Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Addendum to Literacy as art: What is "functional literacy”?

In the last post, we discussed functional literacy, the practical skill set you need to read, write, and do math for real-life purposes.  By this definitionliteracy is less about facts and more about skills: reading, writing, and working with numbers, especially to perform skills essential for living and working in your community.

Without further adieu, let's look at some specific examples of functional literacy.

Types of Functional Literacy
  • Media Literacy is the ability to access, evaluate, and create messages using different kinds of media, from print to digital. The purpose of media literacy is to transform people from mass consumers to critical citizens who aren’t susceptible to propaganda, advertising, etc.

Dilbert by Scott Adams, 10-28-1998

  • Religious Literacy is the ability to interpret religious scriptures and communicate with different faiths.  Religious literacy is important for combatting fundamentalism (e.g., religious fanaticism) and unwarranted prejudice (e.g., Islamophobia).  Some of my favorite interpreters include Joseph Campbell, Reza Aslan, and Karen Armstrong.
  • Financial Literacy is the ability to manage finances and make decisions about money.  Whether you're a consumer, a business owner, or a voter, understanding financial budgets is an essential life skill.
  • Computer Literacy is the ability to use computers, and it can range from basic competency (i.e., using applications like email and Microsoft Office) to advanced knowledge (e.g., programming, debugging, and computer science).
  • Legal Literacy is the ability to comprehend laws (e.g., being able to follow laws, policies, and legal processes).
  • Scientific Literacy doesn't mean memorizing raw data and facts.  Scientific literacy is understanding how to conduct an experiment and identify evidence that supports or contradicts a hypothesis.  With global warming, artificial intelligence, and nuclear proliferation at stake, scientific literacy is indispensable for 21st century citizens.
  • Health Literacy is the ability to understand healthcare information, particularly for making medical decisions or lifestyle choices about food, nutrition, exercise, sleep, and other factors that affect your physical and mental wellbeing.
  • Civic Literacy (a.k.a. Civics) is awareness of how government works as well as your rights and responsibilities as a citizen and voter.  Personally, I like to think of civic literacy as the linchpin that holds all these other kinds of literacies together.

Constitution of the U.S. (Image from Wikimedia Commons.)

Now to avoid any misunderstandings about functional literacy, keep in mind two key points.

First, functional literacy is primarily about skills, not subject-matter knowledge.

For example, when we talk about religious literacy, we don't mean memorizing encyclopedic facts about particular religions.  We mean the ability to read and interpret religious texts (from which you learn facts).  This means reading the Bible, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, or the Dhammapada to understand the spiritual, moral, or historical meaning of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhismbeyond the literal words on the page.

Likewise, when we talk about scientific literacy, we don't mean having explicit knowledge about quantum physics.  We mean understanding what a scientific method is and how it helps us verify or falsify beliefs.  The emphasis with functional literacy is on using skills, not remembering facts.

Second, functional literacy entails skills that are essential for a functional society.

This point is historically contingent (i.e., relative to our time and place), but that doesn't make it less true.  For instance, the ancient Greeks got by fine without these examples of functional literacy, but that's because they didn't have to worry about running a banking system (for which we need financial literacy), information systems (for which we need computer literacy), traffic laws (for which we need legal literacy), or a bill of rights (for which we need civic literacy).

If these examples of functional literacy are unique to our time and place in human history, then our civilization may need them more now than ever.


Sunday, March 26, 2017

Literacy as art: What is "functional literacy”?

What does it mean to be literate?  It seems like a simple question, but answering it is more complicated than meets the eye.

Literacy is usually defined as the ability to readwrite, and do math.  But what do we mean by reading?  Someone may be able to read the words in a document, but can they comprehend its arguments and analogies?  How about writing?  People may be able to write individual words, but can they express complete thoughts in grammatical sentences?  Then there’s math.  Some individuals may be able to count numbers, but do they know how to analyze graphs, write checks, or calculates tips?

Dilbert by Scott Adams, 9-9-2011

In short, reading or writing words and numbers is not enough to assess literacy.  People need to be able to understand and use those words and numbers—e.g., to express meaning and to solve problems.  This broader definition of literacy is called functional literacy.

