New Literacies and Ill-Structured Domains | Base Group Summary | Discussion

Question 1 Summary:

A commonly discussed literacy in response to question 1 was reconstructive or hypermedia literacy, described as developing an ability to synthesize information presented non-linearly in online spaces. This literacy encompasses several skills, including navigating with hyperlinks, reconstructing understanding as new information is found, using prior knowledge and experience, and using metacognitive skills to monitor progress. A common concern we noted was that use of this literacy requires balancing wide search skills with deep reading (or alternatively, new literacies with traditional literacies). The huge amount of information available online may lead to a tendency to search widely and read superficially; teacher-scholars must learn to balance this with deep reading.

There were a few themes in our discussion related to evaluation of quality. Some of us discussed the need for teachers to be able to evaluate the quality of the digital literacy students are using, in order to help them progress toward more high quality literacy practices. Others discussed the need for students to develop skills in evaluating the quality of information presented online (media-information literacy).

The role of context and cultural background in the development of literacies was another topic of discussion. Several of us pointed out that literacy is connected to the development of the self, and so teacher-scholars need to be able to consider individual differences among students in the consideration of literacies. Similarly, the authors suggest that we need to consider differential and situational factors when examining how to promote effective learning strategies.

Finally, we said that teacher-scholars need to develop design skills that facilitate use of multimedia in creating learning experiences.
_______________________________________________________________

Question 2 Summary:

The prevalent theme in our discussion of question 2 was how the distinction of ill- versus well-structured domains and systems corresponds to the distinction of what is appropriate for experts versus novices in learning environments. Generally, we agreed that environments and approaches that provide more structure are more appropriate for novices, whereas environments and approaches that are more ill-structured are more appropriate for experts. We brought up caveats to this statement, however. Several of us expressed concerns that oversimplified environments for novices may end up failing to capture interest and lead to disengagement. Conversely, some structure may be appropriate for experts — sometimes, lack of structure can be harmful even for experts.

We discussed the idea that the idea of structure, and lessening it as students gain expertise, could be used to guide instruction and differentiation. However, we all seemed to agree that there are few guidelines of concrete ideas of how to do this given in the readings.

At times, we wondered what exactly what is structured or ill-structured. Are domains of knowledge inherently structured or ill-structured? For example, is history less structured than mathematics? Or is the manner of approach to a subject what has more or less structure?
_______________________________________________________________

Discussion Questions:
1. Are traditional and new literacies fundamentally different or are new literacies an extension of traditional literacies into digital domains?
2. Are domains inherently more or less structured, or does that distinction depend on the way it is approached?
3. In what ways might ill-structured domains provide opportunities for teaching new literacies?