Key concepts - LLIDA
Introduction to the study describing terminology choices and the reasons behind the study.
digital literacy, learning literacy, learning, education, digital capabilities, skills
14859
page-template-default,page,page-id-14859,page-child,parent-pageid-14862,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode_grid_1200,qode-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,qode-theme-ver-16.5,qode-theme-bridge

Key concepts

[vc_row row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” css_animation=””][vc_column][vc_empty_space]

Download this section as a pdf file
[vc_empty_space][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Theoretical field, high level term

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Key concept(s)

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Key theorist(s)

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_empty_space][vc_separator type=”normal”][vc_column_text]

Literacies as social/situated practices

[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Academic writing/literacy

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Literacy is to be understood: as social practice, involving power relations; as rhetorical activity embedded in different situations and cultures (e.g. disciplinary cultures but also peer and family cultures); as contested and constitutive of personal identity

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Lea, Street, Ivanic

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

New literacies

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Literacies = ‘social practices of using codes for making and exchanging meanings’. New literacies come about in response to changes in the technical, epistemological and cultural order.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Street, Lankshear & Nobel

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Meaning making

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Literacy is about how meaning is produced and communicated: is bound up with knowledge in society/culture (including disciplinary cultures); changes continuously rather than discontinuously as technologies change.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Hannon, Kellner

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Situated knowledge

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

All meaning-making takes place in specific social situations: literacies are best understood as situated knowledge practices. (Also) capability in practice is the product of an interaction between personal capability or disposition and the environment supporting action.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Brown, Collins, Duguid, Spiro

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Literacy as embedded and contextural

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Practitioner conceptions of ‘graduate attributes’ show wide disparity of understandings. Two clear tiers emerged: high-level ‘stances’ or ‘attitudes’ (scholarship, citizenship and lifelong learning); along with ‘personal skills and aptitudes’ which are highly context-dependent i.e. realised differently in different subject areas.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Barrie

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Non-transferability of skills and knowledge

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

There is evidence that transferring skills from one context to another is more problematic than has been acknowledged. Learners also struggle to transfer formally learned (‘analytic’) knowledge to complex realworld situations where it must be applied. Tacit situational knowledge plays a vital role in competent performance.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Eraut, Dreyfus and Dreyfus
See also Mannion et al discussed below

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_empty_space][vc_separator type=”normal”][vc_column_text]

Technology and technical literacies

[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Critical ‘technoliteracies’

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Pits the US ‘no child left behind’ Act of 2001 against the UN ‘2000+’ project, arguing that the latter offers a democratic vision of multiple and critical literacies of technology, rather than a single standard of competence. Sees technical literacy as politically and culturally contested.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Kahn and Kellner, Feenburg (and many writers against ‘technological determinism’)

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Next generation (user) skills

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Changes to technology, e.g. organisational to personal and social, tethered to ubiquitous, applications to services, individual to shared, all entail new skills: agile adoption, personalisation, re-combination, exploration, a ‘constant beta’ mentality

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

JISC emerge community

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_empty_space][vc_separator type=”normal”][vc_column_text]

Media and media literacies

[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

(Multi)media literacy

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Technical changes to the nature of media, including computer gaming, entail shifts in education towards a multi-media knowledge practice and a ‘postmodern’ curriculum.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Buckingham, Sefton Green

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

MultiModality

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Representations now more commonly accessed via screen than page: this has a fundamental impact on how we ‘read’, on situated literacy practices, on knowledge and on learning.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Kress, Jewitt, Hannon

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Hypertext, hypermedia, metamedia

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

A completely new capacity for meaning-making is called for when representations become multiply linked and layered.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Landow, Lemke

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Information literacy

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

..is ‘[the ability] to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information’
Information literacy is the most widely recognised and supported of the digital literacies. To date the focus has largely been on individual use in the context of a specific task or problem. The idea of information literacy may need to be extended to include sharing and collaboration, and to accommodate ethical dimensions.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Spitzer, see also LearnHigher (2006) for review and references

