Running head: EVOLVING FACE OF DIGITAL LITERACY

Literature Review of the Evolving Face of Digital Literacy

Timothy J. OCallaghan
Georgia State University

EVOLVING FACE OF DIGITAL LITERACY

Literature Review of the Evolving Face of Digital Literacy

In one of the first episodes of the Cracked podcast Jason Pargin* spoke of generational
gaps, and the loss of privacy. To paraphrase, he said you dont see the generational gap when
someone acts in a way you would not, the gap arises when some one deliberately goes out to do
something that you couldnt be forced to do (Pargin, 2014). In the context of digital literacy, new
people are learning about digital media in new ways and reasons not envisioned before. This is to
be a discussion of the evolving nature of digital literacy, who it is affecting, how its being taught
and the why of it all. *Jason is better known by his Pseudonym David Wong, authoring
several enjoyable books, such as John Dies at the End, Futuristic Violence and Fancy Suits,
and This Book is Full of Spiders: Seriously Dude Don't Touch It.
History
Technology
The reason digital literacy has to change is because digital media and digital spaces have
changed. The environment has changed, so we have to adapt with it. Digital media is more than
just web development, but the evolution of the web is a good avatar for understanding this
development.
Web 0.0. In the late 60s ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) was
enacted. It was an experimental informational packet-switching network, connecting universities.
Military bases and researches (Internet History, 2014). This is Web 0.0. This had less to do with
humans literacy as it did with mechanical. The first e-mail wasnt even sent for nearly 3 years.
(FLEISHMAN, 2012).
Web 1.0. Prior to 1997 (Barrett, 1997) browsing the web was billed like phone calls (per
minute), people didnt have the luxury of hanging out online. This was a very read-only
experience, there was not a demand or ability to engage in a casual back and forth manner.

EVOLVING FACE OF DIGITAL LITERACY

(Olliges, 2008). This was Web 1.0, and flipping thought endless static pages of text required the
same kind of literacy as flipping thought catalogs and brochures. In both the only really
important thing to remember, is easy information isnt always correct information.
Web 2.0. This is the age of digital literacy, the way it is commonly thought of. Being
Digital Literacy is the ability to use information and communication technologies to find,
evaluate, create, and communicate information, requiring both cognitive and technical skills
(Visser, 2012). This is the web as many think of it; a democratic environment where content is
created by users for users. Content being created by, shared, commented on, evaluated and
recommended, all by users. In short it is a read/write web. A user can create content, this spurs
another to comment, another reads the comment, and creates content based on the relationship
between original content, and the comment. This goes on and on forming never before seen
relationship between ideas. This can sound esoteric or turbulent, but as my 70-year-old aunt and
my 7-year-old cousin show, it is a very natural way to interact with technologyand they both
prove the need for digital literacy. While blogging is the prototypical example of this kind of
experience, micro blogging platforms like Instagram, Twitter and Facebook has become the
norm, as well as vlog (a portmanteau of Video and bLOG, which is itself is a portmanteau or
weB and LOG) platforms like youtube.. To our concern as educators, students found this
collaborate environment more rewarding, and there grades benefited as a result. This
empowerment comes with some risk of addiction (Ives, 2012), this is an opportunity for digital
literacy to serve a social good, as it can incorporate safeguards, to its skill set. Like the old
proverb says Not only can water float a boat, but it can sink it also. So to can people float and
sink in a sea of digital media.

