The Selber article, “Reimagining the Functional side of Literacy,” demonstrates a history of a) thinking of “computer literacy” as the purview of rhet/comp, and b) arguing for the teaching of the affordances of specific digital platforms and programs. Although Selber’s definition of “functional literacy” carefully focuses on individuals’ capabilities and needs (assuming a need to function independently within computer discourses users immerse themselves in), as opposed to some objective set of “skills” an outsider or outside group deems “necessary” to qualify as “literate.”
What’s most useful, I think, for me anyway, are his arguments for teaching specific language for specific technological experiences online. If you’re going to teach a hybrid or online course, I can imagine it would be useful to explicitly discuss the experiences of writing via online spaces/programs and how those programs affect that experience.
I feel bothered–a lot, actually–by Selber’s assumption that students need to be taught everything. Is it possible–likely, actually–that many if not most students learn the kind of management skills he’s arguing they need to learn by doing? Why do they need teachers for this? Aren’t they more effectively going to develop their own ways of management? It just seems like such an idiosyncratic thing, the management of files, drafts, etc. Useful to discuss, however? Yes. Like my mentioning of OneDrive.
Actually, This might inspire me to talk next unit about the creation of, storage of, use of drafts–and the digital environment. Ok… I got it.
Leave a Reply