Abstract
Research confirms that young children engage in digital literacy practices in the home. While there is an emerging body of work that documents the diversity of these practices, there is little research that examines their acquisition in situ. This article uses conversation analysis to describe and explicate the social accomplishment of a number of activities that led to and constituted a young child’s Google search to find information about a lizard. Discussion of the child’s activities considers the local and situated use of technology, including how the child and adult jointly obtained the information needed by the child to read and write texts related to the search. The article establishes ways that social interaction contributes to young children’s acquisition and use of digital literacy practices, including when learning about print and about techology itself.
Introduction
Young children engage in a range of digital practices in the home (Carrington, 2001; Marsh, 2005). These include the use of VCRs and videos, PlayStation and other e-games (Carrington, 2001). Young children and parents identify the use of computers as a popular practice (Downes, 2002), and census data confirm that young children experience increasing exposure to computer technology in the home (McCarrick and Xiaoming, 2007). The computer activities of young children include computer games, drawing tools, word processing, desktop publishing, printing pictures and online chat (Marsh, 2005). Survey research (NetRatings, 2005) has established that young children are accessing the Internet at increasingly younger ages. Nevertheless, television viewing dominates young children’s digital practices in the home (Marsh, 2005) and young children continue to enjoy other leisure practices such as playing games outdoors (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006).
Young children’s digital literacy practices are located in ‘shared social practices with family and friends’ (McTavish, 2009: 21). Families contribute to the construction of young children’s literate identities (Lankshear and Knobel, 2003; Marsh, 2005), including encouraging children’s interest in and use of digital technologies. Marsh (2005: 46) establishes, for example, how young children’s identities ‘were strongly influenced by the practices of others and those identities in turn impacted on the range of communicative practices in which they were engaged’. Some practices such as shared reading of CD-ROM storybooks and other electronic books are specifically intended to scaffold young children’s language use and understanding (Kim, 2008). These in turn may lead to other activities, such as dramatic play, whereby young children recontextualize their experiences of digital texts and practices (Smith, 2002). Plowman, McPake and Stephen (2008) found, however, that parents tend to underestimate the ways they support young children’s use of technology and the extent of the cultural transmission of practices.
Examinations of young children’s practices with computers provide understanding of the ways that digital literacy encompasses reading and writing but differs substantially from book-based literacies (Merchant, 2008). The multimodal nature of online texts means that young children experience meaning making differently when reading on-screen and when reading print on the page (Kim, 2008). Computer games for young children, for example, tend to foreground graphical information over print and provide narrative structures and cueing systems that differ substantially from those available in print-based texts offline (Carrington, 2005b). Hypertext means that children ‘are no longer following a linear relationship with a text’ (Carrington, 2001: 95) but are ‘navigating the text’ instead (Plowman and Stephen, 2003). These differences led Merchant (2008: 764) to suggest a need to broaden the notion of ‘concepts of print’ to encompass ‘concepts of screen-based texts’ in relation to the development of children’s digital literacies.
Although research confirms the phenomenon of emergent digital literacies (Carrington, 2001), young children’s acquisition and use of digital literacies in the home remains under-examined (Carrington, 2005a, 2005b; Lankshear and Knobel, 2003; Marsh, 2006; Merchant, 2008). Instead, research continues to emphasise young children’s development of concepts about print and book-based literacy, particularly in preschools and in the early years of schooling. This focus reflects broader educational concerns with print as the necessary literacy focus for young children (Carrington, 2005a; Turbill and Murray, 2006) and the dominance of teaching approaches developed for instruction about traditional print-based texts such as books (Hassett, 2006). Consequently, we have much less information about exactly how children acquire digital literacies in the home prior to and during the early years of schooling.
This article considers young children’s acquisition of digital literacy practices in the home through the examination of the social accomplishment of a young child’s activity during and around computer use. In the section that follows, the research perspective is introduced and related to the research focus on examining social interaction and acquisition of digital literacies. Then the study design is outlined, focusing on the methods for data collection and data analysis. Four excerpts from a recording are analysed in detail using the transcript developed from the recording. Discussion draws out the distinctiveness of the digital literacy practices that occurred and considers how these were being acquired. The article results in a description and explication of the social accomplishment of a child’s digital literacy practices, including how interaction may contribute to acquisition of knowledge about digital and alphabetic literacy during children’s use of the computer.
