Yes! This is why digital literacies programs that focus on training for specific tools miss the point: students really need metaskills and literacies that they can then apply to specific tools.

Kudos for using the plural — "literacies" — right off the bat, not only given the many literacies listed later (eg, data literacy, information literacy, visual literacy, media literacy, metaliteracy, etc), but also that there are multiple literacies even in a single category.

Amen! For example: proficiency in a specific software program (eg, MS Word) rather than broader literacies about how such software can be used generally (eg, word processing).

Some of the different kinds of digital literacies.

Thinking about how this step might be before Mike Caulfield's first "Stop" step in the SIFT framework he developed out of his "four moves".

Thinking about this in the context of recent experiences where Western white men use Western rational frameworks to validate their own personal experiences where their privilege is challenged. Maybe there's such a comfortable fit between dominant identity and dominant knowing frameworks that, for such folks, the Western rational tradition is a sort of local knowledge.

Love this formulation of the "constructive knower".

Filing this quote away for later ;)

Love this, as so much of what needs amplification are understandings of people as actors within communities, not just as individual consumers or producers of digital artifacts.

This is an incredibly important point: too often explorations of digital practices focus on skills (often even then too narrowly defined, as when specific software programs are taught, rather than higher level skills about using an entire software category, like word processing, or spreadsheets), when they should be focusing on how digital practices fit in to wider human life, as in citizenship.

Love the move to the plural here.

You can also follow Jenae on Twitter.

Yes! The overall goal is to empower students to have agency over their digital fluency, not just enable them to use this or that software or technique.

Yes! For example: practice in using spreadsheets in general, rather than just what to click on in a single product like MS Excel.

And maybe librarians, who along with IDs are well-placed to work across curricula and embed digital literacies practices strategically?

Yay! I love the plural form in all cases. There is always more than one "literacy".

Like with writing, digital literacies/skills/fluency should be incorporated across the curriculum.

Yes! If we expect students to do something, we should devote learning time to helping them learn how/advance their knowledge.

Another definition of digital literacy, recast as digital fluency.

A definition of digital literacy.

A key point: a lot of people might have technology, but that doesn't mean they have built up knowledge and skills about how it works or how to do things with it.

Not to beat a dead horse, but just like we should maybe always think of digital literacies in the plural, we should also think about digital fluencies as there is certainly more than one type or kind of fluency.

Two challenges that #OER and #annotation together can provide infrastructure to help solve: the high cost of learning materials and engaging teachers and learners in social reading, discussion and analysis.

Issues to solve: both OER and annotation don't require digital reading, but are both made more powerful through it. Yet technology access and reading preferences don't always support to digital reading.

Solution: Explore online and offline, digital and print experiments in OER and annotation/social reading.

Join me in annotating @mweller's thoughtful exercise at thinking through the last 20 years of edtech. Given Martin's acknowledgements of the caveats of such an exercise, how can we augment this list to tell an even richer story?