| Information And Media Literacy |
Article Index for Information And |
Website Links For Information |
Information AboutInformation And Media Literacy |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT INFORMATION AND MEDIA LITERACY | |
| information literacy; media literacy; literacy; language; technology | |
|
In order to define Information and Media Literacy, it is important to understand Information Literacy and Media Literacy as two separate terms. Prior to the 1990s, the primary focus of Information Literacy has been research skills. In parallel, the Media Literacy traditionally focuses on analyzing the delivery of information. In this context, the two terms now need to come together. IML is a combination of information literacy and media literacy. Its purpose is to engage in a digital society; one needs to be able to use, understand, inquire, create, communicate and think critically. It is important to have capacity to effectively access, organize, analyze, evaluate, and create messages in a variety of forms. The transformative nature of IML includes creative works and creating new knowledge; to publish and collaborate responsibly requires ethical, cultural and social understanding. INTEGRATION The BC Ministry of Education has de-listed the Information Technology K to 7 IRP (1996) as a stand-alone course. It is still expected that all the PLOs continue to be integrated. This integration of technology across the curriculum is a positive shift from computers being viewed as boxes to be learned to computers being used as communication tools. In addition, recent learning pedagogy recognizes the inclusion for students to be creators of knowledge through technology (November, 2006). Unfortunately, there is no clear direction to implement IML. The BC Ministry of Education published The Information and Communications Technology Integration Performance Standards, Grades 5 to 10 ICTI (2005). These standards do not cover all grades and the same standards apply to TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY STUDENTS The IML prepares students to be 21st Century literate. Jeff Wilhelm (2000) supports this in his article, “Literacy by Design: Why is all This Technology so Important?” by stating, “Technology has everything to do with literacy. And being able to use the latest electronic technologies has everything to do with being literate.” He presents J. David Bolter’s argument “that if our students are not reading and composing with various electronic technologies, then they are illiterate. They are not just unprepared for the future; they are illiterate right now, in our current time and context.” (Wilhelm, 2000, p. 4) Almost half (48%) say they use the Internet from home at least an hour every day, compared to 79% who say they watch television for an hour or more every day (YCWW, 2003, Para. 5). In 2005, the Media Awareness Network conducted the Young Canadians in a Wired World Phase II (YCWW II) survey of over 5000 Grade 4 through Grade 11 students. This survey has key findings that support Wilhelm’s article. The YCWW II (2005a, 2005b) key findings show that: Sixty-two per cent of Grade 4 students prefer the Internet, while 38 per cent choose the library. Ninety-one per cent of Grade 11 students prefer the Internet, with only nine per cent choosing the library (YCWW II, 2005a, para. 28). {Link without Title} he Net is also now a pervasive element of young people’s home lives. Ninety-four percent of kids report that they have Internet access at home, and a significant majority of them (61 percent) enjoy a high-speed connection. By the time kids hit Grade 11, half of them (51 percent) have their own Internet-connected computer, separate and apart from the family computer (YCWW II, 2005b, p. 6). A home computer remains the most common way young people connect to networked spaces. It is interesting to note that over half of this demographic group has cell phones in Canada and that they can use cell phones to surf the internet and to text message their friends. Many students are better networked through the use of technology than most teachers and parents. Teachers and parents may not understand the abilities of technology. Students are no longer limited to the desktop computer. Students use mobile technologies to graph a mathematical problem, research a question for Social Studies, text message an expert for information as well as send homework to a drop box. Students are accessing information by using MSN, personal Web pages, Weblogs and social networking sites. Young Canadians are now among the most wired in the world. But contrary to the earlier stereotype of the isolated and awkward computer nerd, today’s wired kid is a social kid (YCWW II, 2005b, p. 8). Vision 2010 and the supporting themes, goals and strategies remain at the conceptual level for K – 12. We have to change the stereotype of teacher as the expert who delivers information and students as consumers of information in order to meet the needs of