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_empty_space][vc_separator type=”normal”][vc_empty_space][vc_column_text]

Learning to learn and meta-literacies

[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Learning to learn

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

There is a cross-curricular, general competence that can be defined as ‘the ability to pursue and persist in learning’; also to ‘develop learning strategies’ suitable for different situations. This competence can be specifically trained and strengthened.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Claxton

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Conceptions of learning

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

How learners interpret their experience is highly influenced by prior experiences of learning, and the interpretations that have arising from those. Digital literacies cannot be bolted onto existing practices and prior conceptions: these must be recognised, incorporated and (if necessary) reconceptualised.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Goodyear and Ellis, Biggs, Entwistle, Ramsden, Säljö, Prosser and Trigwell

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Multiple intelligences

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

“literacies, skills, and disciplines ought to be pursued as tools that allow us to enhance our understanding of important questions, topics, and themes.”

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Howard Gardner

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

MultiModality (again)

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

All learning involves multimodality: not understood as separate literacies but (Kress) a generic capacity to make sense across modes and media.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Kress, Jewitt, Hannon

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Self-efficacy, self-regulation

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Self-regulation is both a goal of learning and a process that supports learning: it is increasingly demanded in workplaces especially where knowledge work and innovation are involved. Forethought, performance and self-reflection are three stages of self-regulated learning.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Littlejohn, Zimmerman

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator type=”normal”][vc_empty_space][vc_column_text]

New pedagogies

[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Learning 2.0 counter-evidence

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Evidence that pro-active, creative web 2.0 practitioners are still in the minority of users (1:9:90 rule): many learners are introduced to such practices by teachers. Ubiquity, accessibility and ease of use are, however, features of technology that are changing informal learning practices.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Redecker, see JISC Learners’ Experiences of e-Learning programme

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Learning 2.0

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Learners’ familiarity with web 2.0 technologies opens up a completely new space for and style of learning, focusing on: collaborative knowledge building; shared assets; breakdown of distinction between knowledge and communication

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Downes, Anderson, Alexander, Walton

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Learning 2.0 counter-evidence

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Evidence that pro-active, creative web 2.0 practitioners are still in the minority of users (1:9:90 rule): many learners are introduced to such practices by teachers. Ubiquity, accessibility and ease of use are, however, features of technology that are changing informal learning practices.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Redecker, see JISC Learners’ Experiences of e-Learning programme

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Connectivism

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Individual processing of information gives way to development of networks of trusted people, content and tools: the task of knowing is “offloaded onto the network itself”

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Siemens[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Communities of enquiry

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Building on Wenger’s notion of communities of practice, (higher) learning conceived in terms of participation, with learners experiencing social, cognitive and pedagogic aspects of community.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Wenger, Garrison and Anderson[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Theory/practice, practical inquiry

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Action (practice) and discussion (theory) in shared worlds is internalised, leading to personal capability (practice) and conceptualisation. Specifically facilitated thru social technologies and CSCW

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Vygotsky, Garrison[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Academic apprenticeship

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Literacy as situated social practice is best acquired through apprenticeship model, situated in disciplinary ways of knowing

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Holme[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

E-learning, e-pedagogy

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

New forms of learning and teaching are enabled – and required – by digital technologies. Typically more constructivist and learner-led.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Mayes and Fowler, Cronje[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator type=”normal”][vc_empty_space][vc_column_text]

New learners

[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Lifelong learners

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Changing patterns of employment require workers to constantly update their skills; demographic changes are also skewing participation towards older learners in full or part-time employment. Technology is seen as key to delivering flexible opportunities to lifelong learners.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Boud, Field, Coffield[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Virtual learners

