New Literacies for Digital Citizenship

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2, 126 - 137, 01.06.2013

Eylem Simsek , Ali Simsek

Öz

The meaning of citizenship has usually been associated with the power of individuals in the process of social decision-making. Throughout the history, effective citizenship has required functional literacy skills as the fundamental factor for attending societal life. In the past, the 3Rs (writing, reading, and arithmetic) were considered to be enough for a normal citizen because people could communicate satisfactorily based on these skills in public spheres. They could also benefit through traditional literacy skills from the mainstream communication channels like newspaper, radio, and television. Depending on the linear characteristic of the mass media, participation of citizens was limited in the social arena. However, new communication technologies have changed the nature and scope of citizenship. New kinds of literacies have emerged regarding the new media such as Internet, Web, Twitter, blogs, YouTube, Facebook, mobile technologies and so forth. Today’s citizens are expected to attend social processes anytime and anywhere. Thus, they are required to have mastery in new literacies which allow them to use all kinds of emerging technologies to share their views and make their voices heard. In fact, this comes as a requisite for real democracy because digital citizenship is largely based on contemporary literacy skills in which the technology plays an important role. This paper elaborates various kinds of new literacies and discusses their relationships with the current practices of digital citizenship from a technological perspective.

Anahtar Kelimeler

New literacies, Digital citizenship, Media literacy, ICT skills, Effective citizenship, Web 2.0, Social networks

Kaynakça

• Area, M. & Pessoa, T. (2012). From solid to liquid: New Literacies to the cultural changes of Web 2.0. Communicare, 38 (XIX), 13-20. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C38- 2012-02-01.
• Aufderheide, P. (1993). Media literacy: A report of the national leadership conference on media literacy. Aspen, CO: Aspen Institute.
• Buente, W. (2011). Modeling citizenship offline and online: Internet use, information, and political action during the 2008 election campaign (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, United States.
• Calvani, A., Cartelli, A., Fini, A., & Ranieri, M. (2008). Models and instruments for assessing digital competence at school. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 4(3), 183- 193.
• Chatur, N. (2011). Political outcomes of the digital conversations: A case study of the Facebook group “Canadians against proroguing parliament” (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Lethbridge. Alberta, Canada.
• Christ, W. G. & Potter, W. J. (1998). Media literacy, media education, and the academy. Journal of Communication, 48, 5-15.
• Covello, S. (2010). A review of digital literacy assessment instruments. Syracuse University School of Education/IDD & E, IDE-712: Analysis for Human Performance Technology Decisions. Retrieved on 27 March 2012 from http://www.apescience.com/id/fulltext/ research-on-digital-literacy-assessment-instruments
• Dede, C. (2009). Determining, developing, and assessing the capabilities of “future-ready” students. Harvard University. Friday Institute White Paper Series, Number Two. Available at: www.fi .ncsu.edu/whitepapers
• Dede, C. (2010). Technological supports for acquiring 21st century skills. In E. Baker, B. McGaw, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp.158-166). New York: Elsevier.
• Di Gennaro, C & Dutton, W. (2006). The internet and the public: Online and offline political participation in the United Kingdom. Parliamentary Affairs, 59, 299-313.
• Finnish Ministry of Education. (2000). Information strategy for education and research: 2000- 2004 implementation plan. Retrieved 14 March 2012 from http://enil.ceris.cnr.it/Basili/ EnIL/gateway/finland/Citizenship.htm
• Geuss, R. (2002). Elestirel kuram: Habermas ve Frankfurt Okulu (Çev. F. Keskin). İstanbul: Ayrinti.
• Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley.
• Hacker, K. L. & van Dijk, J. 2000. What is digital democracy? In K. L. Hacker and J. van Dijk (Eds.). Digital democracy: Issues of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Hobbs, R. & Jensen, A. (2009). The past, present, and future of media literacy education. Journal of Media Literacy Education 1, 1-11.
• Hobbs, R. (2008). Debates and challenges facing new literacies in the 21st century. In S. Livingstone and K. Drotner (Eds.), International handbook of children, media and culture (pp.431-447). London: Sage.
• Janoski, T. (1998). Citizenship and civil society. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago, IL: The MacArthur Foundation.
• Jewitt, C. (2008). Challenge outline: New literacies, new democracies. Retrieved on 16 March 2012 from http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/bch_ challenge_paper democracies_carey_jewitt.pdf
• Knight Commission Report (2009). Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy: Sustaining democracy in the digital age. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
• Kress, G. (2010). The profound shift in digital literacies. In J. Gillen & D. Barton. Digital literacies: A research briefing by the technology enhanced learning phase of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme (pp.6-7). London: London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University of London. Retrieved on 27 April 2012 from http://www.tlrp. org/docs/DigitalLiteracies.pdf
• Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Livingstone, S., Couvering, E. V., & Thumin, N. (2008). Converging traditions of research on media and information literacies: Disciplinary, critical, and methodological issues. Retrieved on 12 March 2012 from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/23564/
• Luke, A. (1996). Text and discourse in education: An Introduction to critical discourse analysis. In M. Apple (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp.3-48). Washington, DC: AERA.
• Luke, C. (1989). Pedagogy, printing and Protestantism: The discourse of childhood. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
• O'Reilly, T. (2009). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved 14 March 2012 from http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/ archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1
• Oskay, U. (2000). XIX. yüzyildan günümüze kitle iletisiminin kulturel boyutlari: Kuramsal bir yaklasim. Istanbul: Der.
• Ribble, M. S., Bailey, G. D., & Ross, T. W. (2004). Digital citizenship: Addressing appropriate technology behavior. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(1), 6-12.
• Simsek, A. (2012, May). Toward a technology-mediated paradigm of world disorder: Political opposition, social media, and economic invasion. Paper presented at the Second International Communication Symposium on New Media and Social Transformation. Kyrgyzstan-Turkiye Manas University. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.
• Simsek, A. (2000). Teknoloji caginda demokratik egitim [Democratic education in the age of technology]. In A. Simsek (Ed.), Sinifta demokrasi (ss. 211-225). Ankara: Egitim Sen.
• Timisi, N. (2003). Yeni iletisim teknolojileri ve demokrasi. Ankara: Dost.
• van Deth, J. (2001, April). Studying political participation: Towards a theory of everything. Paper presented at the joint session of the European Consortium for Political Research. Grenoble, France.
• Williams, R. (1989). Ikibine dogru (Çev. E. Tasarim). Istanbul: Ayrinti.
• Correspondence: Ali Simsek, Director, Institute of Communication Sciences, Anadolu
• University, Yunus Emre Campus, Esksehir, Turkey