EVOLVING FACE OF DIGITAL LITERACY

Web 3.0. To extend the analogy, of the boat and water, the water level is rising so fast,
we need to build submarines or learn how to breath underwater. When Google was built there
were literally millions of web pages (Ray, 2010), and it was more than capable of handling it; but
the content inception that was part of web 2.0 caused more than a billion to come to be by 2014
(Lafrance, 2015) is stressing it to its limits (Fleerackers, 2012). Goggle (and Bing and Yahoo,
but Google will be used as short hand) is adapting with more advanced tools and tailoring
searches by a number of factors, including your previous searches (Stamou, 2009). This is great
so when a music lover types Hendrix in to Google, weather they get Jimmy or Barbara
Hendrix will depend on how much opera or rock they have searched for. This keeps us from
having to wade in to countless results to get the one thing we are looking for; this is terrible for
the same reason. The truism coined by Ralph Waldo Emerson People only see what they are
prepare to see comes to bear in very troubling ways. A long-standing critique of news media
outlets (i.e. Fox, CNBC, CNN, etc) is that they are biased, and maybe it is. However we
understand media as a produced item, and because no one fits the bias perfectly we are more
aware when a story feels wonky (a key element of digital literacy). Google gets us because
search results are assumed to be sterile algorithmic productions, with out human interactions.
When we use Google to search for something, we trust what we find to be the truest result, in the
same way we trust our calculator to respond with the truest result. If the calculator worked the
way Google does, we would just get numbers we were fond of. This is fine, if you are just
looking for neat numbers, but a serious problem if you are trying to do your taxes (or otherwise
searching for truth). This isnt to say the technology is wrong, but the need for digital literacy
has fallen way to the need for digital literacies.

EVOLVING FACE OF DIGITAL LITERACY

Fortunately Allan Martin in Digital Literacies for Learning puts it in more measured and
useful terms, with a focus to enable educators.
Enabling education in a digital environment means not only changing the form in which
learning opportunities are offered, but also enabling students to survive and prosper in
digitally based learning environments Traditional notions of literacy need to be
challenged, and new literacies, including information literacy and IT literacy, need to be
considered as foundation elements for digitally involved learners. (Martin, 2006)
It is by no means Judgment Day (a reference to the Terminator franchise, a day where computers
became aware, and tries to terminate humanity) while the problems in Web 3.0 are real, but
they are no means insurmountable. In the same way the industrial age democratized print (Hoe,
1902.) and made traditional literacy a important part of daily life for everyone. Web 3.0 is doing
the same for digital literacy.
Web 4.0. Also known, as Mobil 2.0 isnt an evolution on the former web, like the
previous webs X.0 were. This is an adaptation, of humans and technology. Web 4.0 is a mobile
revolution of connectivity (Waele, 2008). Web 4.0 exists because the thing in your pocket is as
good, or in many cases a better tool to engage in digital media than the big box sitting on your
desk. Its always on, its always with you, and we engage can engage with it as we would engage
with our own memory.
This is being the newest, and current age, many of the details and issues are still being
worked out. 3 of the biggest issues that relate to literacy in this age, is digital discretion and
digital distraction, and digital destruction. These are self-coined terms.
Digital discretion It is said discretion is the better part of valor, it may also be the better
part of literacy. As discussed earlier digital literacy involves the creation of content, not just he

EVOLVING FACE OF DIGITAL LITERACY

consumption of it. Unfortunately many young people are creating content with disastrous
effects. For much of human history mistakes of youth are left in youthboys will be boys. In
more modern times, people get to reinvent themselves regularly. Moving to a new city, going to
university, or starting a new job, all are opportunities to become a new person. People only
know what you tell them about yourself. American history is punctuated by communities trying
to recreate their own identity (survivalists in Montana, gay community in San Francisco,
Mormons in Utah); So in that way we are simply doing for recreation, what we have done
professionally nationally. (Glass, 1996).
Unfortunately we are no longer able to do that. It is unnecessary to explicitly state the
kinds of errors young people make; but now those mistakes are made with or near camera that
are always connected to the Internet. And now this foolishness doesnt fade. We (at least not in
The States) dont have the right to be forgotten (KROLK, 2015). So as educators it is
important to teach Digital discretion. This isnt easy, but many teens are finding new ways to
prune there information, and manage there privacy (Madden 2013). So the challenge is to
facilitate conversations about these issues allowing students to share solutions and encourage
each other towards privacy. But the laws are what they are, and teens have bad habits, this isnt a
mystery. We know teen brains are still developing, so they make some big errors constantly like
assuming unanimity and that leads to a feeling of invulnerability. Also when seeking identity or
human connection, people act out of a desperation that clouds judgment. Finally the when in
roam factor abusing the potential freedom online to do and say things that have real world
consequences (Willard, 2011). This can be addressed with empathy, and technological
awareness, knowing there can never be a secret online, and appreciating others as humans, and
not just NPCs getting you to the next point.