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Saturation in virtual worlds and online networks alters perceptions of self and relationships with others, including learning relationships. For some this can be liberating: others struggle with a loss of ‘presence’ and changed social cues.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Smith and Curtin, MacLuhan
See also ‘online learning’ literature[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Digital natives, immigrants and refuseniks

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

The post-internet generation inhabit a digitally-mediated world: the older generation, including most teachers, struggle to be at home in this culture. In fact the evidence is against a strongly age-related effect (see below) and even Prensky has moved against this distinction.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Prensky, Tapscott, see also OfCom (2008)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Google Generation

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Those born since 1985 exhibit particular tendencies towards information and learning: ubiquitous information, constant communication, multi-tasking, juggling multiple identities, valuing knowledge for how it can be used and re-used in the moment, ‘cool’, interconnected

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Oblinger and Oblinger[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Digital natives/ Google Generation – counter evidence

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Situation, available technology and prior experience are all more powerful predictors of ‘googling’ behaviours than age (i.e. it is not primarily a generation effect)
Factors such as social class, level of education and prior experience of technology may be more significant than generation.
Technology is ubiquitous in young peoples’ lives but most lack information skills and strategies for learning with technology.
Empirical studies suggest use of web 2.0 and innovative technologies quite limited: far more young people read blogs and wikis than contribute to them, for example.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Bennet, Margaryan and Littlejohn, see also JISC Learners’ experiences of e-Learning and Digital Natives reports[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator type=”normal”][vc_empty_space][vc_column_text]

Learners’ informal techno-social practices

[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Collaborative production (prosumerism/produsage)

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

New ways of sharing content online are blurring the boundaries between creative production and consumption, thru practices such as commenting, reviewing, re-purposing, re-tweeting, media meshing. Education needs to respond by focusing on creative collaboration.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Bruns & Humphreys, Landow[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Informal and nonformal learning

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Online social networks and open content create vast new opportunities for individuals to learn, outside of or alongside formal learning.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Downes, Katz Seely Brown & Adler, Luckin[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Visual learning

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

There is conflicting evidence over whether younger and non-traditional learners in particular prefer image-based over textual content for learning.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Coffield, see also JISC/British Library study[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Knowledge practices (clash of)

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Learners with experience of free content, open sharing sites, the ‘eternal now’ of the network, distributed attention, and the opinion-led blogosphere (amateurisation, collective intelligence), may struggle with academic knowledge practices around originality, authority, depth of attention, historical paradigms, and attention to method. Also highly textual vs ‘media-mesh’.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Gurak, Jewitt[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator type=”normal”][vc_empty_space][vc_column_text]

New institutions, and challenges to the institution

[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

The University in the digital age

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Digital networks and open content present specific challenges to the integrity of the university: e.g. permeable boundaries; how to give students a coherent educational experience; how to balance students’ free use of technology with risk of copyright violations or security threats; destabilization of the traditional lines of authority in the classroom; clash of values and practices around knowledge.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Benkler, Barnet[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

21st century skills/literacies

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Govt-led agenda in both UK and US to maintain and extend competitive advantage by upskilling workforce with skills for a largely ICT-based, high-value service economy – entails major refocusing of post-compulsory learning around perceived needs of national economy, partnerships with employers and employment sectors.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]UK Govt (e.g. Leitch report, e-skills) US govt (e.g. No Child Left Behind, 21st century skills partnership)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Informal and nonformal learning

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Online social networks and open content create vast new opportunities for individuals to learn what they need to know without engaging in formal learning.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Luckin & Garnet,[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner row_type=”row” type=”full_width” text_align=”left” css_animation=””][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]

Deschooling

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]A European Commission communiqué in 2001, suggested current models of schooling could not generate sufficient digital capacity, that European states must distribute teaching capacity much more widely through society, and consider whether more effective learning could take place via ICT delivered to homes, workplaces and local communities.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Illich[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][vc_column][vc_empty_space][vc_column_text]


Next sections

Messages and implications

[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][/vc_column][/vc_row]