Functional literacy refers to the practical skill set you need to read, write, and do math for real-life purposes, including personal or community development.  This definition comes from the United National Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, an international agency that researches education, science, and communication.  In the U.S., functional literacy is assessed by the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL).

The NAAL is put together every few years by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), a research division of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) in the Department of Education.  This research classifies literacy according to four levels:

1) Below Basic Literacy: reading and writing words and numbers in a very simple document.
  • Examples: locating easily identifiable information on a chart; signing a form; adding a dollar amount to a deposit slip.
2) Basic Literacy: performing simple skills to understand information in short texts.
  • Examples: reading a pamphlet; using a TV guide; comparing ticket prices.
3) Intermediate Literacy: performing challenging skills to understand long texts.
  • Examples: looking up information in a reference book; summarizing a long article; placing an order and calculating the cost.
4) Proficient Literacy: performing creative and critical thinking skills to understand dense, complex texts.
  • Examples: comparing viewpoints in editorials; interpreting statistical graphs; calculating the costs of food items per ounce.

You may have noticed that as we advance from Below Basic to Basic and beyond, we go from simple tasks to complex skills.  That's because literacy is a skill.  The ancient word for skillas I’ve pointed out in a previous post, is art.  Art, according to its Greek and Latin roots (techne/ars), means skill.  In this sense, literacy—or functional literacy—is the art of reading, writing, and working with numbers, especially to perform skills that are essential for functioning in the world.

So how functionally literate is the U.S.?  Here are the results from the last NAAL.  Warning: these numbers have alarmed many educators.  (In fact, one of my colleagues in education has worried that our nation has passed a point of "peak literacy.")

(Image from NAAL) 

14% of the U.S. population, or 1 out of every 7 people, are functionally illiterate, performing at a Below Basic level.  87% of people performed below Proficient levels.  Why are these numbers alarming?

Well, there's the obvious point that businesspeople such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs made.  The 21st-century economy needs highly skilled workers with knowledge in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math), or, better yet, STEAM (same subjects plus Arts).

Functional literacy, however, is about much more than getting a job.  It's also about preserving knowledge and skills needed for our society to function.  If we don't have individuals with mathematical knowledge, creative reading and writing skills, critical thinking habits, etc., then we won't have functioning businesses, governments, or communities.  In other words, we need functional literacy to have a functional society.  Functional illiteracy means living in a dysfunctional society, like in the movie Idiocracy.



With these definitions and stats in mind, I'll explain what kinds of functional literacies are needed to avoid this problem in the next post.


Thursday, February 23, 2017

The Attention Economy: Has digital technology democratized information?

While I was in grad school studying technical communication, I heard a lot of professors rehashing ideas from writers like Thomas Friedman.  In his books The Lexus and the Olive Tree and The World Is Flat, Friedman argues that globalized, digital technologyi.e., the Internet and social media such as Facebookwill 'democratize' informationi.e., more people have more access to more information, and, as a result, everyone will be able to make better economic and political choices.  Has digital technology really promoted democracy, or rule by the people (as opposed to oligarchs)?

The Economist ran a special report last week about digital technology's democratic potentialor lack thereof.  Thus far, the vast majority of Internet usage is for entertainment, not education or civics.  Most people aren't listening to online science lectures or browsing art museum sites.  The mainstream isn't looking up political representatives or reading about their voting records.  For the most part, people use the Internet for entertainment, whether streaming shows and movies or sharing videos, photos, and blog posts.  When it comes civics versus mass entertainment, the latter dominates the digital world by a long shot.

Well then, maybe we could at least say that digital technology has democratized entertainment.  But as the special report in the Economist shows, digital technology has created a kind of economic paradox.

On one hand, more consumers have more choices than ever before.  There are literally hundreds of cable TV stations, thousands of Youtube channels, millions of Facebook pages, billions of websites, and God knows what else.  On the other hand, there remains a limit to how much digital content people can consume.  Consumers only have so much time in the day to give attention to something.  We call this limit the attention economy.

Furthermore, although The Economist doesn't go into it, I might also add that we are human beings who are prone to certain biases.  For example, the familiarity bias (we tend to pay attention to things we are already familiar with), the availability bias (we tend to pay attention to things that are more recent in our memory), and many other cognitive biases tend to restrict our attention.

