For example, an I.M. on a cellphone is written but really it is very much like speaking and contains visual elements (emoticons), sound (songs; sound effects) and even tactile elements (vibrational sequences) all of which are used to convey various forms of informational meaning as well as affect. (See Angela Thomas, Youth Online for fascinating ‘discussion’).

Have you explored Halliday’s systemic functional linguistics (concepts also used by Kress) and looked at how the products of literacy – multimodal texts – can be understood in terms of their ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions?

Halliday predicted in the 1970s-1980s that the boundaries between writing (ie old fashioned literacy) and speaking would eventually collapse. Kress (1996) also predicted the ever broadening inclusion of other modes into ‘literate texts’.

The New London Group, (in Cope and Kalantzis) also reframed literacies as Multiliteracies, and their Multiliteracies Framework is very useful for broadening thinking on literacy, as is Brian Street’s work on the differences between the autonomous model of literacy, and the ideological model.

This is a really great platform for sharing ideas. Thanks.
Adrienne

But we are not making sure these new digital mediums are shared by all. These new ways of transferring info long distance leave out our poorest children in large urban areas and our most isolated children in rural communities. The message does not reach these people because they do not understand, share or have access to the this medium. There is no literacy here.

In these cases, the medium can not even pass on the message if the medium is unavailable, misused or misunderstood. As educators we must assure that whatever medium we choose, we make sure all know the medium or there is no message. This is the true goal of literacy. What good is blogs & twitters if new digital medium is unavailable to even use in a large portion of your population?

What good was television when only few had access, and none could afford it? What good is a skill without the tools to practice it on? Digital media needs a digital Gutenberg, someone or some organization who can make this available to the masses. Then we can start to talk about a new literacy and the message it brings.

You said:

If I’m going to write to convey my thoughts, whether I use a pencil, pen, magic marker, or computer, my message is still going to be the same.

I disagree: your thoughts will always and necessarily be confined and limited by the tools that you use. There is certainly not a 1:1 relation (nor can there be) between what’s in your head and what you communicate to others. If this is the case, then the message really does depend on the message to a great extent, and affects the nature of literacy. If the tool changes, the literacy changes!

You said:

When you say your are studying digital literacy, I wonder if it wouldn’t be more accurate to say literacy in a digital format. The way you interact specifically with the information may be a little different, as discussed in Reinking’s work, but really, you’re still reading.

Absolutely! I believe that literacy can be infinitely subdivided into as many ‘literacies’ as you wish. The author who ‘discovers’ a new literacy is really only pointing to an aspect of a wider literacy. Given that I belive new technologies engender new literacies, the overall umbrella ‘literacy’ must therefore continually expand and accommodate new literacy practices.

(what are we going to do about blog post vs. this forum, Ben – shall we continue posting in both places?)

If I’m going to write to convey my thoughts, whether I use a pencil, pen, magic marker, or computer, my message is still going to be the same. What I am communicating has not changed based on the medium. Yes, the way you receive it changed, but the message and essence of the way I’ve delivered it remains. You read this. That is significant.

When you say your are studying digital literacy, I wonder if it wouldn’t be more accurate to say literacy in a digital format. The way you interact specifically with the information may be a little different, as discussed in Reinking’s work, but really, you’re still reading. It would be like saying that fiction and nonfiction are their own literacies. I’ve yet to read a document about fiction literacy, or short story literacy, or even poetry literacy. Those are all genres as a part of reading, which is a core element of literacy. We all still have to decode the letters and abide by the general rules of breaking down the symbols to gather meaning. Thus, we are reading.

1. That literacy is about communicating meaning.
2. That literacy is separate from the tool.

I’d agree with the first point but not with the second. Literacy is about using tools to communicate meaning. The medium, as Marshall McLuhan, famously said, is (at least in part) the message.

Change the medium and you change the message. Change the message and it’s a different literacy.