Page 69 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 8(2) (2020)
P. 69
ia universitatisdenominations, such as “network literacy” (Mc- media (media literacy), communicating via both
Clure 1994, synonymous with internet literacy traditional and innovative means (communica-
digital and multimodal liter acies in for eign language lear ning: theor ies and application 69 and focused on digital information), “informa- tion literacy), and so on. Also, many different
cy” (Neelameghan 1995, which combines infor- terms are still used somewhat interchangeably:
mation with traditional literacy), or “mediacy” some mention “skills”, other “competences”, or
(Inoue, Naito & Koshizuka 1997, implying the “understandings”, as well as “aptitudes”, “knowl-
ability to work with a variety of different media). edge”, and, of course, “literacies”. Rather than a
Not only that, it also needed to compete with an mere list of skills, however, it is increasingly de-
ever-growing list of new terms like computer lit- scribed as those capabilities which enable indi-
eracy, ICT literacy, e-literacy, media literacy and viduals to live and work in a constantly changing
so on. Finding a unique definition was, and still digital society, thus becoming functional digi-
is, extremely complicated, as this field continues tal citizen. This perspective, where the practices
to evolve to keep up with technological advance- and tools of digital literacies are seen as deeply
ments, such that many more definitions have embedded in a specific context, is strictly linked
been proposed over the years: Martin said that with the multiliteracies paradigm (see above).
In the field of language education, digital liter-
digital literacy is the awareness, attitude acy can prove beneficial for learning, not only
and ability of individuals to appropriate- because it provides access to a broad range of re-
ly use digital tools and facilities to identify, sources and tools, but also because it calls into
access, manage, integrate, evaluate, analyse question the idea according to which learners are
and synthesize digital resources, construct referred to as ‘digital natives’ (Prensky 2001) or
new knowledge, create media expressions, ‘net geners’ (Turner & Carriveau 2010), that is
and communicate with others, in the con- to say, native speakers of digital languages, but
text of specific life situations, in order to ena- more will be said about this below.
ble constructive social action; and to reflect
upon this process (Martin 2005, 135). Case studies and emerging issues
In its Ad Hoc Committee, the Modern Lan-
To be digitally literate, in Ferrari’s words, is the guage Association called attention to the impor-
ability to understand media, to use them, as well tance of producing students who are not only
as different tools and devices, to successfully able to function as capable interlocutors in the
communicate with others, and to be able to crit- target language, but are “trained to reflect on the
ically evaluate new information (Ferrari 2012). world and themselves through the lens of an-
other language and culture” (MLA 2007). De-
In every definition, digital literacy is de- spite the fact that this field is still largely dom-
scribed as a highly plural set of skills, so that inated by communicative language teaching,
some researchers even call them digital literacies many studies have since started to venture into
(Ng 2012; Dudeney, Hockly & Pegrum 2014). a literacy-oriented framework: several publica-
Also, no matter how many definitions we pick, tions (e.g., Paesani 2006; Péron 2010; Troyan
they all address “the growing range of digital 2016), for example, have examined the relation-
communication channels” (Dudeney et al. 2014) ship between reading and writing within a mul-
to which we apply our ability to process infor- tiliteracies paradigm. Troyan’s work was one of
mation in a multimodal environment (Gilster the few attempts to bring a multiliteracies ap-
1997, Rivoltella 2008, Meyers et al. 2013). It has proach in line with the American Council on the
become, according to UNESCO, an umbrella Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)’s Stand-
term of some sort, which includes a set of basic ards, which measure the skills that learners need
skills, such as searching, manipulating, synthe- to apply in order to bring a global competence
sizing and evaluating digital content (informa-
tion literacy), interacting with different types of
Clure 1994, synonymous with internet literacy traditional and innovative means (communica-
digital and multimodal liter acies in for eign language lear ning: theor ies and application 69 and focused on digital information), “informa- tion literacy), and so on. Also, many different
cy” (Neelameghan 1995, which combines infor- terms are still used somewhat interchangeably:
mation with traditional literacy), or “mediacy” some mention “skills”, other “competences”, or
(Inoue, Naito & Koshizuka 1997, implying the “understandings”, as well as “aptitudes”, “knowl-
ability to work with a variety of different media). edge”, and, of course, “literacies”. Rather than a
Not only that, it also needed to compete with an mere list of skills, however, it is increasingly de-
ever-growing list of new terms like computer lit- scribed as those capabilities which enable indi-
eracy, ICT literacy, e-literacy, media literacy and viduals to live and work in a constantly changing
so on. Finding a unique definition was, and still digital society, thus becoming functional digi-
is, extremely complicated, as this field continues tal citizen. This perspective, where the practices
to evolve to keep up with technological advance- and tools of digital literacies are seen as deeply
ments, such that many more definitions have embedded in a specific context, is strictly linked
been proposed over the years: Martin said that with the multiliteracies paradigm (see above).
In the field of language education, digital liter-
digital literacy is the awareness, attitude acy can prove beneficial for learning, not only
and ability of individuals to appropriate- because it provides access to a broad range of re-
ly use digital tools and facilities to identify, sources and tools, but also because it calls into
access, manage, integrate, evaluate, analyse question the idea according to which learners are
and synthesize digital resources, construct referred to as ‘digital natives’ (Prensky 2001) or
new knowledge, create media expressions, ‘net geners’ (Turner & Carriveau 2010), that is
and communicate with others, in the con- to say, native speakers of digital languages, but
text of specific life situations, in order to ena- more will be said about this below.
ble constructive social action; and to reflect
upon this process (Martin 2005, 135). Case studies and emerging issues
In its Ad Hoc Committee, the Modern Lan-
To be digitally literate, in Ferrari’s words, is the guage Association called attention to the impor-
ability to understand media, to use them, as well tance of producing students who are not only
as different tools and devices, to successfully able to function as capable interlocutors in the
communicate with others, and to be able to crit- target language, but are “trained to reflect on the
ically evaluate new information (Ferrari 2012). world and themselves through the lens of an-
other language and culture” (MLA 2007). De-
In every definition, digital literacy is de- spite the fact that this field is still largely dom-
scribed as a highly plural set of skills, so that inated by communicative language teaching,
some researchers even call them digital literacies many studies have since started to venture into
(Ng 2012; Dudeney, Hockly & Pegrum 2014). a literacy-oriented framework: several publica-
Also, no matter how many definitions we pick, tions (e.g., Paesani 2006; Péron 2010; Troyan
they all address “the growing range of digital 2016), for example, have examined the relation-
communication channels” (Dudeney et al. 2014) ship between reading and writing within a mul-
to which we apply our ability to process infor- tiliteracies paradigm. Troyan’s work was one of
mation in a multimodal environment (Gilster the few attempts to bring a multiliteracies ap-
1997, Rivoltella 2008, Meyers et al. 2013). It has proach in line with the American Council on the
become, according to UNESCO, an umbrella Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)’s Stand-
term of some sort, which includes a set of basic ards, which measure the skills that learners need
skills, such as searching, manipulating, synthe- to apply in order to bring a global competence
sizing and evaluating digital content (informa-
tion literacy), interacting with different types of
