Thought's on Digital Literacies in the University

While there were many things competing for my attention from this week's readings, there is one particular thing that still lingers in my thoughts as we look forward to week four. In Cynthia Selfe's intriguing case study of David's experience in college, she makes the point that David did not succeed because his literacies were not valued by instructors who were teaching his courses. They did not appreciate his abilities in Web "design" and were only interested in his ability to master the literacies they were addressing in their courses. Selfe seems to fault his instructors because they "failed to take advantage of, build on, and even to recognize, in some cases, the literacy strengths he [brought] to the classroom" (51). While Selfe's overall point that the academy should recognize and more prominantly value digital literacies is quite valid, I think her faulting of David's intructors is a little unjust.

Selfe describes David's Literacies in the following way:

"David was confident in using several word-processing packages like Microsoft Word to compose documents; WebChat to speak with others synchronously on teh World Wide Web; Poser, Bryce, and Photoshop to create various kinds of representations; and HTML, Java, and Shockwave to design Web Documents" (45-46).

While she does use verbs like "compose," "speak," "create," and "Design," which imply that these are intellectual literacies, her overall description seems to more explicity express that David was simply proficient at using these pieces of software and coding languages. The active verb "using" seems to trump the verbs that follow it. She spends little time discussing how proficient David became in the "design" or "crafting" aspects of using these tools, other than to say that he was being paid by certain organizations for his work. Isn't there a difference between knowing how to "build" something and knowing how to "design" something? Do architects and building contractors not employ drastically different "literacies" as they engage in their professions? Given that David was attending a University, is there not the expectation that he develop multiple literacies (not just digital ones) and that these literacies should involve something more advanced than just basic instrumental usage of tools? Would we be satisfied if our freshman writing courses only expected students to have proficiency in using Microsoft Word without knowing much about the actual craft of writing?

I do not intend for this to undermine Selfe's larger point that we should place a higher value on digital literacies in our curricula and recognize and foster them in our students. But I think we need to be careful not to displace the more intellectually demanding literacies of college with basic lessons of "know how." When so many of us struggle to keep up with the basic "know how" of emerging technologies that might be applicable to a college writing course, it is easy to over value a student's proficincy for knowing how to use tools to create a Web site. Nevertheless, I think it's crucial that we expect creative use of technological tools in order to foster more advanced digital (and other) literacies than just basic "know how." Furthermore, we should not allow our classes to beocme consumed with addessing digital literacies. While they are increasingly important, traditional academic writing literacies are still equally valid. Thus, I don't think we should simply allow students to substitute their digital literacies (however developed they may be) for the more traditional writing literacies we commonly teach in freshman writing. In fact addressing them both (digital and traditional), and looking at how they relate and interact, would probably be the most productive and interesting way to approach this situation.