Today is the second day of a week of digital literacy discussion, part of the Open Learning MOOC.
Today’s discussion document is the ACRL Information Literacy Framework (2015-16). This is an important update in information literacy thinking, incorporating digital literacy developments. Please read it, and then respond using one more more of these technologies (hey, actually doing digital literacy!):
…in comments at the end of this blog post
…on your own blog
…on Twitter (hashtag #OpenLearning17)
…through the Hypothes.is annotation plugin. We have an Open Learning ’17 Hypothes.is group, which you’re welcome to join. You can also check the openlearning17 tag on that platform. You’ll note that this is an additional method for engaging with digital documents.
Today’s bonus content is a European digital literacy document that complements the ACRL’s, “DigComp 2.0: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens. Update Phase 1: the Conceptual Reference Model.”
If you’d like to catch up on this project, check my post outlining the week’s resources and assignments. Feel free to listen to my audio introduction to digital literacy and why it matters for open education and/or to partake of the Twitter conversation (hashtag #OpenLearning17) and/or to read into some bonus content, “Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning”.
Coming up for the rest of the week:
Wednesday, February 22: Watch and listen to the recent New Media Consortium webinar on Digital Literacy. More Twitter conversation.
Bonus content: the NMC digital literacy briefing.Thursday, February 23: Digital literacy, fake news, and politics. Reading: Crap Detection 101, by Howard Rheingold. Google Hangout from 12-1 pm eastern standard time. Still more Twitter conversation.
Bonus content: the Snopes fake news archive.Friday, February 24: The future of digital literacy: audio statement from Bryan. Twitter live chatfrom 12-1 pm eastern standard time. Irrepressible Twitter conversation.
Bonus content: a new digital literacy politics.
I’m looking forward to your thoughts!
I’d like to hear more about your claim re the Framework “important update … incorporating digital literacy developments.” Digital and technologies appear only once in the document (electronic: none) and they are in the footnote on metaliteracy, In contrast, the info list standards had a whole section on technology, with word counts (digital: 1, technolog*: 31, electronic: 4). I recognize that words counts are limited as a way to analyze a document so I’m very interested to hear how you get to your claim.
Lisa, I was not part of the ACRL’s development process here, nor did I partake in post-publication discussions (until now!), so I’m writing as an outsider, with all the limitations and benefits of that perspective.
I saw some recognition of learners as producers, like “they are developing their own authoritative voices in a particular area and recognize the responsibilities this entails, including seeking accuracy and reliability, respecting intellectual property, and participating in communities of practice” (the last point in particular).
I appreciated recognition of social media, inherent in passages like “understand the increasingly social nature of the information ecosystem where authorities actively connect with one another and sources develop over time” and implicit in the “Scholarship as Conversation” section.
There were also small things, like admitting blog posts as legit content (still not a universal belief).
I interpreted the “Information Creation as a Process” as embracing digital creation. Not using digital language seemed like a combination of conceptual abstraction, avoiding getting caught up in specific technologies, and not scaring technophobes.
So…am I reading too much into the document? Am I porting over my own biases?
I’m in no way questioning that there are digital literacy elements/hooks in the Framework. But, you claimed it to be an “important update” … that’s the part I don’t get. And, to be honest, don’t think is a supportable claim (though I’m open to an argument – I have my views but I am open to evidence!).
To me the rescinded Standards had far more to say about digital literacy and explicitly framing the relationship with information literacy to technology. I grant that some of the language in the Standards reflected 2000 (electronic is used rather than online or digital and retrieval system rather than database) but technology was foregrounded.
So, to me, it isn’t enough to say what the Framework hooks are to digital literacy to evidence a claim that it is an important update … what’s the comparative evidence for this claim? Is it because the specific things that the Framework foregrounds relative to digital literacy are more important/valuable that the ones foregrounded in the Standards?
Side note: I think it might be interesting to you to see the concepts as they emerged from the Delphi Study (http://www.ilthresholdconcepts.com/uploads/3/0/9/7/30975467/ilsummithandout.pdf) in comparison to how they were articulated in the Framework. The Delphi Study being a systematic scholarly process vs the Framework development being a socio-political process (which started from the research results but then reinterpreted and reframed multiple times).