digital students. Digital Natives must learn to speak “Digital”. Wikipedia’s (2007, para. 1 {Link without Title} ) definition of a language is “a system, used to communicate, comprised of a set of symbols and a set of rules (or grammar) by which the manipulation of these symbols is governed. These symbols can be combined productively to convey new information, distinguishing languages from other forms of communication.” Digital Natives can communicate fluently with digital devices and convey information in a way that was impossible without digital devices. People born prior to 1988 are generally referred to as Digital Immigrants. They speak with accents and experience difficulty programming simple devices like a VCR. Digital Immigrants do not start pushing buttons to make things work. Learning a language is best done early in a child’s development. In acquiring a language , Hyltenstam (1992, as cited in Wikipedia, 2007) found that around the age of 6 and 7 seemed to be a cut-off point for bilinguals to achieve native-like proficiency. After that age, language learners could get near-native-like-ness but their language would, while consisting of very few actual errors, have enough errors that would set them apart from the language group (para. 4). Kindergarten, Grade 1 and 2 are critical to student success as Digital Natives because not all students have “Digital” rich childhood. Students learning “Digital” before Grade 3 can become equivalently bilingual. “Language-minority students who cannot read and write proficiently in English cannot participate fully in American schools, workplaces, or society. They face limited job opportunities and earning power.” (August, 2006, p. 1) Speaking “Digital” is as important as being literate in order to participate fully in society and have full options to life’s opportunities within North America.
WHY ARE STUDENTS NOT INFORMATION AND MEDIA LITERATE Individual beliefs about value of technology integrated into classrooms depend on the individual, the perspective and what is valued. If educators do not believe or accept IML there will be little change. Performance standards, the foundation to support them, and tools to implement them are readily available. Success will come when there is full implementation and equitable standards are established. Shared vision and goals that focus on strategic actions with measurable results are necessary. When staff and community, working together, identify and clarify their values, beliefs, assumptions, and perceptions about what they want children to know and be able to do, an important next step will be to discover which of these values and expectations will be achieved (Lambert, 1998, p. 6). Rick DuFour and Becky Burnette (2002) state that it is crucial to establish common ground about student learning. Common ground could be: ''A) High expectations for staff and students'' Students need to be information and media literate in a digital society. Schools and staff are responsible to prepare students for IML. The IML performance standards set a high expectation. The expectations are clear and staff will need to increase their capacities to be able to teach IMLs. The central focus of any school must be teaching and learning. Learning needs to be viewed as "authentic" - that is, based on real tasks that have a relationship to work and life in society or in the family (Lambert, 1998, p. 23). ''B) Responsibility for student learning '' The Ministry has stated through the K-7 IRP (1996), the ICT 6-9 project, the Grade 5 to 10 ICTI (2005) performance standards and the introduction of other IRPs that students are expected to use, learn and work with electronic, digital, and multimedia as an expectation of learning. A comprehensive view of relationships with children requires that teaching roles expand to include teacher as facilitator, mentor, coach and advisor (Lambert, 1998, p. 23). '' C) The need to work collaboratively for best student learning'' The power of collaboration is in the harnessing of collective intellect. The IML performance standards are a wealth of opportunity for conversations about meeting student needs. Each school is unique and teachers can work collaboratively to manage how capacities are integrated and how student progress is articulated. ''D) Use evidence to inform instruction and to meet student needs'' The IML capacities need to be connected to student learning. Applying standards to evaluate student progress helps organize evidence for thoughtful reflection. Without reflection, one is data rich and information poor. Using the capacity tools to assess IML will allow students, staff and the community to reflect on how well students are meeting learning needs as related to technology. The IML Performance standards allow data collection and analysis to evidence that student-learning needs are being met. After assessing student IML, three questions can be asked: 1. What does each student need to learn? 