Bonfire of the literacies

This post has one message: If it’s not reading or writing then be suspicious if it’s described as ‘literacy’.

I am well aware that ‘literacy’ has a number of meanings. Google gives me two:

1. The ability to read and write

2. Competence or knowledge in a specified area

It is the second usage that I object to because it is one of the many manoeuvres that make the process of education less easy to understand. It acts against clarity and allows vague and ill-defined skills and competencies to feed off the credibility and self-evident value of that first definition; the ability to read and write. Everyone understands that learning to read and write are essential. These are probably the two objectives that all those involved in the education debate can agree upon, even if some promote dubious methods to achieve them.

Firstly, it is not clear that even reading, writing, speaking and listening should be grouped together as one thing that we can call ‘literacy’. Speaking and listening are skills that humans have likely been utilising for many millions of years. We have therefore evolved mechanisms for picking them up implicitly from our social surroundings, hence the seemingly effortless way that most children learn to talk. Yet reading and writing are inventions of the last few thousand years and for much of this time, they were the preserve of a tiny elite. This is why we invented schools in order to efficiently pass on this unnatural, artificial skill to large numbers of people.

This doesn’t mean that we cannot teach children anything that will improve their speaking abilities: we might stress enunciation or pass on knowledge of rhetorical devices, knowledge that would also apply to writing. But we don’t have to start from the very beginning like we do with reading and writing so the processes are qualitatively different.

It becomes even more confusing when we start to refer to any specific body of knowledge as ‘literacy’. Why do people talk of ’emotional literacy’ or ‘visual literacy’? It’s instructive that with well-worn school subjects we don’t tend to add this redundant term. We don’t generally talk of learning ‘scientific literacy’ or ‘historical literacy’; we talk of learning ‘science’ or ‘history’. Yes, the term ‘scientific literacy’ does crop-up but it is often when someone is trying to sell a dumbed-down version of a science course with all the hard bits taken out. I think this is telling.

Let’s reverse the perspective. Why would we talk of learning about ’emotional literacy’ rather than learning about ’emotions’ which is, presumably, what we mean? Well, it seems a bit lightweight and insubstantial to talk of ‘learning about emotions’. Why not talk of learning about ‘images’ instead of ‘visual literacy’? The same problem arises – does that really warrant extended classroom time? Is it really as important as learning to read?

No. The ‘literacy’ bit has been stuck on the end in order to give the subject matter more gravitas. It is there to hijack the esteem we have for genuine literacy. It is a bait-and-switch approach that diverts attention from the fact that we are asking children to engage in fluffy, insubstantial and largely pointless activities instead of actually teaching them something worthwhile.

Bonfire_Flames

Advertisements

37 Comments on “Bonfire of the literacies”

  1. “Speaking and listening are skills that humans have likely been utilising for many millions of years. We have therefore evolved mechanisms for picking them up implicitly from our social surroundings, hence the seemingly effortless way that most children learn to talk. Yet reading and writing are inventions of the last few thousand years and for much of this time, they were the preserve of a tiny elite. This is why we invented schools in order to efficiently pass on this unnatural, artificial skill to large numbers of people.”

    This is speculative, betrays a lack of awareness of how expressive and receptive speech and reading and writing actually work.

    • Maggie Downie says:

      How *do* they ‘actually work’, then?

      • Speaking, listening, reading and writing all co-opt biological systems that have evolved. The natural/artificial distinction used to justify particular approaches to reading acquisition is imposed, speculative and has been contested for decades.

      • Maggie Downie says:

        Oh, you’re back to that again.

        I don’t think it invalidates Greg’s argument. Communication, verbal or otherwise, appears to be a biological imperative (and not just in homo sapiens) needed by most for optimising survival, if nothing else. Reading isn’t. People have survived just fine without reading for millenia.

        The statement that speaking, listening, reading and writing all co-opt evolved biological systems seems like stating the obvious; given that we have (until recently) had no other ‘systems’ to use for any human activity.

        I am curious. Would you apply the same criteria to driving a car or sending vehicles into space? Are they ‘natural’ activities because they exploit evolved biological systems?

        Although the description ‘unnatural’ doesn’t please you I suspect that most people are happy to accept it as distinguishing between behaviours such as eating and drinking (‘natural’), which aren’t ‘learned’ and those which commonly require both explicit instruction and some form of technology to acquire.

