Talk:Digital literacy/Archive 1

Never mind digital, how about English literacy?
Digital literacy and digital access have become increasingly important competitive differentiators, and for individuals, communities and societies. Maybe things are different now, but if I'd turned a paper containing that sentence I'd have got red ink bleeding all over it. And is there a way of saying "competitive differentiators" that explains what we're talking about without proactively incentivizing our paradigms? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

English
Are there any good sources out there, or are thay all written in educator-speak? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Electracy merged into this article
Last year, someone proposed that Electracy be merged into this article. As no one objected, an editor merged the articles in July 2012. Another editor recently objected to that merger and restored the other article. I have reverted that edit on the grounds that he or she had ample time to object last year and if he or she believes the article should be reinstated then a discussion should be held to see if consensus has changed.

With all of that said, I oppose restoring the Electracy article. It appears to be a neologism that never really caught on. ElKevbo (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am the editor who proposed the change. I do have a "watch" on this page, but I didn't get the notification of a change or missed it.  What are the criteria for determining that a neologism has not "caught on"?  A search at Amazon.com shows that one recently published book includes the word in its title (Jan Rune Holmevik.  Inter/vention: Free Play in the Age of Electracy [March 2012]), and one book that is to be published this summer does as well (Sarah J. Arroyo.  Partcipatory Composition: Video Culture, Writing, and Electracy [Aug. 2013]).  A different book, published soon after the Wikipedia entry for electracy won its first battle of this sort, also uses the term in its title (Jeff Rice & Marcel O'Gorman.  New Media/New Methods: The Academic Turn from Literacy to Electracy [July 2008]). Note that these are all by different scholars.  A Google search for electracy yields 18,000+ results. A look at the talk archive for the original entry addresses the issue of whether or not it is a neologism, among other issues.  I support restoring the term.  rsmyth (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please restore the Electracy article as it was approved. I looked back in the record and could not even find the original article. Electracy is not Digital Literacy. I rely on the Wiki article to make this distinction in my teaching and verification in my writing. This same argument was made when the article was launched and overridden by the community of experts. Please don't make us have to continue to fight this fight. John Craig Freeman (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Electracy is exactly NOT digital literacy. That is the point of the term. As the book marked a shift from orality to literacy, the network marks a shift towards electracy. The term is in use academically and captures a concept not adequately expressed by other theories. This has been discussed previously, and clearly electracy is not a neologism nor pointer towards digital literacy. Please restore the original Electracy article as approved. Jack Stenner (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What is it about this topic that brings out the SPAs? ElKevbo (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So are you interested in RE-discussing the merits or pulling the wikipedia, stifle-discussion trump card (quite soon, I might add)? BTW, who is the mysterious "someone" that initiated this AGAIN? Jack Stenner (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're talking about in your first sentence.
 * Here is the recent history of this as it appears in the article's history. User:Beland redirected the article in July of last year after User:Jarble suggested merging it in March; only one editor commented in Talk to support the merger and that happened in April.  A few months after the articles were merged, User:Bbjudy deleted the electracy material that was merged into this article.  That brings us to January of this year when User:Rsmyth reverted the merge, an action I then reverted.  I then opened this discussion and posted a note about this discussion on the (then- and currently-redirected) electracy Talk page.
 * I don't have a very strong opinion on whether this topic belongs in this article or its own article. My primary objection is to how this was starting to unfold.  If there is consensus to keep the other article then that's fine.  But you have to admit that this is a damn odd situation when almost all of the participants are single-purpose accounts who don't even have the courtesy to maintain and update the article.
 * On a separate note, Bjudy's deletion of the electracy content that was merged into this article seems to have been out of place, too, and should be undone pending resolution of this discussion. But yet again we have a single-purpose account as Bjudy only edited twice and both edits were to remove this material.