As a result, more consumers have access to entertainment, but they pay attention to a limited number of things, which are usually blockbuster hits from media conglomerates.  This attention economy is certainly digital, but it's not democratic.  To quote the Economist:
And yet as a business, entertainment has in some ways become less democratic, not more.  Technology is making the rich richer, skewing people's consumption of entertainment towards the biggest hits and the most powerful platforms.  This world is dominated by an oligarchy of giants, including Facebook, Google, Amazon, Netflix and Disney (as well as Alibaba and Tencent within China's walled ecosystem).  Those lacking sufficient scale barely get noticed.
In effect, digital technology has not democratized information, as the special report concludes:
But whatever the arena, the biggest crowds will increasingly gravitate towards just a small number of the most popular hits.  Until recently that was seen as a natural consequence of the physical limits on production and distribution.  It now turns out that, even in the potentially unlimited digital marketplace, social networks, rankings, recommendation algorithms and the like focus people attentions on just a few items in the same way.  The story of mass entertainment in the internet age is a paradox.  Technology has given people too many choices, and then instantly relieved them of the need to make them.
Will digital technology democratize information in the future?  That is, will everyone with more access to more information be able to improve their economic and political prospects beyond the world of entertainment?  Will society follow a more democratic philosophy of technology beyond the oligopolies of mass media?

So far, the outcome has been entertainment and oligopoly for the world of mass media.  That's not all bad, by the way.  I like many of the shows that Netflix is releasing (my wife and I have been particularly impressed by The Crown), and media conglomerates like Google make this blog possible.  But let's not kid ourselves by trying to claim this is all democratic.  The attention economy says otherwise.


Sunday, January 22, 2017

More Routine than Rogue: movie review of Rogue One

Now that most of the initial hype has passed, let's talk about Rogue One.

Rogue One (Image from IMDb)
Keep in mind that I gave the last Star Wars movieThe Force Awakensa positive review overall.  Yes, it lacked in originality (the plot was essentially the same as A New Hope, and J. J. Abrams' directing was almost a carbon copy of George Lucas' style), but the films characters, dialogue, and mythic themes were strong enough to make up for that quibble.

Rogue One, to its credit, has a great strength: a clever plot.  It bridges two previous filmsRevenge of the Sith and A New Hope—by smoothly weaving in a story about how the Rebels stole the Death Star plans.  Another strength of the movie, of course, is the appearance of Darth Vader, whom we don't see enough of, but when we do, it's like watching the terrifying return of a titan.
Darth Vader returns in Rogue One (Image from IMDb)

Other than nostalgic nods to Vader, however, not much happens in Rogue One.  Among its flaws, let me point out a couple that really matter.

First, there's no character development—none, zilch, nada.  Jyn has enormous potential as a character, but she's more of a plot device.  We have no idea as to her feelings about the Empire or extremist Rebels like Saw Gerrera.  We don't know how her tragic childhood affected her personality.  We're not even sure what her personality is.
Jyn (Image from IMDb)
The same could be said for Cassian Andor.  In one scene, he argues with Jyn by grumbling about how the Rebels have forced him to do many terrible things.  What were those terrible things?  How did they affect his views of galactic justice?  We never know, because the scanty dialog immediately dissolves into gratuitous explosions.
Cassian Andor (Image from IMDb)
By the time we watch Jyn and Cassian hold each other as the Death Star blasts them to pieces, it's like watching chess pieces fall.  There's no emotional impact, no reason to care.  It's not promissing when droids like K-2SO have more personality than people in the film.
Cassian and Jyn with K-2SO (Image from IMDb)
Which brings us to another problem with Rogue One: the characters have nothing humane to offer to the Star Wars saga.  In The Force Awakens, for instance, we see Finn start off as Stormtrooper FN-2187 . . . until he suffers a moral crisis.  Unable to bring himself to kill innocent people under the command of The First Order, he escapes from his evil overlords and undergoes a hero's journey.  His journey is more than a morality play; it's a question of what it means to be a human being with humane feelings, as opposed to a cog in a machine.
Stormtrooper FN-2187 becomes Finn (Image from IMDb)
Jyn and Cassian, in contrast, offer no humane thoughts about anyone or anything.  Recall, for example, the split in the Rebel Alliance, with Cassian representing mainstream Rebels, Saw Gerrera representing extremists, and Jyn stuck in between.  Rogue One missed its opportunity to say anything creative about what it means to be a Rebel fighting for humanity.  Should Rebels follow a moral code, draw clear lines in the sand, and try to negotiate when possible?  Or do the ends—no matter how ugly or immoraljustify the means, as torture does for Saw Gerrera?
Saw Gerrera (Image from IMDb)
In the end, Rogue One isn't a terrible movie—it's just not a good one.  It's average at best.  While it has a clever plot, the flat characters and lack of substance make for a pretty shallow film.  The result is nothing more than a pure action flick, which is entertaining but superficial.

