Functional literacy is often defined as
mastery of the basic reading and writing skills, with emphasis on “lower-order
concerns” (vocabulary, grammar, spelling, handwriting, etc.). In Multiliteracies for a Digital Age, Stuart Selber argues such a mechanical definition of
literacy is incomplete because functional literacy requires students to
“construct new meaning” (33), and this necessitates more higher-order concerns
like interpretation and analysis of texts and the ability to synthesize ideas
to create new insights.
If we extend this definition to
computer composition, we must add mechanical skills like how to type, how to
use a word processer, how to send email and post in a discussion forum… but
what else?
Simply knowing what a computer is and
how to type and send an email doesn’t seem like enough to “construct new
meaning.” Stuart claims students need a procedural
knowledge of how computers work, which will enable students to “succeed
in technological contexts and develop a fluency needed to critique those
contexts” (73). For Selber, a big part of this procedural
knowledge is understanding “the options and settings one can manipulate to
organize a writing space that is intelligible” (50).
Helen J. Burgess takes this idea a step
further in her article, “<?php>: ‘Invisible' Code and the Mystique of Web Writing,” by arguing for student
mastery of programming, but notes that this mastery is increasingly unlikely
because code is becoming more and more invisible. Burgess notes that while we
are quite capable of producing online documents without fully understanding the
code that makes our production possible (for example, I’m posting to this blog
without understanding HTML – it’s all auto-generated by the blogger template),
this is dangerous because it frames the computer as a tool that just
“magically” gets things done.
But does this mean that digitally
literate people need to be accomplished programmers? Do I need to understand the
code behind this blog to be functionally literate? I feel like I’m fully able
to communicate and leverage the social/collaborative and visual elements of
digital composition, and if I’m successfully communicating with you and
exploring new insights, then aren’t I “constructing new meaning”?
And regardless of how we define the
expected computer competence of a digitally literate college graduate, when
should computer skills be taught? Should this happen in the introductory
college composition course or as a separate general education requirement?
So I've been thinking about this a lot since the discussion your tech presentation prompted last week. There's this post process theorist Joseph Petraglia who makes the following argument: If composition studies continues to be defined by first-year comp's instruction of basic scribal skills, then the discipline will never reach its full potential.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so that's a bit of a strawman, but he does paint FYC as a pretty sad and pointless endeavor.
My contention with Petraglia is that a good FYC course does not teach scribal skills (even if that what other departments think that's what we ought to be doing). FYC is a place where we teach the habits of a good writer, and I think those kinds of habits apply to computer literacy as well.
I don't think we need to teach code, but I do think students should know that code is what dictates the layout of their texts. If they want to influence that layout, then at least we will have shown them where to go to learn the process.
We don't have to teach the scribal skills, just show how those skills are applied.