 * So what is going on here? ElKevbo (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the additional information, and thank you, truly, for your attention to this topic. With regards to the SPA issue, whether interested parties have a long WP track record is of minor relevance if we're trying to establish the intellectual/academic/cultural positioning of the content. Contributors may not be actively involved with WP, but they may know something about the meaning of Electracy. The only purpose I can see that mentioning SPA serves, is to dissuade participation by those who might want to contribute but haven't previously been involved. The real issue is credibility. One would hope a user willing to use their real name or provide personal information related to their account deserves more than to have their opinion marginalized as no more valid than a truly mysterious and unaccountable Bjudy. I hope that clarifies my first sentence. No hard feelings... Jack Stenner (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Please understand that having a number of new or inexperienced editors, especially those who only focus on a particular topic, suddenly jump into a conversation is often a sign that something is awry. It usually means that the topic has been brought up on another website and people are being encouraged to join the discussion and that usually also means that those new participants have no idea how Wikipedia works - policies, culture, history, etc. It's like a huge crowd suddenly showing up a what is usually a quiet school board meeting only to discuss one specific issue.  It may be a valid concern but it's certainly going to raise eyebrows and make the regulars wonder what the hell is going on and why this issue is so important to these people that never show up to any other meetings. But thank you for your patience and helpful explanations! ElKevbo (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Now, back to the point. A number of recently published books (see above) and journal articles/citations (2007-2013 alone), by a range of authors, utilize the term Electracy and explore the theory. This new scholarship adds weight to the validity of the argument in support of Electracy proffered when the issue first came up in 2007. Those who know the theory, know the concept is antithetical to digital literacy. I see nothing to suggest that User:Jarble has any credibility with regard to this discourse. What justification remains for merging the two? Jack Stenner (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think you've made the case. My opinion is definitely swayed by the way in which the electracy article material was summarily deleted from this article without explanation or justification by an editor whose only edits were to delete this material.  Unless anyone else objects, I think it'd be fine to restore the other article since this discussion has been much more substantive that the one that happened when the article was merged into this one.
 * It would probably be good to place a note in that article's Talk page documenting these events so others know what has happened. If that article doesn't have an explicit "How electracy differs from digital literacy" section then it might also be a good idea to create one to try to prevent similar confusion in the future. ElKevbo (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent ElKevbo, and thank you for your help in tracking down the info. The addition of a "How electracy differs from digital literacy" sounds like a great suggestion as well. Jack Stenner (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello ElKevbo, Let me add my thanks for you time and attention to this debate. I will admit that I am a newbi at Wikipedia, and passionate about the complex concept of electracy. Now that I am here, I hope to engage more fully in Wikipedia because I really believe in it, and I am willing to learn about its policies, culture and history. John Craig Freeman (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I, too, am grateful for how quickly this was resolved. To avoid this kind of thing in the future, I would be interested in knowing what it takes to avoid being labelled an SPA... Are there some minimum number of articles that have to be created from scratch? and/or minor edits that need to be made? Thanks for any insight about this.  rsmyth (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no set criterion. Edit some different articles, join a WikiProject, maybe do some recent-change patrolling - the more you branch yourself out the less "SPA-ey" you look. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a single-purpose account, by the way - the only thing that really matters is that you edit in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And no-one expects you to get everything right straight away, as there is definitely a steep learning curve to this site. Feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any other questions about editing. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion piqued my interest, so I had a search for sources. On the first page of Google Books I found four good references and I stopped searching after that. Electracy is indeed a neologism, but it seems to easily pass WP:NEO. I would just make one change to the article - we should more clearly attribute the term to Ulman, as that is how it's referred to in all of the sources that I found. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Cite rebuttal of Prensky
Marc Prensky's work was not peer-reviewed and has been widely refuted. I propose either removing this section (as it's tangential) or at least citing Bennett, Maton & Kervin's 2008 paper. Dajbelshaw (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Peer-reviewed or not, Prensky's work has been very influential and his ideas are very widespread so it would be a grave mistake to simply remove his work from this article. It may be useful and appropriate, however, to add a brief mention of subsequent works that have refuted his ideas. ElKevbo (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough given Prensky himself has distanced himself from the distinction. I propose citing the 2008 paper as an example as well as, perhaps, a more nuanced approach such as White & Le Cornu's Visitors & Residents (which has been influential in the UK, at least) Dajbelshaw (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Scope/advert
GDLC seems like a reactively small UK and/or US org. Needs some proper notability cites to keep its references. Rich Farmbrough, 14:12 16 October 2008 (UTC).

Clarify 'Eight essential elements' section
I don't want to edit this section directly (as it cites my work). Nevertheless it could be improved in a number of ways: Dajbelshaw (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Footnote 6 as it currently stands cites a Slideshare presentation to a conference. Possibly better to cite the thesis? http://neverendingthesis.com / http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3446/ (Chapter 9)
 * Futurelab's work (footnote 4) is a 'components' based approach, but doesn't use the same elements as cited on the page
 * The Edudemic link (footnote 5) is broken (404)
 * Not here to self-promote, but I've written a book to help clarify this stuff: http://www.digitalliteraci.es


 * For the broken links, I can go ahead and tag them as dead links. As for the other attached footnotes, including the slideshow and articles, I don't think they are credible. The slideshow doesn't really have any references, and the articles simply promote the slideshow, and don't do much else. The footnotes that aren't broken do lead to active(?) pages, although they don't have anything to do with the section at all. The only sites I can find that talk about the core elements of digital literacy at all are the slideshow, articles promoting the slideshow, and the e-book based on the slideshow. I am not sure whether or not this is because this may be a new concept, but I just can't find any other source whatsoever that refers to the core elements. Perhaps it may be best to remove this section, or do more extensive research on my behalf to at least support the section. I also noticed that after researching the author of the book and slideshow, I was unable to find any credentials, other than being a "self-professed Open Educational Thinkerer" and giving a TEDx talk.
 * Dajbelshaw, I understand you've written a book on the concept, so I was wondering whether you have your work based on any outside references I can take a look at? Sarahibrahim (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sarah and I think the core elements section should be deleted. Our group has conducted extensive research and there is not enough research or credible sources supporting these 8 elements. It is misleading to readers if we only cite one source for the entire section. Melissaborrego (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Melissa, what I can do instead of taking the whole thing down completely, I can just begin the section saying these ideas come from Doug Belshaw, and this is who he is, etc., and not every source would agree and whatnot. After some thinking, I think that this section should stay, as it may simply just be a new concept, or even one that may not have been looked into. This is what I can perhaps start it out with: The following concept of the core elements of digital literacy stem from Doug Belshaw, a self-proclaimed Open Educational Thinkerer. Belshaw wrote his doctoral thesis on the core elements of digital literacy, a concept which seems to have been his own idea. While there are currently no other sources, below are the eight essential elements of digital literacy, as proposed by Doug Belshaw. Sarahibrahim (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Sarah! The Core Elements category seems really random. If there are a lot of deadlinks in this section and issues with the references, I believe that the entire section should be deleted. It seems there is not much information about the source to make it reputable. It would not make the digital literacy page reputable. If you feel that it should be replaced with another category, I recommend looking into this article Youth Digital Cultural Consumption and Education. Designs For Learning by Pini, M., Musanti, S. I., & Pargman, T. C. There is some information that discusses different core values in digital media, education, and literacy. I would check it out if you wanted to replace the Core Elements with something else. Keykeen (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

21st-century skills
While reading through this section, I noticed that one of the sentences had words repeating, and a name was spelled incorrectly. Below is the fixed version.

Digital literacy requires certain skill sets that are interdisciplinary in nature. Warschauer and Matuchniak list information, media, and technology; learning and innovation skills; and life and career skills as the three skill sets that individuals need to master in order to be digitally literate, or the 21st century skills. In order to achieve information, media, and technology skills, one needs to achieve competency in information literacy, media literacy and ICT (information communicative technologies). Encompassed within Learning and Innovation Skills, one must also be able to be exercise their creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, and communication and collaboration skills (the "Four Cs of 21st century learning"). In order to be competent in Life and Career Skills, it is also necessary to be able to exercise flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and cross-cultural skills, productivity and accountability, leadership and responsibility.[29] Aviram & Eshet-Alkalai contend that there are five types of literacies that are encompassed in the umbrella term that is digital literacy.

I also propose moving this section under the Digital and media literacy section as it would be optimal, as these skills, according to Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010), are needed in order to become digitally literate. Without these skills, one would not be digitally literate.

Since this section did not cite Warschauer and Matuchniak, I also went ahead and found their journal article.

Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing Evidence of Equity in Access, Use, and Outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225. doi:10.3102/0091732X09349791 Sarahibrahim (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarah! I think you should definitely move the 21st-century skills section to the digital and media literacy section. Your revised version sounds great. My only suggestion would be to change "one" to "individuals". I think the paragraph flows better using "individuals". I just added my revised draft to the digital and media literacy section, so feel free to move your draft whenever you are ready. I think your entry should be first, in terms of organization. My paragraphs would follow your entry, since the section is called "Digital and media literacy", it makes sense to solely talk about digital literacy first, then digital and media literacy skills.Melissaborrego (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Global impact
After reading through the Global impact section, I noticed that there were only a couple of different countries that were discussed. I do believe that the article should either include other parts of the world, to give a better overview of the impact of digital literacy globally, or maybe not include it at all, and speak more generally.

I saw that China and the Philippines were included, and thought that other areas can be included (if this section should be expanded), perhaps some European countries and South American countries, just to give readers a better idea of just how much more other parts of the world are impacted than others.

If anyone would like to go ahead and expand on that, that's great. If not, I'm more than willing to do so, and will post anything I find just as soon as I can. Sarahibrahim (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we should definitely expand on the global impact section. Digital literacy has an impact on every part of the world, and to only provide information on China and the Phillippines is not allowing the reader to learn about other prospectives from the many other regions in our world. As you have suggested, I think we should include more information about the impact of digital literacy on more countries. Perhaps each of us could contribute and report on a different region? Melissaborrego (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I found two different studies done in various parts of the world: Europe and South Africa. Here's what I can add to this section:


 * A study done in 2011 by the Southern African Linguistics & Applied Language Studies program observed some South African university students regarding their digital literacy. It was found that while their courses did require some sort of digital literacy, very few students actually had access to a computer. Many had to pay others to type any work, as their digital literacy was almost nonexistent. Findings show that class, ignorance, and inexperience still affect any access to learning South African university students may need (Kajee & Balfour, 2011).


 * (Kajee, L., & Balfour, R. (2011). Students’ access to digital literacy at a South African university: Privilege and marginalisation. Southern African Linguistics & Applied Language Studies, 29(2), 187. doi:10.2989/16073614.2011.633365)


 * In 2011, the EU Kids Online conducted a study that examined the amount of time children in Europe spent on the computer. It was found that roughly 85% of European children use a computer without the supervision of a teacher or parent, showing that these children have acquired some form of digital literacy (Matyjas, 2015, p.2901). The reasoning behind this is that most European children have access to various digital devices, allowing them to learn more and be more digitally literate later on in life.


 * (Matyjas, B. (2015). Mass Media and Children. Globality in Everyday Life. Procedia - Social And Behavioral Sciences, 174(International Conference on New Horizons in Education, INTE 2014, 25-27 June 2014, Paris, France), 2898-2904. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1026)


 * These two summaries can further expand on the global impact that digital literacy has on various populations across the world. Sarahibrahim (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I found an article that has a study on the effects of digital media and education based in Argentina. I think this would be a great addition in under Global Impact and Use in Education. Keykeen (talk) 1:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your call to any editors to expand this section. The few sentences you added do bring in other parts of the world, but this section still feels disjointed and incomplete.Cathygaborusf (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Cathygaborusf

Digital citizenship
Hi all. Here is my draft for the digital citizenship section. I found a new source for this section. The book, Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation (2007) by Karen Mossberger, Ramona McNeal, and Caroline Tolbert provides new information on what it means to engage in digital citizenship.

Digital citizenship means individuals have the ability to be active citizens in online environments. Digital citizens possess the technical literacy skills necessary to effectively engage with the web and are routine users of the internet. The internet is accessible in their homes and individuals use the internet daily (Mossberger, McNeal, and Tolbert, 2007, pp. 1-2).

Political participation and civic engagement are core components of digital citizenship. Political information and news accessed online furthers political knowledge and promotes civic engagement. Karen Mossberger, Ramona McNeal, and Caroline Tolbert, authors of Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation studied that online consumption of political information is associated with more political knowledge, discussions, and awareness (Mossberger, McNeal, and Tolbert, 2007, pp. 61-65).

Reference: Mossberger, K., McNeal, R., Tolbert, C. (2007). Digital citizenship: The internet, society, and participation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

I think that we should still keep the 9 themes of digital citizenship on the page. However, I think they should be summarized as opposed to listing the 9 themes. Would anyone like to collaborate and summarize the 9 themes? Melissaborrego (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * After a peer review session in class, we have decided to entirely delete the digital citizenship section from the Wikipedia article. There is a digital citizenship article on Wikipedia, so we plan on writing a sentence or two briefly introducing the concept in the introduction and linking to the Wikipedia "digital citizenship" page. If anyone is opposed to this idea please let me know or I will go ahead and delete this section and make changes in the introduction.Melissaborrego (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeing that digital literacy is one of the nine components of digital citizenship, I believe that the concept could be briefly mentioned in the introduction. We could probably have link that takes people to the digital citizenship page.Keykeen (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd be a little bit careful about the Riddle source. While he seems like a legit educator, that is a self-published pageCathygaborusf (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Cathygaborusf


 * Hi Cathy. We will be deleting the digital citizenship section that links to Ribble's web page on digital citizenship. Since digital citizenship already has a Wikipedia page of its own, we will add a brief sentence in the introduction and link to the proper Wikipedia page. I will be referencing this source: Mossberger, K., McNeal, R., Tolbert, C. (2007). Digital citizenship: The internet, society, and participation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Melissaborrego (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Broken links in digital and media literacy section
Hello everyone. I was reading through the digital and media literacy subsection and I found a few broken links. First, the Renee Hobbs hyperlink doesn't lead to its Wikipedia page. The link leads to a page stating that the page has been moved or deleted. Second, the hyperlink to "Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action" leads to a 404 not found page. The footnote #11 in this section also leads to a 404 not found page. I suggest finding reliable sources to replace these broken links or rewriting the section entirely from scratch. I would like to hear your thoughts and suggestions before I move forward. Melissaborrego (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

In addition to Melissa's comment, multiple links in the references section are unreliable. There are a total of eleven links that do not work or are unreliable : 1) The Hive Mind 2) Digital Natives, Immigrants, Part 2 3) Digital Literacy Contest 4) Champions of Digital Literacy 5) Global Literacy (Hot Chalk) 6) Council Overview 7) Certiblog 8) Certiport 9) CEPIS 10) Microsoft Digital Literacy 11) ECDL Foundation. Some links are blogs and according to the Wikipedia guidelines, blogs are unacceptable resources due to the fact it may be biased or incorrect. The link from Microsoft may lead one to believe that they are advertising Microsoft over other websites or one may perceive it as one trying to sell Microsoft products. — Preceding Keykeen comment added by Keykeen (talk • contribs) 10:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making that list Keykeen! To add, I found that a citation is needed under the "use in society" subsection. Also, under the "core elements and their educational effects" subsection, the term "networked society" leads to another broken link. I suggest we read over this section and double check sources and citations. Melissaborrego (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Since no one has disagreed, I will begin working on a draft for the digital and media literacy subsection. I will be re-writing the entire section, as the current sources lead to broken links. Researcher and professor at New York University, Danah Boyd, wrote the book It's Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens (2014) and I think it is a reliable source in writing this section. I think Boyd's book is a worthy source to include in this article because it contains information about media literacy and its impacts on evaluating messages.


 * I also purpose moving the digital citizen subsection under the digital and media literacy subsection because being media literate is at the heart of being a digital citizen. According to Boyd (2014), proponents of media literacy education programs in the 1930s began to emphasize critical thinking skills in order teach citizens how to effectively evaluate propaganda posters in the United Kingdom (p.181). Media literacy skills are a core component of being a digital citizen and knowing how to effectively evaluate messages is a large part of being an informed citizen as well. Please let me know your thoughts, otherwise, I will move the digital citizen subsection under the the digital and media literacy subsection. I am also open to suggestions and other sources you believe may be useful in writing this section.


 * Reference:
 * Boyd, D. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Melissaborrego (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you think the Digital citizenship section is necessary or even remotely relevant? I think the article can still work really well without it. Digital literacy seems to be merely a component of digital citizenship, instead of the opposite, and since this article is about digital literacy and not digital citizenship (especially seeing as it isn't really discussed and seems as though it's only there as a filler), it may be better if taken out altogether. What do you think? Sarahibrahim (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that the digital citizenship section is relevant, however, it should be a subsection under digital and media literacy instead of having a section of its own, that way it's not a filler. I think it's worth mentioning digital citzenship because being media literate allows us to effectively make decisions in our society. I believe that if we do not understand how to break down the media messages we recieve on a daily basis and form our own opinions, we aren't maximzing our rights as digital cititzens. I do think, however, that we should find a better source to support the current information on digital citizenship and improve the current description. Melissaborrego (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Based on Ian's message, for the references that send you to a "dead" page, we should add to it. Some of the references that would be added to are "Global Literacy HotChalk articles about digital literacy around the world. ", "Digital Literacy Contest A competition of digital literacy skills which libraries host for their patrons. ", "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II by Marc Prensky. " , and "The Hive Mind: Folksonomies and User-Based Tagging by Ellyssa Kroski.  ". Keykeen (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is my draft for the digital and media literacy section. I was able to find a peer-reviewed journal, co-written by Renee Hobbs, who is currently cited in that section! I think that my draft should be included in this section because it informs the reader about the beginning of digital and media literacy and the catalysts that ignited media literacy education. Furthermore, the current Wikipedia article only contains a bulllet list of skills for digital and media literacy. I think my paragraph does a better job at elaborating on the competencies. Please let me know any feedback you may have.


 * Digital and media literacy (section):

Media literacy education began in the United Kingdom and the United States as a result of war propaganda in the 1930s and the rise of advertising in the 1960s, respectively. Manipulative messaging and the increase in various forms of media further concerned educators. Educators began to promote media literacy education in order to teach individuals how to judge and access the media messages they were receiving. The ability to critique digital and media content allows individuals to identify biases and evaluate messages independently (Boyd, 2014, p. 181).

Reference: Boyd, D. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.


 * Digital and media literacy competence (subsection):

Renee Hobbs, professor of Communication and Media at the University of Rhode Island, developed a list of skills that demonstrate digital and media literacy competence. Digital and media literacy involves knowing how to retrieve, distribute, and understand information found in digital environments, such as the internet. Digital and media literacy includes the ability to examine and comprehend the meaning of messages, judging credibility, and assessing the quality of the digital work. The individual is capable of analyzing digital and media messages by recognizing the author's perspective and overall purpose. A digital and media literate individual has the aptitude to create diverse forms of digital content and possesses technology skills to create digital content. The individual becomes a socially responsible member of their community by spreading awareness and helping others find digital solutions at home, work, or on a national platform (Martens & Hobbs, 2015, p. 121).

Reference: Martens, H., & Hobbs, R. (2015). How media literacy supports civic engagement in a digital age. Atlantic Journal Of Communication. 23 (2): 120–137. doi:10.1080/15456870.2014.961636. Melissaborrego (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Melissa, Your paragraph for "Digital and media literacy" is organized better than the one that is published. The paragraph is read smoothly and is easier to understand. The paragraph that is currently under that section comes off as a bit overwhelming. I could see how the previous author believed it would be beneficial for readers to include a plethora of history of the topic, but the way it is written throws so much information without much of a explanation. Your paragraph is short and concise. My only critique is to include slightly more background information on Boyd to make it stronger.

For your subsection paragraph, I think it is well written with information that is up to date. Glad that we finally have some research on Renee Hobbs especially since there was no page for her on Wikipedia. I believe that adding this subsection will help the reader have a better understanding to the term. Keykeen (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback Keykeen. I will be working on my draft using your suggestions. I have also decided that I don't want to move the digital citizenship section into the digital and media literacy section. After doing more research, I think that the digital citizenship section is a better fit for digital divide. The research I found describes digital citizenship as the ability of individuals to be active citizens in online environments. They are defined as routine users of the internet and possess the technical literacy skills necessary to effectively engage with the web. The internet is accessible in their homes and individuals use the internet daily (Mossberger, McNeal, and Tolbert, 2007, pp. 1-2). I think that their definition of digital citizenship is more related to the digital divide than digital and media literacy because it cites internet access as a requirement of digital citizenship. Access to technology is a core component of the digital divide, so I think that digital citizenship logically fits best under the digital divide section.

Reference: Mossberger, K., McNeal, R., Tolbert, C. (2007). Digital citizenship: The internet, society, and participation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Melissaborrego (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi all. Below is my draft for the digital and media literacy section, let me know what you think.

Media literacy education began in the United Kingdom and the United States as a result of war propaganda in the 1930s and the rise of advertising in the 1960s, respectively. Manipulative messaging and the increase in various forms of media further concerned educators. Educators began to promote media literacy education in order to teach individuals how to judge and access the media messages they were receiving. The ability to critique digital and media content allows individuals to identify biases and evaluate messages independently (Boyd, 2014, p. 181).

Danah Boyd, a researcher and professor at New York University and author It's Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, stresses the importance of critical media literacy, especially for teens. Danah Boyd advocates that critical media literacy skills are the first step in identifying biases in media content, such as online or print advertising. Technical skills and knowledge of navigating computer systems further help individuals in evaluating information on their own. Barriers in acquiring technical skills and computer knowledge set forth a limit for individuals in fully participating in the digital world (Boyd, 2014, pp. 181-183).

Renee Hobbs, professor of Communication and Media at the University of Rhode Island, developed a list of skills that demonstrate digital and media literacy competence. Digital and media literacy involves knowing how to retrieve, distribute, and understand information found in digital environments, such as the internet. Digital and media literacy includes the ability to examine and comprehend the meaning of messages, judge credibility, and assess the quality of the digital work. The individual is capable of analyzing digital and media messages by recognizing the author's perspective and overall purpose. A digital and media literate individual has the aptitude to create diverse forms of digital content and possesses technology skills to create digital content. The individual becomes a socially responsible member of their community by spreading awareness and helping others find digital solutions at home, work, or on a national platform (Martens & Hobbs, 2015, p. 121).

References:

Boyd, D. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Martens, H., & Hobbs, R. (2015). How media literacy supports civic engagement in a digital age. Atlantic Journal Of Communication. 23 (2): 120–137. doi:10.1080/15456870.2014.961636. Melissaborrego (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Great discussion of links, organization and content! I made one small grammar edit in the Digital and Media Literacy section. Cathygaborusf (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Cathygaborusf


 * Thank you for the grammar edit, Cathy. I added a new topic sentence in the last paragraph to improve the transitions between paragraphs 2 and 3:

Media literacy education began in the United Kingdom and the United States as a result of war propaganda in the 1930s and the rise of advertising in the 1960s, respectively.[1] Manipulative messaging and the increase in various forms of media further concerned educators. [1] Educators began to promote media literacy education in order to teach individuals how to judge and access the media messages they were receiving. [1] The ability to critique digital and media content allows individuals to identify biases and evaluate messages independently.[1]

Danah Boyd stresses the importance of critical media literacy, especially for teens. [1] Danah Boyd advocates that critical media literacy skills are the first step in identifying biases in media content, such as online or print advertising.[1] Technical skills and knowledge of navigating computer systems further helps individuals in evaluating information on their own. [1] Barriers in acquiring technical skills and computer knowledge set forth a limit for individuals in fully participating in the digital world.[1]

In order for individuals to evaluate digital and media messages independently, they must demonstrate digital and media literacy competence. Renee Hobbs, professor of Communication and Media at the University of Rhode Island, developed a list of skills that demonstrate digital and media literacy competence. [2] Digital and media literacy involves knowing how to retrieve, distribute, and understand information found in digital environments, such as the internet. [2] Digital and media literacy includes the ability to examine and comprehend the meaning of messages, judging credibility, and assessing the quality of the digital work. [2] The individual is capable of analyzing digital and media messages by recognizing the author's perspective and overall purpose. [2] A digital and media literate individual has the aptitude to create diverse forms of digital content and possesses technology skills to create digital content. [2] The individual becomes a socially responsible member of their community by spreading awareness and helping others find digital solutions at home, work, or on a national platform.[2]Melissaborrego (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Digital divide, digital inequality, participation gap, and digital natives/immigrants grouping
The digital divide section is very brief and I think we should show a complete picture of the digital divide by including more concepts, such as digital inequality, participation gap, digital native and digital immigrant. I found more information on these concepts in the book I mentioned previously, It's Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens (2014) by Danah Boyd. Currently, this Wikipedia page has information on digital natives and immigrants, so we could move that section under the digital divide and include more information from Boyd's book. It would make sense to move the concepts of digital visitors and residents under the digital divide section as well, as these concepts are similar to digital natives and immigrants.

Also, footnotes #31 and #36 lead to broken links, so we should definitely cut these sources out unless anyone can find the correct links.

What do you guys think about dividing up this section? It would require some sections to be rearranged and more research, so I think a group effort would work best. Let me know what you think. Melissaborrego (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I just found an article that touches on what digital natives and digital immigrants are but it also talks about how a social object like mobile devices is understood by groups or communities.Cathy ceee (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Cathyceee, Can you share that article with us? I would like to know if that article contains similar or different ideas from Boyd's book. If we can find sources with opposing views, it would be a good idea to cite those articles in order to provide the reader with unbias information. There's a good amount of information on digital natives and digital immigrants on the current Wikipedia article, but if we find new information we should definitely include it. Melissaborrego (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Ahn, J., & Jung, Y. (2016). The common sense of dependence on smartphone: A comparison between digital natives and digital immigrants. New Media & Society, 18(7), 1236-1256. doi:10.1177/1461444814554902 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathy ceee (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC) The article says what digital natives and what digital immigrants are, but also talks about the dependency on mobile devicesCathy ceee (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think that we need to include information about dependency on mobile devices for this Wikipedia page, dependency is not relevant to digital literacy. However, I do suggest writing a paragraph describing digital natives and digital immigrants with new information that isn't already cited. I have begun writing a paragraph for participation gap and I will paste it below this comment. Participation gap is a new term for this Wikipedia page and I am open to any suggestions for my draft. Specifically, I would like to know if you think I should include Boyd's fieldwork observations of the participation gap. If I go ahead and include her observations, then I would summarize what she observed when teens used technology. She describes how teens use technology and the different experiences that formed from their use.


 * Media theorist Henry Jenkins coined the term participation gap and distinguished the participation gap from the digital divide. The term, participation gap, surfaced after the digital divide was proclaimed to have reached an end by the media. The media claimed the end of the digital divide as a result of increased digital access in the United States. According to Henry Jenkins, the participation gap describes how varying degrees of access lead to various experiences with technology (Boyd, 2014, pp. 193-194).


 * Danah Boyd, researcher, professor at New York University, and author of It's Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, conducted fieldwork and saw the effects of the participation gap on teens in the United States (Boyd, 2014, p. 194).


 * Reference: Boyd, D. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Melissaborrego (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Would anyone like to take up the concepts of digital visitors and digital residents? I think these concepts can be expanded upon. Currently, there is only a brief description of the topics in the Wikipedia article. I think we can research more current information as well. I will be including more information on digital immigrants and digital natives, and I don't have much time to do research on digital visitors and digital residents. I would appreciate help in this section. Thank you! Melissaborrego (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Melissa. I'll help on looking for info on digital visitors and reidents.Cathy ceee (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is my draft for the digital natives and digital immigrants subsection, let me know what you think.


 * Marc Prensky is credited as the originator of digital natives and digital immigrants because he popularized the concepts. However, Poet and cyberlibertarian John Perry Barlow and media theorist Douglas Rushkoff have also been cited to have coined the terms (Boyd, 2014, pp. 177-179).


 * John Perry Barlow used the concepts in his statement entitled A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, for the 1996 World Economic Forum in Davos. John Perry Barlow's poetry showcases the generational gap that grew with the rise of technology. John Perry Barlow metaphorically suggested that children are natives in the growing digital world and parents are fearful of the growing generational gap in regard to technology. Douglas Rushkoff employed the concepts of digital natives and digital immigrants in his book, Playing the Future. Douglas Rushkoff praises children's progress and growing competence with technology and labels youth as digital natives (Boyd, 2014, pp. 177-179).


 * Also, here is my edited paragraph citing the effects of the participation gap that Danah Boyd observed:


 * Danah Boyd conducted fieldwork and saw the effects of the participation gap on teens in the United States. Danah Boyd observed privileged and disadvantaged teens' different experiences with technology. In New York, she observed a teen girl use her Android phone for texting and using mobile applications. The teen girl was able to use technology to participate in social media, but the internet was too slow on her phone to complete homework assignments. Although the teen girl had full access to the internet, the slow internet on her mobile device limited her experience (Boyd, 2014, pp. 193-194).

Reference: Boyd, D. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Melissaborrego (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I also rewrote the digital divide section. I included new information and fixed the tone of the current entry.


 * The digital divide was discussed by journalists, academics, and governmental agencies in the 1990s. The digital divide was used to distinguish the digital accessibility gap between wealthy and lower-income groups (Boyd, 2014, p. 193).


 * Jessamyn C. West, the author of Without a Net: Librarians Bridging the Digital Divide, defines the digital divide as the gap between individuals who can and cannot easily access technology, or the haves and have-nots. The digital divide highlights the privileges individuals have in accessing technology (Cohron, 2016, pp. 77-78).


