Just a gimmick?
Anything with a 2.0 suffix has gotten a fair bit of grief recently as nothing more than a passing fad or gimmick. In academic circles, there have been the same types of criticisms thrown at terms such as “new media” and “Literacy 2.0.” Diane Penrod has some thoughtful contributions on this topic. In her brief article, Web 2.0, Meet Literacy 2.0 she lays out a pretty solid case for why it isn’t.
What drives Literacy 2.0 is a robust, enhanced skill
set that requires knowledge of many areas and training
in numerous activities that move beyond the ability to
read and write at a competent level for the print
medium. Academic culture needs to develop a better
awareness that, while important, traditional literacy is
no longer enough to ensure student success. To be
Iiterate in the 21 st Century, educated people must be
proficient in assimilating, transmitting, and transforming
information into new, meaningful units for contexts
and situations that, in some instances, have yet to
occur. (51)
For academics trying to sort out hype from substance, this surfaces as a good sifting tool. This also reminds me of some of Will Richardson’s good work over at Weblogged, e.g., 21st Century Literacies from the NCTE