One of the reasons I love science fiction is that it gives us modern myths about human beings and their technological creations.  My new hope is that Star Wars doesn't continue in the direction of Rogue One by forgetting the human and humane elements behind technology, thereby losing itself in the corporate machine of mass media.  That would truly be a disturbance to the Force.


Sunday, December 18, 2016

Our technological paradox: digital tribalism in the global village

 

Nicholas Carr
(Image from Wikimedia Commons

The author Nicholas Carr wrote an article some time ago asking, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

He followed it up with his book The Shallows, which asks, is the Internet is turning us into shallow thinkers?

(Image from Amazon)

While many of us would say no, I understand what he was getting at when it comes to how people use the Internet.  The best thing about the Internet is that you can find out anything about anything—that's also the worst thing about the Internet.  For instance, when I want to know what the Fed does to affect interest rates, I can go it its website and look up the policy.  But if I want to believe that President Obama is a space alien, I can find a website out there that confirms this conspiracy theory.  (Go ahead, try it!)

On one hand, the Internet is probably the greatest invention since the printing press, at least in terms of cultural impact.  On the other hand, the Internet, and social media in particular, can be a trap for what psychologists call the confirmation bias: people tend to seek information that confirms what they want to hear, not what they need to know.  Now we're living in a paradox: we're much more interconnected through digital technology and social media; but the information we usually find is customized, limited, or insular to our social network.

Take a recent example: an MIT study that looks at Twitter users and how they followed political Tweets during the 2016 election.  In the graph below, the dots represent Twitter users, and their color represents which political candidate they followed.  Clinton supporters on Twitter are to the left, and Trump supporters on Twitter are to the right.  Among Clinton supporters on Twitter, there were few users who followed only Trump (the red dots), some users who followed both Clinton and Trump (the purple dots), and many users who only followed Clinton (the blue dots).  Among Trump supporters on Twitter, most users only followed Trump, creating their own information bubble (the big cluster of red dots).

(Image from The Electome project at MIT and reported in Vice News)

In terms of media ecology (the study of how media affect culture and behavior), the Internet may or may not be making us stupid or shallow.  However, it may be making us more tribal.  Years ago, Marshall McLuhan warned us about this tribalism in The Gutenberg Galaxy:

"The new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the image of a global village."
"We live in a single constricted space resonant with tribal drums."[1]

That's our technological paradox, which McLuhan foresaw before the Internet's invention.  Technological interconnectivity—via the Internet and social media—has connected us in incredible ways, and now we're all sharing a single space (a global village).

And yet the result has been anything but a shared, cosmopolitan perspective (rather, its what we'd call digital tribalism).

Is there a way out of this paradox?  Here are some suggestions...

  • Never expect meaningful information from Twitter.  Twitter is primarily entertainment, not news.  (On occasion, meaningful info may come from Twitter, but it's more likely to come from, say, magazines such as Scientific American.)
  • Don't post political memes on Facebook.  Seriously, don't do it—it only inflames tribalism, and memes won't change anyone's mind.  (Changing minds requires discussion and dialogue).
  • Take breaks from social media to read news from nonpartisan sources.  Of course, there's no such thing as perfectly unbiased, purely objective news, because there's no such thing as perfectly unbiased, purely objective people (we are human beings, not gods).  But news can be covered in a way that respects facts and doesn't have a partisan axe to grind.  Also, if you can, try to read news in print, because print media often work better than screens for reflective, long-term memory, as research in cognitive science demonstrates.  (Personally, I like to read The Economist.) 

[1] Marshall McLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962), 36.