Theoretical perspective
The study was informed by ethnomethodology (EM), a sociological approach developed initially by Garfinkel (1967, 1991). Garfinkel proposed that the way to understand the social order was to examine the methods used by people in the social accomplishment of everyday life. Ethnomethodologists are interested in ‘the reasoning processes people use to make sense of here-and-now actions (both their own and that of others), reasoning processes that allow them to participate as people-in-the-know, as people who can see what is going on’ (Brandt, 1992: 318). This approach results in descriptions of the ways members of society bring about an orderly world as a local and everyday (or mundane) accomplishment. People are thought to provide accounts that document what they take to be going on and, reflexively, these ‘not only describe or explain reality but also constitute reality’ (Brandt, 1992: 320). Also, accounts are indexed (Garfinkel, 1967) to the occasions of their occurrence; that is, they show orientations to aspects of the setting and these are made visible when accounts are provided.
An influential variant from EM is conversation analysis (CA), which employs the sequential analysis of talk during interaction (Sacks, 1995). Talk is examined on a turn-by-turn basis to explicate how people make apparent to each other what they believe to be going on, how they bring about particular social actions by doing this, and also how talk projects future actions. So, CA extends the EM project because it ‘underscores that how someone responds to what we say gives what we say its public meaning’ (Brandt, 1992: 322). In other words, a response to what has been said previously provides ‘an account of what has just happened’ (Brandt, 1992: 322). This reflexive relationship is illustrated through the concept, in CA, of the adjacency pair. An adjacency pair consists of two turns at talk that are so powerfully related that the occurrence of one occasions or makes relevant the provision of a second. The question-answer pair is one example; invitation and acceptance is another. In each of these adjacency pairs, the first pair part of each (question and invitation) makes relevant or occasions the second pair part (answer and acceptance). The concept of preference is also important in understanding adjacency pairs. So, declining an invitation is a dispreferred response and the dispreference can be found in the methods used to soften or delay a decline. According to Sacks (1995), describing and explicating such matters reveals ‘order at all points’; that is, sequential analysis reveals the order that people’s social interaction produces and requires. Further, people are shown to orient to particular features of context; and thus understanding context, from the researcher’s perspective, is about delineating what is made relevant in talk and examining how this has consequences for courses of talk and interaction (Schegloff, 1992).
Together, EM and CA provide useful perspectives for examining how digital literacy practices are acquired during computer use. First of all, their acquisition may be found during children’s ordinary and everyday activity. Acquisition can be understood as a process that is made visible in the accounts provided by children and adults during interaction and which is rediscoverable through analysis of those accounts. Both acquisition and digital literacy practices need to be thought of as situated; that is, they are constituted in particular ways in the doing of them. They are routine and yet each occasion of their accomplishment is done on a moment-by-moment basis (such that they might potentially be other than what they usually are). Finally, descriptions of social interaction should seek to provide evidence of the orientations of children and adults to aspects of digital literacy practices, and evidence of the consequences of those orientations for the use and development of ways of thinking, doing and saying that might constitute digital literacy practices.
Method
This study sought to apply the methods of EM/CA to the examination of young children’s acquisition of digital literacies in the home. The study was designed to ‘capture’ everyday activity, produce recordings of human and computer activity, enable analysis of young children’s interactions, and make visible their methods for accomplishing courses of action during their activity. The analysis was intended to encompass the social accomplishment of activity and to result in description and explication of the orientations and methods of young children during computer use. It addressed the following questions: what aspects of technology do young children orient to during computer use?, and how are these consequential for their acquisition and use of digital literacy practices?
