Advertisement

It’s Not All About the Learner: Reframing Students’ Digital Literacy as Sociomaterial Practice

  • Lesley GourlayEmail author
  • Martin Oliver
Chapter
Part of the Research in Networked Learning book series (RINL)

Abstract

Digital literacies are an important area of contemporary research and practice. However, policy and research on this topic relies almost exclusively on capability or competence models of “digital literacy”. These decontextualised, cognitive accounts ignore the insights of New Literacy Studies (e.g. Lea and Street. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172, 1998), which have shown that focusing on a ‘free floating’ learner, without reference to settings, resources and cultures, fails to explain important aspects of how literacy practices are achieved and enacted. Adopting a sociomaterial account of learning provides an alternative to these narratives about student literacy. From this perspective, ‘literacy’ is an achievement that involves the successful coordination of human and non-human actors—including teachers, other learners, pupils, devices, texts and so on. Drawing on work undertaken as part of a JISC-funded project, we critique mainstream ‘learner-centred’ accounts of digital literacy; outline the theoretical framework on which our work has been based; and present a series of case studies that show how an individual’s ability to act in a digitally literate way depends on much more than an assumed set of stable, internalised qualities. These cases involve data collected by students through multimodal journalling over a period of 9–12 months, and from in-depth interviews that explored what these meant to them. This analysis shows how learners’ practices are shaped by the social and material environments in which they are enacted, and reveals that learners are engaged in an ongoing, improvisatory process of both adapting to the environments in which they work, whilst also adapting these environments.

Keywords

Digital literacies Sociomateriality Actor-network theory Higher education 

References

  1. Atkins, M. (1999). Oven‐ready and self‐basting: Taking stock of employability skills. Teaching in Higher Education, 4(2), 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 17–32). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  4. Beetham, H. (2010). Review and Scoping Study for a Cross-JISC Learning and Digital Literacies Programme. JISC. Retrieved from www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/funding/2011/04/Briefingpaper.pdf.
  5. Belshaw, D. (2011). What is ‘digital literacy’? A pragmatic investigation. Doctoral Thesis, Durham University. Retrieved from http://neverendingthesis.com/doug-belshaw-edd-thesis-final.pdf.
  6. Bennett, L. (2014). Learning from the early adopters: Developing the digital practitioner. Research in Learning Technology, 22, 1–13.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson’s handbook for theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  8. Buckingham, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 73–89). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  9. Carrington, V., & Robinson, M. (2009). Digital literacies: Social learning and classroom practices. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Friesen, N. (2010). Ethics and the technologies of empire: E-learning and the US military. AI and society, 25(1), 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillen, J., & Barton, D. (2010). Digital literacies: A research briefing by the technology enhanced learning phase of the teaching and learning research programme. London: London Knowledge Lab. http://www.tlrp.org/docs/DigitalLiteracies.pdf.
  13. Glister, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  14. Goodfellow, R., & Lea, M. (2013). Literacy in the digital university: Critical perspectives on learning, scholarship and technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Gourlay, L. (2012). Cyborg ontologies and the lecturer’s voice: A posthuman reading of the ‘face-to-face’. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(2), 198–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gourlay, L., Hamilton, M., & Lea, M. (2013). Textual practices in the new media digital landscape: Messing with digital literacies. Research in Learning Technology, 23, 1–13.Google Scholar
  17. Haraway, D. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Kittler, F. (2004). Universities: Wet, hard, soft and harder. Critical Inquiry, 31(1), 244–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lea, M., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leander, K., & Lovorn, J. (2006). Literacy networks: Following the circulation of texts, bodies and objects in the schooling and online gaming of one youth. Cognition and Instruction, 24(3), 291–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(4), 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayes, T. (2006). LEX – Methodology report. Glasgow Caledonian University and Open Learning. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/lex_method_final.pdf.
  25. Sharpe, R., & Beetham, H. (2010). Understanding students’ uses of technology for learning. In R. Sharpe, H. Beetham, & S. De Freitas (Eds.), Rethinking learning for a digital age: How learners are shaping their own experiences (pp. 85–99). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Sharpe, R., Beetham, H., Benfield, G., DeCicco, E., & Lessner, E. (2009). Learners experiences of e-learning synthesis report: Explaining learner differences. Unpublished project report, Oxford Brookes University. Retrieved from https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/JISCle2f/Findings.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UCL Institute of EducationUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations