Unpacking Kittens: Valuing Differences in Digital Literacy Practices

Sometimes when we give a thing a name, that name helps to create a really useful way of understanding something. For example, the term 'cute rage' is such a useful terms for the feeling I get when I see pictures like this. 'Cause, I mean, aren't those kittens so cute that you can't even stand it?

Sometimes, though, the name creates a way of understanding that diminishes or clouds the nuance of the thing. For example, the term 'digital divide', coined by Hammond and Irving, sought to explain how, in the mid-90s youth from wealthier communities had more frequent access to new technologies while youth from poorer communities had access to older technologies.

So, what might be some of the problems with the term 'digital divide'? The term comes from research that observed the actions of mainly affluent white males. That research set affluent white males as the people whose digital access and behavior was desirable, so 'digital divide' as a term clouds the nuances of the ways that different people use technology and can frame digital use by people who aren't affluent white males as bad.

If you want to know some more about the digital divide, Richard Rapaport of Edutopia has a great article about the term's history here, and Christopher Mims of MIT Technology Review has a great interview with Jessie Daniels about the term here.

So, after a little bit of unpacking the term, my next thought is, how might this different way of looking at people's histories with digital literacy impact classroom instruction? 

Friedrich, Teichert, & Devadas (2017) recently published an article in Language and Literacy that looked at just that. They combined two ethnographic studies of the home digital literacy practices of young children. One study observed three Karen refugee families and the other observed two English-speaking, middle-class families.

The researchers found many similarities in literacy practices. The parents across both studies worried about screen time and also scaffolded their children's digital literacy learning. The children across the two studies took part in meaning-making activities (like making a video) and also learned how to use their homes' digital tools independently. 

Differences in use were limited only to what digital tools the youth used, with one group using mostly icon-based tools like iPads and the other using mostly word-based tools like desktop computers. 

When applying this information to the classroom, some ways that teachers might use this knowledge are: 

• When getting to know a new class of students, ask children or families what kinds of digital tools they already feel comfortable with. That way, you'll know where children's strengths already lie and where they might need some added instruction in use of a tool. 
• Engage with different kinds of digital tools throughout the year so that different children have the chance to start in their comfort zone throughout the year.
• When planning instruction, use a low-stakes assignment to include time to learn the digital tool.
• Find ways to make at-home digital assignments value the different literacy practices of your students. For example, can the assignment be completed easily on many different kinds of devices that have many different kinds of internet access? If not, consider keeping the assignment within the school day where you have control over who has access to what.

Friedrich, N., Teichert, L., & Devadas, Z. (2017). The techno-literacy practices of young children from diverse backgrounds. Language and Literacy, 19(3), 21-34.