    • Pat Stone says:

      Dear Maggie,

      You stated:
      “I suspect that most people are happy to accept it as distinguishing between behaviours such as eating and drinking (‘natural’), which aren’t ‘learned’ and those which commonly require both explicit instruction and some form of technology to acquire.”

      I’m not.

      Eating and drinking are learned. That’s why we don’t give newborn babies steak and chips. Their bodies have to learn gradually to adapt to more and more complex diets. And they are naturally programmed to develop abilities to deal with this complexity. Helping a baby to learn eating also requires ‘some form of technology’, in the cooking and preparation, and an ‘instructor’ to help them learn.

      Learning to speak, read and write, learning everything, also involve natural adaptation. Otherwise we would have to say that some things about babies are not natural? We can’t say that, can we?

      Babies are born with the urge to suck. They gradually learn to adapt sucking into chewing etc and manipulating foods from some sort of surface, into their mouths.
      Babies are born with the ability to make noises which affect their environment, and to respond to noises coming back. They gradually learn to adapt their noise making into intelligible speech and manipulating language from some sort of surface, into their brains.

      Babies are born onto this complex planet able to, and with the natural urge to adapt to all its complexities. This planet and everything on it, including us, is ‘natural’.
      Otherwise it would not be here, and neither would we.

      • Maggie Downie says:

        You have missed the point, Pat. Sue took Greg to task for calling reading and writing ‘unnatural’. I was suggesting that most people would use that adjective to categorise human behaviour which has to be explicitly taught; which depends on the transmission of knowledge. Sue just likes a bit of precision 🙂

        I certainly did not have to teach my children ‘how’ to eat, nor that they needed to eat to survive. Nor did I have to teach them how to drink, sleep, communicate, or copy adult behaviour (learn). What I did teach them, and what you describe, was how to channel their innate behaviours to fit into the culture in which they were raised.

      • In response to Maggie:

        I’m ‘back to that again’ because it’s not OK to present speculation as fact and to use speculation idea to support a pedagogical approach.

        Skills don’t fall neatly into either ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’ categories. It’s yet another false dichotomy. https://logicalincrementalism.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/is-systematic-synthetic-phonics-generating-neuromyths/

      • gregashman says:

        If your claim is that this is a false choice then I assume you accept no distinction between the natural and the artificial eg flying a jet aircraft is natural skill because it relies on biological processes. You can take that line if you like and you can claim that other views are speculative but, to the casual overs ever, it will seem absurd.

      • You can ignore the ongoing nature/nurture debate if you like and you’re writing for casual observers, but I thought you were proposing this as scientific evidence in support of a pedagogical approach.

      • In reply to Pat Stone: Your model of children’s skill development is backed up by the literature. Development is kick-started by reflexes and babies build on that from whatever information is available to them. Sometimes it’s their own exploration of the environment, sometimes others demonstrate or explain things.

      • Stan says:

        Okay so you object to his term “unnatural” for reading and writing and to the claim that we evolved mechanisms that let us learn to use spoken language but not for learning to use written language.

        If Greg has said learning to use written language comes less naturally to us and that the genetically determined facilities used to learn spoken language do not work as well for written language would you still object? Here it doesn’t matter why this is so just that it is. Perhaps once someone has learned spoken language the reduced motivation to learn an alternative is the issue.

        To me this point seems obvious – every human group found uses spoken language but only a few use written language. The vast majority of human children learn to use spoken language without explicit teaching. Yet even children exposed to a parent reading to them on a daily basis do not learn to read without explicit teaching.

      • Pat Stone says:

        Stan,

        ‘To me this point seems obvious – every human group found uses spoken language but only a few use written language. The vast majority of human children learn to use spoken language without explicit teaching. Yet even children exposed to a parent reading to them on a daily basis do not learn to read without explicit teaching.’

        1) ‘every human group found uses spoken language but only a few use written language’ Do not (even, although I hate to use the word even in this context) ‘primitive’ human groups make marks to leave messages for those following, either immediately behind on a trail, or for future reference and future generations or to mark where is something good to eat or to mark where is buried a loved one? These marks are written language.