 * Professor at UCLA's School of Education and Information Studies Howard Besser argues that the digital divide means more than technology access between the haves and have-nots. The digital divide encompasses aspects such as information literacy, appropriateness of content, and access to content. Beyond access, a digital divide exists between those who have the ability to apply critical thinking to technology. Language and English fluency creates a barrier in the digital divide as well, as most content online is written in English. The digital divide includes a gap between individuals who have the ability to create digital content or are merely consumers (Besser, 2001).


 * In 1994 the United States Department of Commerce began investigating the causes of the digital divide. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) conducted the survey, Falling Through the Net. The NTIA discovered that many socioeconomic factors, such as income, geographical location, age, and education were the driving forces of the digital divide. Older, less educated, and lower-income individuals were less likely to own a telephone or computer in their homes (Cohron, 2016, p. 78).


 * The NTIA conducted a second survey in 1999 and found that statistics of the digital divide improved. Computer ownership and internet access increased across every demographic group and geographic area. However, the research found that certain groups were advancing faster in regards to internet access. Those who had easy access to technology were growing more information rich than the have-not group. The research revealed that the socioeconomic factors found in the first survey are still present in growing the digital divide, although access to computers and internet use increased (Cohron, 2016, pp. 78-79).


 * References:
 * Besser, H. (2001). The Next Digital Divides Retrieved from http://tcla.gseis.ucla.edu/divide/politics/besser.html
 * Boyd, D. (2014). It's Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
 * Cohron, M. (2016). The Continuing Digital Divide in the United States. The Serials Librarian. 69 (1): 77–78. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2015.1036195 Melissaborrego (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

So it does not look like you have made any of these changes yet, right? It's a bot hard to see what you would change and what you would keep. I would only say that the Participation Gap section should cite Jenkins directly and not rely on Boyd.Cathygaborusf (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Cathygaborusf


 * To clarify, here is the entire section I wrote about the digital divide that will be posted,I will make a separate post for the participation gap:

The digital divide was first widely discussed by journalists, academics, and governmental agencies in the 1990s.[1] The digital divide was used to distinguish between the digital accessibility of wealthy and lower-income groups. [1] Jessamyn C. West, the author of Without a Net: Librarians Bridging the Digital Divide, defines the digital divide as the gap between individuals who can and cannot easily access technology, or the haves and have-nots. [5] The digital divide highlights the privileges individuals have in accessing technology. [5]

In 1994 the United States Department of Commerce began investigating the causes of the digital divide. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) conducted the survey, Falling Through the Net. [5] The NTIA discovered that many socioeconomic factors, such as income, geographical location, age, and education were the driving forces of the digital divide. [5]Older, less educated, and lower-income individuals were less likely to own a telephone or computer in their homes. [5]

The NTIA conducted a second survey in 1999 and found that statistics of the digital divide improved. Computer ownership and internet access increased across every demographic group and geographic area. However, the research found that certain groups were advancing faster in regards to internet access. [5] Those who had easy access to technology were growing more information rich than the have-not group. [5] The research revealed that the socioeconomic factors found in the first survey are still present in growing the digital divide, although access to computers and internet use increased. [5]

Expanding on the definition of the digital divide, Professor at UCLA's School of Education and Information Studies Howard Besser argues that the digital divide means more than technology access between the haves and have-nots. The digital divide encompasses aspects such as information literacy, appropriateness of content, and access to content. [6] Beyond access, a digital divide exists between those who have the ability to apply critical thinking to technology. [6] Language and English fluency creates a barrier in the digital divide as well, as most content online is written in English. [6] The digital divide includes a gap between individuals who have the ability to create digital content or are merely consumers. [6]Melissaborrego (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is my draft for the participation gap section, with a new source citing Henry Jenkins:

Media theorist Henry Jenkins coined the term participation gap and distinguished the participation gap from the digital divide.[1] According to Henry Jenkins, the participation gap describes the gap in skills that emerge when individuals have different levels of access to technology. [7] Henry Jenkins states that students learn different sets of technology skills if they only have access to the internet in a library or school. [7] Students who have access to the internet at home have more opportunities to develop their skills and have fewer limitations, such as computer time limits and website filters commonly used in libraries. [7]

The effects of the participation gap were studied by Danah Boyd, who observed and conducted fieldwork on teens in the United States. [1] Danah Boyd observed privileged and disadvantaged teens' different experiences with technology. In New York, she observed a teen girl use her Android phone for texting and using mobile applications. The teen girl was able to use technology to participate in social media, but the internet was too slow on her phone to complete homework assignments. Although the teen girl had full access to the internet, the slow internet and mobile device itself limited her experience in further improving her competence with technology. [1] The teen girl's limited access to technology highlights the participatory gap in skills that individuals experience when they have limited access to the internet and various modes of technology.

References 1. Boyd, Danah (2014). It's Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. pp. 177–194. ISBN 978-0-300-16631-6. 7. "The Participation Gap: A Conversation with media expert and MIT Professor Henry Jenkins". National Education Association. March 18, 2008. Retrieved November 27, 2016.Melissaborrego (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)