacy’

Re: ‘Literacy’

shefi — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:50:47 -0000

"When what we watch is constantly redefining itself, shouldn't how we watch it do the same?" From a recent Toshiba ad that uses bullet-time photography. (The ad won't help you define literacy, because the message of the ad is the ad itself, surprise, surprise).

Re: ‘Literacy’

Karyn Romeis — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:04:59 -0000

I mull over this from time to time, too. I posted on it twice in quick succession a couple of years back - see links below. I agree with you on the subject of function and context. I don't consider literacy a fixed concept - a person who is literate in one context may not be in another.

For example, when my step-grandfather first arrived in South Africa just before WW2, he was perfectly literate in his native tongue and could speak an approximation of English well enough to get by.

He was stopped for speeding and the traffic cop asked for his name. Since it was unusual, the cop asked him to spell it. Oupa was stumped - he had no idea what the English names were for the letters of his name. The cop was hugely scathing of "illiterate foreigners" (sound familiar, anyone?)

The changing face of literacy
More on the changing face of literacy

Re: ‘Literacy’

edtech — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:42:31 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Marc.

"...at face value it implies that with the advent of the digital world, literates are now illiterate and vice-versa."

That's what I *am* implying! I don't (yet) know how far I want to push the issue, though, especially as I'm beginning to think that 'digital literacy' is perhaps the wrong way to describe what I'm getting at. Perhaps 'digital competence' or similar?

Regarding the Tuman quotation, I'm taking his point that notions of 'reading' and 'writing' change along with technology. *Therefore* when someone says they 'read' something (past tense) we can't necessarily assume there's paper involved. That's all. :-)

Re: ‘Literacy’

shefi — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:25:26 -0000

You wrote: "For, as Tuman (1992:2) notes, notions of ‘reading and ‘writing’ are unstable as meanings shift along with technological change. We can no longer take it for granted that someone’s remark that they ‘read’ something means that they had to hand physical paper marked in a decipherable way by ink. "

The second sentence does not support the argument in the first one. Is what Tuman writes true? Does the concept of "reading" change just because we're reading text on a screen instead of text on a page?

"By ‘writing’ we can no longer assume authorship using a pen or pencil. The digital world has turned literacy on it’s head." The first sentence does not support the statement in the second.

"The digital world has turned literacy on it’s head." This is perhaps intended to mean that literacy ain't wot it used to be, but at face value it implies that with the advent of the digital world, literates are now illiterate and vice-versa.