CRITICAL DIGITAL LITERACY IN TEFL

CRITICAL DIGITAL LITERACY IN TEFL

Final paper assignment on Applied Linguistics, lectured by Drs. Suwono, Ph.D

Eka Sugeng Ariadi

Kemenag Class 2015 – NIM. 157835408

I.    INTRODUCTION

Teaching English as Foreign Language (TEFL) through technology is urgently needed. For many years, technology has increased and contributed on the digitalized landscape of  English  language  teaching  (ELT)  (Nguyen, 2013). Nowadays, teachers or educators or practitioners have worked hard to advance the landscape. In practical teaching, Erben, Ban, and Castaneda (2009) have designed a set of guidance on how to infuse technology into the classroom, and providing beneficial instructions which can be tremendously effective with English Language Learners (ELLs).

This includes setting up a virtual learning environment such as www.ning.com to post homework, announcements and other miscellaneous classroom information or using an assessment system such as http://quizstar.4teachers.org/ to write tests and post grades. As one moves along the continuum, a student becomes less of a passive receiver/viewer of IT and more of an active user of IT—a continuum in which the teacher exerts progressively less control over the IT in shaping a student’s learning. There is several-point continuum of IT use by teachers and students, for instances; teacher-only use (technology as a tool) electronic equipment: smartboard, TV, etc. Teacher-only use (managing) virtual learning environments: Nicenet, Ning, etc. (p. 70)

Below is a figure delineating nine-point continuum of IT use which notably done by teachers (at point 1 – 4) and students (at point 5 – 9).

Figure 1. Nine-point continuum of IT use by teachers and students (Erben et al., 2009, p. 74).

            Further discussion in extending the skills of using digital technology, educators or authors have immersed in the idea of digital literacy, as initially proposed by Bawden (2001, 2008); Gilster (1997). This notion then finds its place among other similar studies, for instances: information literacy, computer literacy, ICT literacy, e-literacy, network literacy, and media literacy. Whilst, the latest discern which going to expose in this paper is about critical digital literacy (henceforth; CDL) which was constructed by Hinrichsen and Coombs (2014). Commonly, they were inspired by Freebody and Luke (1990) who had succeed in setting out a model of critical literacy framework and generating the four resources concept; Decoding, Meaning Making, Using and Analyzing. Afterward, Hinrichsen and Coombs (2014) offered a re-interpretation of the four resources, then called it as CDL, and elaborated the model into the fifth resource, that is Persona.

            Thus, finally there are five resources; Decoding, Meaning Making, Using, Analyzing and Persona. Hinrichsen and Coombs (2014) argue that CDL is rooted from the perspectives of critical literacy which is required contextualization toward the digital media. About the critical literacy, Lee (2011) defines it as a way to come up with an equal power relations and change their condition through the enabling of literacy education and being critically literate is acquiring knowledge of literacy that can be turned into action to change the status quo.

            Align with the teaching of English as foreign language (TEFL), Folgerpedia (2015) gives a brief explanation that teaching CDL means teaching a set of skills, competencies, and analytical viewpoints that allows a person to use, understand, and create digital media and tools. Related to information literacy skills such as numeracy, listening, speaking, reading, writing and critical thinking, the goal of CDL is to develop active and engaged thinkers and creators in digital environments. Therefore, digital literacy is more than technological understanding or computer skills and involves a range of reflective, ethical, and social perspectives on digital activities.

            In a nutshell, based on the previous paragraphs above, this paper aims to describe theoretically the conception of CDL and its implementation in TEFL. The writer beliefs that the significant roles of CDL in TEFL will foster teachers’ and students’ motivation and improve their competencies as well.

II.   DISCUSSION

A.   The Conceptual Theory of CDL and Its Origin

In general, the initial concept of CDL based on two aspects of a critical dimension; internal and external dimension to the digital media. Internal dimension refers to analysis capacities and judgements as governed to the content, usage and artefacts of the technology. Whilst, external meaning connects to a position concerning the development, effects and social relations assured in technology (Dowling, 1991). The ways to see and comprehend (perspective) on media education as explained by Buckingham (2006) are also major contributions to our understanding of a critical digital literacy (Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2014).

            In the particular model of critical literacy; CDL takes a critical literacy viewpoint framed lightly in terms of reader ‘roles’ or ‘resources’ identified as ‘families of practice’ (Freebody & Luke, 1990). Thus, the focus of CDL is mainly on learner processes rather than syllabus specification. Nevertheless, several studies, such as Honan (2008) has proved that CDL is a valuable structure for curriculum and classroom analysis and developing learner metacognition (Henderson & Hirst, 2007; Hirst & al., 2004).

            Hence, conceptually and practically, CDL spreads out around within many scholars as researchers or practitioners. It is believed that this model is applicable to higher education in its expression of the basis for critical analysis and its functioning adaptability in classroom settings (Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2014). Whilst this model focuses on reader roles, the context of the digital also places emphasis on authorial elements. As Levy and Michael (2011) concluded from their analysis of multi-modal text production by Australian high-school students that not only does production provide opportunities to develop and apply skills and knowledge but also has great potential to enhance knowledge construction. Thus a constructive emphasis on creating, shaping, adapting and co-creating texts is also implied in CDL model. Additionally, Lankshear and Knobel (2006) argue that multi-modal texts differ in noteworthy ways from traditional print texts. It means CDL has been to expand the interpretation of the original terms rather than change them, precisely for the reasons of provenance and proven acceptability within schools identified above (Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2014). Therefore, this sophistication confirms the appropriateness of a critical approach at the level of higher education.

B.   A Framework of CDL curriculum

In United Kingdom, CDL was applied and regarded as a national project on digital literacy, as part of which required curriculum mapping of digital literacies. However, Hinrichsen and Coombs (2014) suggest that trying to develop methods to do this continually caused in a point towards functional approaches (what kinds of tools and what kinds of skills) and disjointed variability. Hinrichsen and Coombs (2014) claim that CDL has been model confirmed in workshop form with a numeral of communities (academics, students, learning technologists, managers) to measure (1) its acceptability and (2) its use in activity design. It has been positively evaluated so far.

            The CDL framework curriculum is outlined as follows. Hinrichsen and Coombs (2014) explain that one of the drives aided by the framework is scoping. The significance of this scoping activity deceits in its role as a channel to shared meaning. The second is giving the several understandings of digital literacy, emerging a common understanding of its dimensions is a requirement to effective institutional embedding and curriculum incorporation. The next is by describing a series of filters through which digital literacies can be observed, educated or understood, a number of perspectives and angles can be reflected.

C.   Five Resources Characteristics of CDL in TEFL

The resources relate to practice and are indicative of repertoire; there is thus interrelation and overlap between them. The overview below, as proposed by (Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2014), is not intended to signal exclusive categorization or separation.

1.    Decoding: practical and operational engagement

Code breaking resources or coding practice includes the capability both to decipher and produce (encode) texts at a concrete situation. Characteristically examples of code breaking relate to the alphabet, phonics, syntax, spelling, punctuation and vocabulary (e.g. Ludwig 2003). Digital texts have converted primarily multi-modal (e.g. graphical user interfaces are the norm, context sensitivity is determined by ‘spatial’ visual cues – i.e. how a cursor controls the outcome of a mouse-click). As a result, learners need for decoding and making meaning from multi-modal texts have an enlarged scope.

2.    Meaning making: narrative complexity in the digital

The text-participating resources or well-known as ‘semantic practice’ or by the ‘meaning maker’ role are alarmed with the reflexive processes supporting understanding and composition of texts. It centers on understanding and interpreting narratives within the content. The extent of the internet has intended that hypertextuality and network texts have become public. Thus, by ‘network texts’, the components of the texts being at the same time presented both in their own right and others further texts.

      New requirements in digital contexts are the application of meaning making practices to online interactions; and reading and expressing meaning through participation in collective actions. Significantly, it becomes more essential to keep an awareness of the underlying material situation, moral and ethical judgement, etc. Such reflections need to be understood by teachers in increasing their students’ digital literacies.

3.    Using: producing and consuming digital texts

The text using resources are disturbed with the suitable use of specific text forms for given both the characteristics and the requirements of diverse contexts of use. An amount of practices has moved from being specialist to being within the scope of groups and individuals. For examples; selecting and curating of materials, printing, typing, typesetting and image or video editing. Presentational modes such bold, italics, color and a variety of fonts are now available, etc. Thus, design, production and dissemination of digital texts entail a wide collection of skills and critical evaluation of varieties and their repercussions.

     

4.    Analyzing: becoming a discerning practitioner

Critical evaluation becomes central in these contexts and learners need the decoding skills. They also prerequisite the ideology in-built in a source. Enlargements such as ‘liking’ and ‘trending’ propose new schemes in relation both to the form and quality of evidence they present. Several expansions in digital technologies are professed in terms of challenges to traditional academic value and learners need to advance their own values in this context.

      The rise in access to publish the worldwide web means that individuals may be more directly and personally provoked with legal, ethical and moral attitude in relation to how, where and to whom to publish. For example, texts in form of personal profiles and online identities.

5.    Persona: identity issues and the digital

The most challenges presentation in new technologies, and social media contexts, situates on the presentation. The extent of presentation is accomplished by e.g. in terms of language, image, content. The numerous readers of friends, colleagues, etc., therefore necessitates how to cope with the diverse, characteristics and features of the environments. Therefore, this resource, persona, was presented to take a part.

      The concern is to fulfill the lack of transference between academic and personal or social practices by learners. Advance and organization of one's persona can be reflected as a professional, a graduate attribute and a conjunction with the other literacy resources.

D.   Elaborating the Resources with the Characteristics Dimensions

Since the four resources model above articulates each resource at a conceptual level based on ‘families of practice’ but does not detail specific competencies, the present of teacher’s role is needed. Teachers are considered as expert practitioners in specific competencies of language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing). Hinrichsen and Coombs (2014) donate assistances that in curriculum terms, the development of digital literacy will comprise using devices and software but should also be accepted and made obvious in analytical and discursive practices; in syllabus content; in assessment design and grading criteria; and in formal course specification documents, having implications for validation panel training and membership. Strategic integration at institutional and departmental levels becomes vital, as does the alignment with employer and professional discourses, demands and requirements.

           

III. CONCLUSION

Finally, there are three main obstacles considering an approach to curriculum integration of CDL; a number of problematics, contexts and contradictions. The problematics included the need to define digital literacy sufficiently to implement it institutionally. Defining in this case goes beyond the trivial task of finding a form of wording but rather involves identifying an ideological position within the contested discourses of technology. The contexts comprised known issues with staff engagement, an overburdened curriculum, shortage of resources and variability in student (digital) profile. The conflicts centered on the necessity to address outcome-oriented approaches which could influence on attainment, employability and graduate profile, whilst avoiding the limitations of a taxonomic approach in terms of tools, technologies and skills; limitations such as rapid changes in technology, variability in perception of what is considered essential content and particularities of institutional infrastructure (Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2014). There was also a reluctance to be technology led in our thinking about curriculum and student learning.

            Basically, by implementing CDL to school curriculum will enable to resolve the mentioned problems above. A hard skills framework of ‘IT literacy’ has had a divisive effect on academics, constructing them differentially in relation to their technical skills and also in their attitudes to technology. Such an approach has strong consequences for staff development initiatives and offers co-curricular approaches between educational developers, learning technologists and academics (Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2014). However, it requires a reframing of the notion of the digital in relation to literacy.

REFERENCES

Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 218–259.

Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and Concepts of Digital Literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital Literacies.

Buckingham, D. (2006). Defining digital literacy – What do young people need to know about digital media? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 4, 263-276.

Dowling, P. (1991). A Dialectics of Determinism: Deconstructing Information Technology. In H. Mackay, M. F. D. Young, & J. Beynon (Eds.), Understanding Technology in Education (pp. 176-192). London: The Falmer Press.

Erben, T., Ban, R., & Castaneda, M. (2009). Teaching English language learners through technology. UK: Routledge.

Folgerpedia. (2015). Teaching critical digital literacy.   Retrieved from http://folgerpedia.folger.edu/Teaching_critical_digital_literacy

Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(3), 7-16.

Gilster, P. (1997). Digital Literacy. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Henderson, R., & Hirst, E. (2007). Reframing academic literacy: re-examining a short-course for ‘disadvantaged’ tertiary students. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(2), 25-38.

Hinrichsen, J., & Coombs, A. (2014). The five resources of critical digital literacy: a framework for curriculum integration. Research in Learning Technology, 21(21334). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21.21334

Hirst, E., & al., e. (2004). Repositioning academic literacy: charting the emergence of a community of practice. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 27(1), 66-80.

Honan, E. (2008). Barriers to teachers using digital texts in literacy classrooms. Literacy, 42(1), 36-43.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). Digital Literacy and Digital Literacies: Policy, Pedagogy and Research Considerations for Education. DIGITAL KOMPETANSE, 1(1), 12-24.

Lee, C.-j. (2011). Myths about Critical Literacy: What Teachers Need to Unlearn. Journal of Language and Literacy Education [Online], 7(1), 95-102. doi:http://www.coa.uga.edu/jolle/2011_1/lee.pdf

Nguyen, X. T. T. (2013). English Language Teachers’ Digital Literacy Development: A Case Study of English as a Foreign Language Teachers at a Vietnamese University. Paper presented at the The Asian Conference on Education, Osaka, Japan.