        2) ‘human children learn to use spoken language without explicit teaching’. Their parents and carers give them feedback on their verbalisings. He says goo goo. I say goo goo ga. He says goo goo ga etc. This is ‘teaching’. Babies don’t learn much speech without this kind of feedback.
        4-1) (three key busted) ‘even children exposed to a parent reading to them on a daily basis do not learn to read without explicit teaching’. Some do, I did, but I will skip those for you, aren’t I nice? Parents don’t sit children down and read to them, saying, “Right. Keep still. Do not say a word”. No! In most cases the child will be active in this process and will learn something, not everything, maybe, about reading, but some will learn enough from being read to by a parent / carer to take those few fragments (to shore against their ruin, TS E), and build reading from them. Good / great / proper reading teachers will find out what those fragments are and build on them, until the child has the full vase.

        None of this is black and white, either or, and we must work to understand what the other means; what the other is on about. We are teachers. We don’t say things just to annoy or top each other.
        We are teachers.

      • Stan says:

        To Pat Stone,
        I think your argument is similar to saying because there exist shades of grey between black and white we cannot say there is any difference between black and white.

        Your examples are the grey between learning written language skills and learning spoken language. It is a stretch to go from there are similarities and exceptions to the norm to these things are the same.

        I am open to the possibility that learning spoken language more easily without (very much) explicit instruction is not due to a genetic difference between the way we work with written verses spoken language. As I mentioned it might be simply the order in which we acquire them that makes all the difference.

        Keep in mind this discussion is on whether limiting the use of “literacy” to refer to the use of written language has merit. At least that is my take. Someone took great exception to Greg’s claim that this is due to an evolved difference in the way we learn spoken verses written language and to his use of the word unnatural to describe skill with written language.

        The words natural or unnatural seem to be trigger words that invoke nature verses nurture debates. Perhaps an alternative description would help.

        Do you think it would be exceptional to find a community of people who learn written language before spoken language? In a thought experiment where we are about to investigate an hitherto unknown people in some remote place what odds would you give that they learn written language before spoken language?

        Another thought experiment. This time you are going to visit a group in people with no formal education at all. What are the odds all the adults are able to converse in their native tongue? What are the odds they are able to read a text written in their native tongue? Sure both are possible but the chance of the first is close to 100%. I doubt we could be so confident in the second.

        I am hoping that put this way you would agree there is a significant difference in the acquisition of spoken verses written language. We can agree that why is a mystery. But if we agree there is a difference we might also agree that a word that describes skills related to only one is useful.

    • Stan says:

      Which part of – reading and writing were the preserve of the elite prior to universal education, is speculative?

      Seriously is there anything contentious in what you quote Greg saying? We find most people learned to speak through exposure to other speakers without explicit lessons. We find largely that only those taught to read and write through explicit lessons on learn to read and write and those not taught don’t.

      Is that really some sort of speculation or is it pretty solid ground? Greg makes no comment on how these things work or how to teach them just that in one case teaching seems to be the most common path to capability and in the other it doesn’t. Are you really disagreeing with something Greg wrote. If so what would that be?

      • The point about reading and writing being the preserve of the elite wasn’t what I was saying was speculative.

        What is speculative is the idea that we have evolved mechanisms for implicit learning for speaking and listening, but that reading and writing are relatively recent inventions and *therefore* need to be taught via formal instruction/schools.

        The evolved dedicated mechanisms idea is hugely contentious in linguistics and cognitive psychology. The main alternative hypothesis is that all skills that involve interaction with the environment co-opt pre-existing biological mechanisms to varying degrees. These competing hypotheses are still hotly debated in neuroscience.

        But you wouldn’t know that to read Greg’s posts or those of many SP proponents, because they present the first hypothesis as a fact rather than a hypothesis, and use it as scientific evidence in support of a strongly didactic model of teaching reading.

        If we’re serious about evidence-based practice, it’s disingenuous to present hypotheses as facts, especially if there’s an equally well-evidenced alternative hypothesis out there.

        I’m well aware that many skills require significant amounts of teaching, but the amount of teaching they require varies considerably. Yes, you would need a great deal of instruction to learn to fly a jet aircraft, but toddlers can learn to ride a bicycle or use an i-pad with no direct instruction at all – just by mimicking the behaviour of others. ‘Natural’ vs ‘unnatural’ is the wrong criterion for how much tuition children need to learn.

      • Stan says:

        Okay so you object to his term “unnatural” for reading and writing and to the claim that we evolved mechanisms that let us learn to use spoken language but not for learning to use written language.

