The Meaning of “Digital Literacy”: Historical and Multimodal

The Meaning of Digital Literacy

In the “Digital Literacy” section of Chapter One, “Defining and Locating Digital Rhetoric,” of his book, Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice, Douglas Eyman distinguishes the meaning of “digital literacy” as it relates to digital rhetoric. Eyman acknowledges the complexity of digital literacy, as it is somewhat all-encompassing of multiple literacies. He writes that digital literacy “… requires the user to be able to read and write with a number of sign systems (e.g., coded web pages, video, audio, image, animation), each of which has its own functional and critical requirements.” However, digital literacy is not interchangeable with technological literacy, electronic literacy, computer literacy, media literacy, or silicon literacy. These literacies do not do justice to the historical and multimodal nature of digital literacy.

Historical and Multimodal

“If we agree that literacy is rooted in sociohistorical contexts,” writes Eyman, “it must encompass more than the particular sign system of writing with letters.” Recall the connections between digital rhetoric and the history of communication. “Digital” is a modern enablement of “information and communication technologies.” However, it is also “a reference to the human history of written communication.” Furthermore, although literacies in technology, electronics, computers, and media do not cover the scope of digital literacy’s historical contexts and multimodality, “… literacy itself is multimodal… it is useful to differentiate the particular modes or uses of literacy when seeking to observe the effects of literacy practices.”

My Thoughts

I feel that Eyman’s thorough commentary on the term “digital literacy” successfully encompasses the vast dimensions of this concept. He describes “digital literacy” not only in its reference to “digital rhetoric,” but also in its infinite applications to both computerized and non-computerized systems. For such a complicated and elaborate field, Eyman articulates his analysis well. Something else I have noticed is how inclusive he is with his peers’ works. Eyman uses varying perspectives, both that he agrees and disagrees with, and integrates them into his own interpretations. This not only distinguishes Eyman as trustworthy, but it also further develops the assertions made.

Related posts:

Multiliteracies: What Does It Mean? Digital Rhetoric: How to use Digital Tools to Persuade an Audience The Concept of Digital Literacy Is Jumbling How many literacy types are there? What do they mean?