2. How does one know whether students have met the capacities? 3. How does one respond when students have difficulty in learning? Teachers can use classroom assessment for learning to identify areas that might need increased focus and support. Students can use classroom assessment to set learning goals for themselves. The previous four common ground statements align with IML. BARRIERS TO INFORMATION AND MEDIA LITERACY The barrier to learning to read is the lack of textbooks and novels while the barrier to learning IML is the lack of technology access. Highlighting the value of IML helps to identify existing barriers within the school infrastructure, the staff development, and the support systems. While there is a continued need to work on the foundations to provide a sustainable and equitable access, the biggest obstacle will be school climate. Marc Prensky (2006, para. 25) identifies one barrier as teachers viewing digital devices as distractions by stating, “Let’s admit the real reason that we ban cell phones is that, given the opportunity to use them, students would vote with their attention, just as adults would ‘vote with their feet’ by leaving the room when a presentation is not compelling.” The mindset of banning new technology, fearing all bad things that can and sometimes do happen can affect educational decisions. The decision to ban digital devices impacts students for the rest of their lives. Any tool that is used poorly or incorrectly can be unsafe. Safety lessons are mandatory in Industrial Technology and Science. Yet safety or ethical lessons are not mandatory to use technology. Not all decisions in schools are measured by common ground beliefs. One school district in Ontario banned digital devices from their schools. Local schools have been looking at doing the same. These kinds of reactions are often about immediate actions and not about teaching, learning or creating solutions. Many barriers to IML exist and we need to remove them. REFERENCES August, Diane. (2006). Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. 1. Retrieved March 24, 2007 from http://www.cal.org/natl-lit-panel/reports/Executive_Summary.pdf. BC Ministry of Education. (2006). Information and Communication Technology Integration. Retrieved Dec 1, 2006, from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/perf_stands/icti/. BC Ministry of Education. (2005). Science K to 7: Integrated Resource Package 2005. 32. Retrieved Dec 1, 2006, from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/scik7.pdf BC Ministry of Education. (1996). Information Technology K to 7: Integrated Resource Package. Retrieved Dec 1, 2006, from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/resdocs/itk7.pdf DuFour, R., Burnette, B. (2002) Pull out negativity by its roots. version Journal of Staff Development. 23 (2), para. 23. FlatStanley.com (1995). homepage. Retrieved March 30, 2007 from http://www.flatstanley.com International Society of Technology Educators. (2004). National Education Testing Standards – Students. Retrieved November 15, 2006 from http://cnets.iste.org/students/s_stands.html Lambert, L. (1998). Building Leadership Capacity. ASCD. Alexandria, VA. 6, 23. Media Awareness Network. (2003). Young Canadians in a wired world; The Students’ View. Retrieved on May 11, 2007 from http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/special_initiatives/survey_resources/students_survey/key_findings/kids_online_key_findings.cfm Media Awareness Network. (2005a). Young Canadians in a wired world Phase II: Trends and Recommendations. Valerie Steeves. Retrieved on March 19, 2007 from http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/research/YCWW/phaseII/key_findings.cfm Media Awareness Network. (2005b). Young Canadians in a wired world phase ii. ERIN Research Inc. 6. Retrieved on March 19, 2007 from http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/research/YCWW/phaseII/ upload/YCWWII_trends_recomm.pdf. November, A. (2006). Keynote speech from Computer Using Educators of BC Fall Conference. Coquitlam, BC. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. version On the Horizon. 9 (5), 1. Prensky, M. (2006). Listen to the Natives. version Educational Leadership. 63 (4) 8 -13. Surrey School District No. 36 (Surrey). (2005) Vision 2010 Strategic Plan. 1 – 4. Retrieved May 8, 2007, from http://www.sd36.bc.ca/Board/brochures/vision2010.pdf. Surrey School District No. 36 (Surrey). (2007) Quick Facts. 1. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://www.sd36.bc.ca/general/quickfacts.html. Wikipedia. (2007). Language. (para. 1) Retrieved March 19, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language Wikipedia. (2006). Second Language. (para. 4) Retrieved March 23, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language Wilhelm, J. (2000). Literacy by Design. Voices from the middle, A publication of the national council of teachers of English. 7 (3). 4 – 14. Retrieved May 11, 2007 from http://www.teachnet-lab.org/fklane/wilhelm.htm |
|
|