        If Greg has said learning to use written language comes less naturally to us and that the genetically determined facilities used to learn spoken language do not work as well for written language would you still object? Here it doesn’t matter why this is so just that it is. Perhaps once someone has learned spoken language the reduced motivation to learn an alternative is the issue.

        To me this point seems obvious – every human group found uses spoken language but only a few use written language. The vast majority of human children learn to use spoken language without explicit teaching. Yet even children exposed to a parent reading to them on a daily basis do not learn to read without explicit teaching.

  2. Ronda says:

    I liked that you were taking aim at the ridiculous broadened usage of the term literacy until you took a swipe at visual literacy.

    I think visual literacy is a valid concept that falls in line with the traditional use of the word. The traditional definition comes from a print-heavy heritage, but we engage with so many multimodal texts these days that being able to ‘read the visuals’ is pretty important. This is as simple as being able to recognise what certain symbols mean, to be able to identify how you’re being manipulated by an ad. I also quite like Peter Watkins ideas on the monoform: https://youtu.be/fri1EZlE4RA

    Even scientific literacy could be justified if you’re talking about understanding the specific reading and writing demands involved in science – vocab, textual forms, comprehension etc.

    I agree that emotional literacy, as a term, is a load of bollocks.

    Did you know that NSW has a “Physical Literacy Continuum” now? Who knew that balancing on a stationery object would one day be defined as “literacy”?
    http://www.sports.det.nsw.edu.au/newsletters/year_2015/march/plc.pdf

    Apparently, an academic named Margaret Whitehead coined the phrase, and now it’s a thing. No questions asked, it appears. http://www.physicalliteracy.org.uk/definitions.php
    http://www.physicalliteracy.org.uk/definitions.php

    I keep asking “why?” but get no answers.

  3. paulmartin42 says:

    ¨Yes, the term ‘scientific literacy’ does crop-up but it is often when someone is trying to sell a dumbed-down version of a science course with all the hard bits taken out. I think this is telling.¨

    I read Mr Millar´s presentation that you pointed at and you do a disservice to him and the Nuffield organisation where he points. I can see why/how he enhances the debate with the additional term literacy as does Doug Belshaw in his Digital stuff.

    No it is you who is baiting and switching and being naughty with bonfire this and that/fluffy/etc etc

  4. Pat Stone says:

    I don’t mind about people calling stuff -literacy, but what you have written here contradicts much of what you have written previously about traditional teaching, the supremacy of facts learning over enquiry, and synthetic phonics which all involve “someone (is) trying to sell a dumbed-down version of a (science) course with all the hard bits taken out.”

  5. David says:

    The worst is “information literacy”, widely used in the US to justify more technology and less print. Some libraries have moved to models of “information centers” meaning more computer terminals and less old stodgy books that just take up space. Never mind that what’s available electronically does not come close to equalling what is in print.

    What’s even more sad is that this term extends to doing things which have nothing to do with more research skills (thereby justifying your point). There’s even a silly chart, which I’m sure you’ll love: http://infolit.org/information-literacy-projects-and-programs/

    • Ronda says:

      I’m curious as to how you’d describe the additional reading and writing skills that are required to interact with online and multimodal texts? Would you just dub it “literacy” and expand what literacy looks like? Or don’t you think there are additional skills required to contend with these new texts and an exponentially increasing amount of information?

      • David says:

        Given the rapidity at which the platforms change, the idea that this is something meant for the classroom seems to me to be seeking to allow the wolf to dinner. Rather, in the US the evidence is overwhelming that students prefer print for reading long-form works–helping students unpack a difficult reading alone is tricky enough without bringing in another variable. So, no, school time should not be used, in my opinion, for these alternative “literacies”.

      • Chester Draws says:

        I’m curious as to how you’d describe the additional reading and writing skills that are required to interact with online and multimodal texts?

        There are no additional literacy skills. You read and understand an on-line text just as you would a book. Printing them out, for example, would not change their meaning one jot.

        Writing on-line is exactly like writing normally. I don’t engage a different part of my brain to type this sentence than I would if I were using a pen.

        If you mean the different skills for interacting with the medium itself — using a mouse or using a keyboard — then those are not literacy skills.

      • Ronda says:

        Chester: You read read a text online as you would a book? Really?