Data collection consisted of video-recordings of young children using computers in their homes. Four families participated in the study and participants were identified and recruited through professional and personal networks. No families were known to the researcher prior to the study. The focus on a small number of participants was informed by methodological and practical imperatives; CA is time intensive, requiring that researchers develop their own transcripts since transcription is regarded as an aspect of analysis rather than a precursor to it (2009). Recordings were made in the home after initial contact had been established with the families and family members had agreed to participate in the study. Recordings were made at a time identified as convenient by family members. A single recording was made in three homes, and two recordings were made in the fourth. The latter situation arose because the mother of two of the young children contacted the researcher after the first recording and suggested that the researcher might wish to record the children using a new computer game she had purchased for them.
Recordings were up to 30 minutes in length and were made in the presence of the researcher and other adults (one or both parents and sometimes in the presence of a family friend as well). The young children who were the focus of the recordings were all under the age of seven. Following data collection, all recordings were viewed numerous times and initial transcripts developed using Transana, a digital program for viewing recordings and developing transcripts.
Analysis of specific aspects of transcripts was developed according to the orientations of participants rather than predetermined orientations of the researcher. In the case of the data analysed in this article, the children in one family displayed an avid interest in lizards and finding information about them. This resulted in their practice of conducting Google searches about lizards. Talk about these searches and their results became the focus for description and explication of social interaction in that family, and excerpts from that recording inform this article.
The final transcript developed from the recording employs common symbols from the Jefferson notation system (Atkinson and Heritage, 1999). The symbols are provided at the end of the article and may need to be examined before reading the analysis (Appendix). In addition, transcription employs a symbol (↔) developed specifically for this study. The symbol makes it possible to indicate non-verbal actions that occur during gaps between speakers’ talk.
20 M: ‘e’ again 21(8.0)↔((M typing and looking at keyboard))
So, in this example, talk lapses after Matt’s utterance in line 20. The gap that follows is eight seconds in length and, during this time, Matt types in a letter. Speakers in the transcript are represented in the following way: M (Matt), R (Researcher), L (Leeann, Matt’s mother), G (Gary, Matt’s father) and D (Denny, Matt’s brother). At the time of the recording, Matt was aged five years and six months and his brother was two years and 11 months.
Analysis
The analysis examines talk and interaction that led to a Google search by Matt. In the first excerpt, Matt seeks the name of a lizard in an information text about reptiles. He has just seen an image of a lizard fossil while searching the Internet with his father and brother. Matt thinks that the fossil is a lizard that runs on water but he does not know its correct name. This prompts him to look it up in a book while his father and brother continue to look at other lizards on the computer.
Excerpt 1
Matt’s mother acknowledges his search in the book for the name of the unknown lizard (line 1). Although the recording does not show whether Matt provides a non-verbal response to the question, such as a nod, his utterance formulates a problem that is signalled initially through the use of ‘but’ (3). Matt tells his mother that he cannot do ‘tho::se ones’. After a short gap, and a lack of response from her, Matt extends his turn, providing the additional information that there are no names. This locates the problem on the page. Again, there is a gap and then his mother responds with words that can be heard to indicate a lack of understanding (5) and an attempt to repair this trouble in their talk. The mother’s partial repetition of Matt’s previous words prompts the provision of further information by him; there are no names next to the reptiles in the book (6). The use of the place-indexical term (Sacks, 1995) ‘next to them’ further narrows the source of the problem on the page. Matt’s previous use of ‘tho::se ones’, together with ‘they’ and ‘them’ in the following talk, is also indexed to pictures in the book.
1 L: do you think you can find it ↑Matt? 2 (2.0)↔((Matt looking at the book)) 3 M: bu::t I can’t do tho::se ones (0.4) they don’t have names 4 (0.4) 5 L: that don’t have the names?, 6 M: next to them 7 L: ↑o::h next to them (0.4) well [see down here 8 D: [look dis one 9 G: this one 10 ((D clicking on a search result))
The mother now acknowledges her understanding of the problem through use of ‘o::h’ followed by ‘next to them’. In CA terms, ‘oh’ is a change-of-state token (Heritage, 1984) which is used to indicate a change in understanding. The repetition of ‘next to them’, Matt’s previous words, confirms what it is that his mother now understands. Her repetition in lines 5 and 7 also parallels Matt’s statement of the problem across two utterances in lines 3 and 6. Following the repair, the mother speaks again and this turn addresses the original problem stated by Matt. The use of ‘well’ (7) indicates an extended turn to come and she then directs Matt’s attention to another part of the page through the place-indexical term ‘down here’. At the same time, the younger child (Denny) and his father resume their activity on the computer (8–10), thus Denny’s talk overlaps his mother’s (8) although it is not related to it.