EVOLVING FACE OF DIGITAL LITERACY

Digital distraction. There are 2 hard truths about smart phone ownership; we check them
constantly, and despite what we think it effects our productive. The avenge smart phone user
checks there phone 150 times a day (Stern, 2013). That averages out tot about one every 6
minutes. If that isnt disheartening enough recent research states that it takes an average of 25
minutes to get back the same level of productivity after an interruption (Matter, 2013). Thats
right every 6 minutes you get reset, this might account for low levels of job satisfaction (Weber,
2014). Putting in hours of labor with little to show, except an empty inbox and a thoroughly
checked phone has to be crushing. If web 4.0 has a patron saint it has to be Sisyphus.
One of the most important off-label purposes of an educator is to instill hope as
information is dispensed. This is no less true here. Part of the hope is knowing that
unproductivity isnt from a personal fault, but systemic one. Cotap, a firm that designs some of
the most important connectivity software, has published a few best-practices for conserving
attention. Use context-specific apps to make reactions easier, Adjust the settings in your social
apps to make notifications smarter, Turn off push notifications for utility-only apps, and Take
advantage of different ringtones (Symons, 2014). In short, get what you want from where you
want, and know what you are getting before you get it. However there are best practices that
dont involve phone setting. Get plenty of sleep, breaks, and positive self-talk, and healthy food.
Also set daily schedules (preferably before bed), delegate what you cant schedule, and delegate
to oblivion those things that truly dont matter. (10 Easy, 2015)
Digital destruction. In the past year or so there has been big news stories that point to
the danger of digital destruction. Justine Sacco (Ronson, 2015 ) tried to make a point, but
expressed it in an unfunny collection of 140 characters. If she would have told this to the
passenger on her right, all she would risk is an uncomfortable flight, as it is she tweeted it out.

EVOLVING FACE OF DIGITAL LITERACY

Her flight was fine, but her life was ruined. People took the opportunity to prove that they were
better people, and express that same youre an idiot face her fellow passenger didnt have the
chance to giver her, in the form of internet infamy, and serious real world consequences. A few
months latter it was Walter Palmer turn to make the Internet feel better about its self. He
committed the (apparently) cardinal sin of killing a lion with a name. Instead of having a
conversation about governmental oversight, or conservation ethics, the Internet found out where
he lived and worked, and ruined him, leaving him in hiding as his office is swarmed. (Holden,
2015) It is easily arguable that neither of these people is in the right, and both could learn some
digital literacy, but they didnt deserve this. But its the risk we take for trying to be Internet
famous. We all post comments, or upload media hoping to get a lot of people pumped about
what we are doingIts human nature to seek approval and community. Unfortunately we are all
part of a dangerous lottery. Despite our best efforts, we sometimes make contributions on the
web that we regret, most of the time its minor, bad spelling and grammar, misunderstanding the
purpose of the original material, or just putting forth an idea we might not have thought out . In
real life these mistakes have minor consequences, but if the internet decides that qualifies you as
the scape goat. Your life could be ruined. We all jump on the band wagon, we dont even think
about it. This digital danger is plagued by the false dichotomy of agreeing wit a stranger or
standing up for the issue, in a very specific way.
As educators there we want to short-circuit the whole nasty cycle. We want our students
to avoid making bad content decisions (as previously discussed), and respond appropriately to
bad content, responses are content after all. Ultimately the student needs to be reminded of a
time in there own life where they were convinced of something they no longer believe, and to
extend that same grace to be wrong to strangers. When confronted with objectionable material

EVOLVING FACE OF DIGITAL LITERACY

online, be sure to keep this Eleanor Roosevelt quote in mind Great minds discuss ideas; average
mind dissuade events; small minds discuss people. Because of this failure we missed out on a
useful national discussion on race and conservation, and instead had a cathartic happening. We
opted for feeling good instead of doing good.
Web 5.0 While there is fantastic speculation on what this could be, it is not here yet. But
rest assured it will need its own set/sets of literacy to effectively manage the tech and our selves.
But a truism that is as applicable to web 0.0 as 5.0 be sure to have the technology serve human
interests, not the other way around
Conclusion
Its easy to get overwhelmed by technology and the need for literacy and, like a luddite,
arbitral choose how you will engage, and go no further. This is an option. If you decide you
cant learn to swim, it would be a better to stay away from water. However our students will not
abstain, and they will need our guidance.`
What you win in the imidate battle is little compared to the effort you put into it, but if
you see it as building a new world...You know what cathedral you are building once you put your
stone in