        When I read a book, I read a text that has been through a series of “textual gatekeepers” to give it a certain level of credibility. It is text-on-paper, possibly with illustrations of some sort. To locate these items, I use a simple catalogue or a human to help me locate it.

        When I read text online, I have to apply a certain set of critical thinking skills to determine the text’s validity and purpose and use a wider range of strategies to determine its credibility than I would a physical book. I am confronted with hyperlinks within and attached to the text which I need to make decisions about – to click or not to click? When to click? To locate text online, I need to learn how to use specific search terms, and then how to determine the best options that are offered up to me. My skimming and scanning skills need to be razor sharp to quickly and accurately locate and determine the usefulness of reading material amongst the evergrowing masses of it.

        As for writing, much of the same applies. Yes, the grammatical and spelling rules still apply and writing a sentence/text is basically the same (despite using a different mechanism to physically make marks on the writing media). But I also have to think about where hyperlinks may be useful or where the purpose is better served by creating an audio-visual representation of what I’m trying to say. I can use spell check and edit my work quickly, which alters my thinking patterns when I write and how I approach my planning and editing process. I shift between modalities more frequently. Even the speed at which I can “write” affects the writing process, imho.

        To infer that reading and writing requires the same set of skills today as it did in 1940, seems a bit of a stretch to me. Yes – lower order nuts and bolts of decoding and basic comprehension still applies (and to be honest – I think that there’s not enough emphasis on these things in the K-3 these days – too much tricky stuff too early, before the foundations are set). But literacy is about understanding our culture’s symbol systems, and that system has moved beyond the alphabet being the sole symbol system.

      • Chester Draws says:

        Rhonda, given that I read books on-line that are also available in paper form, I don’t see how my critical thinking changes when I read them electronically. Given that I read a lot of casual writing that has not been checked.for accuracy in paper form, the skills used are identical to those reading a blog on-line.

        You appear to be conflating paper books with formal writing and on-line with informal. That might be how you read, but it isn’t how I read. Nor is it how our students read.

        How does the sort of pap you see in Cosmopolitan become more reliable than what Greg writes because it is on paper?

        Nor do most people write with hyperlinks. That turns out to be a tiresome way to write, and while initially it was trendy, generally on-line texts show fewer and fewer internal links. (If you look through the comments here you will notice few people, other than you, are inserting any hyperlinks at all.) Many hyperlinks are just references anyway, and so exactly the same as the decision to flip to footnotes in a text.

        Sure Wikipedia is link-ridden. But checking paper encyclopedias involves exactly the same decisions.

        Yes – lower order nuts and bolts of decoding and basic comprehension still applies

        So reading is the same.

        The bit about “understanding our culture’s symbol systems” isn’t how kids read until very late in school. I’m happy if they can just follow the instructions I write, to be honest.

        I believe Greg’s point is that we shouldn’t take “literacy” to mean anything more than the ability to read a sentence and understand what it means. “Cultural literacy” is not “literacy”.

      • Ronda says:

        Chester:
        If you’re happy to leave your kids at the gates of decoding traditional text and basic comprehension, that’s your choice, I guess.

        I’m keen to get mine beyond that.

        For the record, I would wholeheartedly agree with any argument which says that these higher order literacy skills are being pushed on kids too early, before they’ve mastered the fundamentals. I’m not a “new” literacies zealot, even though I may sound like that in this thread.

  6. wiltwhatman says:

    I think, well, your point is a little undernuanced. I’m gonna quote Ben Goldacre tongue in cheek here.

    I think you’ll find it’s a little more complicated than that.

    Yes. Lot’s of what we term literacies ride on the coattails of an idea, experience, definition or reference point based in reading and writing.

    But it’s kind of a baby and bathwater argument you are putting forward. When I hear of literacies, I tend to hear someone talking about applied expertise in their subject. Sometimes that’s problematic. If someone were to tout their high levels of magical literacy, or their literacy in homeopathic medicine, or their post structuralist literacies, because they probably would be plural, then I’d agree.

    But here’s a counterexample.

    I’d freely admit I don’t have the musical literacy that people I’m surrounded with have. I’m surrounded by a couple of composers. And they have musical literacy. They understand musical culture,references, notation, the history of music, instrumentation, musical and compositional theory, the current state of their fields, genres, and related fields. They have a broad, deep and applied knowledge of their field.

    Saying a composer knows a lot about music is oxymoronic. And it doesn’t add much to the conversation. Saying a composer has a high degree of compositional, or more broadly music, or more specifically popolar culture literacy does add more to my understanding.

    It implies – to me anyway – that the person in question, in the example of pop culture literacy – has a high degree of understanding of the memes, practices, genres, instrumentation, composition, themes and cultural meaning of pop music in a way that they apply knowledgeably in their work.

    There’s another way in which we tend to talk of literacy. I don’t talk of Bill Nye the Science Guy having scientific literacy. Or Richard Feynman (though I might talk meaningfully about them both having media literacy). But I will talk about their opponents in, for example, climate change or vaccination debates having poor scientific literacy. And it strikes me that that;s a valid and useful decriptor. I’ll also talk about my own develping scienrtific literacy – that as I come to understand more about methodology, probability, bias and what constitutes evidence, my own level of scientific literacy is increasing.

    In both those cases – the deiers, and my own gorwing knolwedge – I’m probably centering in on the idea that science has a methodology, has characteristics, and has practices – peer review, falsifiability, testing to destruction, evidence based assertion – that can underpin how you understand the world at large, and how we engage with that world. People with poor scientific literacy have a poor ability to apply scientific principles, and a poor understanding of what that contributes, or denudes from the debate, and a poor understanding of the key points necessary to make political, economic, personal and social chpoices and decisions.

  7. Tami Reis-Frankfort says:

    Reblogged this on and commented:
    An interesting post on the overuse of the word ‘literacy’. Thank you ‘Filling the Pail’ blog.

  8. julietgreen says:

    Are you actively missing the distinction between ‘learning about xxx literacy’ and ‘developing xxx literacy’? The first one is specious and, if it exists, serves no purpose. The second is what we do when we become familiar with all the terms and approaches of the subject.

    • gregashman says:

      The only way you can develop a literacy without learning about it is implicitly through a process of discovery learning. If this is what the term ‘literacy’ implies then we have even more reason to be concerned about its use.

      • julietgreen says:

        No – that’s not what I mean at all. I’m not sure what ‘learning scientific literacy’ means any more than ‘learning literacy’, except perhaps as some kind of teacher training exercise. Developing scientific literacy would mostly require the opposite of discovery learning. ‘Scientific literacy’ is a well-understood and well-founded term; ‘dumbing down’ is exactly what it is not and the lack of it is what we should be concerned about.

  9. Stan says:

    I get Greg’s point that using “literacy” just to make something sound like it is worth paying for or spending time on would be evil. It is the sin of equivocation.

    But scientific literacy works just fine for me. I would read it as being able to read, write and understand the basic terminology of scientific discourse. It may be the scientifically literate reader only knows of a few actual hypotheses and experiments first hand but they know the basics at some level.

    I’d rather think that high school turns out scientifically literate or mathematically literate people than the claim they sometimes make which is to turn out young scientists or mathematicians. Here literacy is a lesser and more realistic goal.

    Now visual literacy does sound bogus to me. Someone mathematically literate knows a Venn diagram from a plot of a parabolic function. But explaining that knowledge to someone else without words is a non-starter. If “X” literacy means knowing and being able to read and write the language of domain X then visual literacy is just too poorly defined or too general to be useful. Is it the language of the physics and psychology of our visual sense or is it the language of graphic design or something else?

    Similarly if by emotional literacy someone means understanding the language of the psychology emotions then they probably need to spell that out as it is not clear. If they mean some skills to do with reading emotions and identifying in real time our own emotions and our reactions and the causes of them then they are equivocating and again would be more honest if they spell out what they mean. It is a pretty clever equivocation as it ties to the idea of reading others emotions. But the phrase “reading others emotions” is much clearer and no one confuses it with something to do with reading words.

  10. […] came across this blog post a couple of days ago – Bonfire of the literacies – penned by Greg Ashman, a high school science teacher, PhD candidate and British-Australian […]

  11. […] sympathetic to this). Instead, whilst recognising the important of ‘literacy’ – a term that has come to mean anything you like – they advocate the development of reified skills such as creativity and critical thinking. […]

  12. […] students gain plenty of experience of using digital resources so that they develop the skills of digital literacy. Some have even argued that we should change the way we assess students and perhaps allow them to […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s