EVOLVING FACE OF DIGITAL LITERACY

10

References
Internet History From ARPANET to Broadband. (2007). Congressional Digest, 86(2), 35.
FLEISHMAN, G. (2012). A SHORT HISTORY OF EMAIL. Macworld, 29(8), 52.
Jason P, (2014) Loss of privacy, Cracked.com, https://soundcloud.com/crackedpod
Olliges, R. (2008). GROWING UP DIGITAL: IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR STUDENTS.
Journal Of Philosophy & History Of Education, 58121-125.
Amy Barrett, (1997) Bussness week FOR $19.95 A MONTH, UNLIMITED HEADACHES FOR
AOL, http://www.businessweek.com/1997/04/b351154.htm
Visser M, (2012) Discussion Digital Literacy Definition, ALA Connect,
http://connect.ala.org/node/181197.
Al Jeraisy, M. N., Mohammad, H., Fayyoumi, A., & Alrashideh, W. (2015). Web 2.0 in
Education: The Impact of Discussion Board on Student Performance and Satisfaction.
Turkish Online Journal Of Educational Technology - TOJET, 14(2), 247-258.
Ives, E. A. (2012, October 1). iGeneration: The Social Cognitive Effects of Digital Technology
on Teenagers. Online Submission,
Ray, K (2010) Web 3.0, https://vimeo.com/11529540
Lafrance, A (2015) How Many Websites Are There? , The Atlantic,
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/how-many-websites-arethere/408151/
Stamou, S., & Ntoulas, A. (2009). Search personalization through query and page topical
analysis. User Modeling & User-Adapted Interaction, 19(1/2), 5-33. doi:10.1007/s11257008-9056-y

EVOLVING FACE OF DIGITAL LITERACY

11

Carr, N (2008), Is Google Making Us Stupid?, The Atlantic,

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-usstupid/306868/
Martin, A. Madigan, D. Digital (2006) Literacies for Learning, Facet Publishing.
Hoe, R. (1902) The short History of the Printing Press and the improvements in Printing
Machinery from the Time of Gutenberg up to the Present Day.
https://books.google.com/books?id=crwjXnlMznoC&ots=h6evbsLGy1&dq=A%20Short
%20History%20of%20the%20Printing%20Press&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Fleerackers, T. (2012) Can Google Handle the Spam Pressure?, Flat World Business
https://flatworldbusiness.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/can-google-handle-the-spampressure/
Waele, R. (2008) Mobile 2.0 @ Plugg, LinkedIn,
http://www.slideshare.net/rudydw/mobile-20-plugg/25
Glass, I (1996) Simulated worlds, This American Life.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/38/transcript
KROLK, D. (2015). PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RIGHT TO BE
FORGOTTEN IN THE CONTEXT OF GOOGLE SPAIN DECISION. Communication
Today, 6(1), 58-71.
MADDEN, A. Et, al. (2013) Teens, Social Media, and Privacy, Pew Research Council,
http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/05/21/teens-social-media-and-privacy/
Sternm J. (2013) Cellphone Users Check Phones 150x/Day and Other Internet Fun Facts, Good
Morning Americ, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2013/05/cellphone-userscheck-phones-150xday-and-other-internet-fun-facts/

EVOLVING FACE OF DIGITAL LITERACY

12

Webber, L. (2014) U.S. workers can't get o (job) satisfaction, The Wall Street Journal,
blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2014/06/18/u-s-workers-cant-get-no-job-satisfaction/
Symons, E. (2014) It's time to stop checking your smartphone every six mintes, Cotap
https://www.cotap.com/blog/time-stop-checking-smartphone-every-six-minutes-4-waysactually/
Willard, N. (2011) why teens make unsafe choices online, Education Worl,
www.educationworld.com/a_tech/columnists/willard/willard003.shtml
Ronson, J. (2015) how one stupid tweet blew up justine sacco's Life, The new york times
magazine, www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruinedjustine-saccos-life.html
Holden, M & Fears, D. (2015) Lion-killing dentist hides as protesters swarm his office, New
York Post nypost.com/2015/07/30/lion-killing-dentist-hides-as-protesters-swarm-hisoffice/