The mother then provides the formulation ‘this is what you do then’ (11). Her utterance projects forward, or signals, further talk on her part and talk that is going to address the problem at hand. It serves as a preface to the information that is to come. The utterance is then followed (14–16) by her description of what to do. Her talk concerns two places on the page: one is where a specific picture is and the other is the bottom of the page where she directed Matt’s attention previously. Pointing probably accompanies the mother’s talk although she is not clearly visible on the recording.
11 L: this is [what you do then 12 G: [hehe this is their favourite 13 R: hhhh. 14 L: this one (0.4) see you go eight see you find number eight 15 (0.4) and then you look for number eight there (0.4) and 16 that’s what it is 17 ( 0.4) 18 L: it’s a boa 19 (0.4)
First the mother nominates a reptile (14) with the use of ‘this one’ and then she draws Matt’s attention to the number beside it (‘see’). Her words ‘you go’ formulate what to do (locate the number). She then repeats her words, altering ‘you go’ to ‘you find’. This repair names what she is demonstrating as ‘finding’ the number. She further extends her turn with ‘and then’, which indicates more to come and formulates what has to be done next as ‘look for’. The word ‘there’ indexes a position on the page (probably ‘down there’ as she had indicated earlier in line 7). She then makes another formulation (‘that's what it is’). Although the gap following this provides a place for Matt to speak, he does not take a turn. His mother then names what ‘that’ is – ‘it’s a boa’ (18). The use of ‘it’ is indexed to ‘this one’. Her words are ‘hearably’ the end of the extended turn at talk that she has taken in order to tell and show Matt how to read the text to find out the names of reptiles on the page.
Excerpt 2
Matt finds the lizard in the book. He then takes the book to his father who is sitting at the computer with Denny, the younger child. Matt initiates interaction with his father, beginning with ‘there you go’ (1). His talk resumes the previous interaction with his father about the lizard fossil. Matt indicates the picture of the lizard and its name, verbally and non-verbally, through pointing to (2), but he does not say or read the name himself. His announcement (‘there’s the running on the water gecko’) invites a response from his father. The father’s response is to read the name to Matt (3) rather than say it. His reading gives emphasis to the word ‘basilisk’. His use of ‘oh you're right it was’ is indexed to talk (some minutes previously) where he indicated to Matt that he did not know the lizard or its name. Matt has found and provided the information for his father.
1 M: >there you go< (0.4) there’s the running on the water gecko 2 tha::t’s [his name ((pointing to the book)) 3 G: [oh you’re right it was he’s called (0.4) the gree:n 4 (0.6) basilisk lizard 5 (1.0) 6 G: remember [the basilisk was in (0.4) 7 D: [look 8 G: Harry [Potter] 9 M: [>Harry Potter<] 10 D: lo::::ok 11 (1.0) 12 M: gree:n basilisk lizard (1.0) it must look like the basilisk 13 [[it’s- 14 [[(0.8)↔(computer image freezes) 15 G: hey Matt (0.4) 16 M: it’s like the basilisk= 17 G: =Ma:::tt (0.2) can you make it play through without stopping?
After reading the name of the lizard, the father reminds Matt that he knows what a basilisk is (‘remember the basilisk’). The absence of a response from Matt prompts the father to provide additional information (8) and Matt’s overlap at the word ‘Potter’ confirms his remembering of the basilisk because he provides the name at the same time as his father completes it (8–9). After a gap in the talk, where the younger brother summons attention (10), Matt then names the lizard, emphasizing each word, and adds the additional information (his understanding) that the name indicates that the lizard must look like a basilisk (12). He stops abruptly as the computer screen freezes (13–14) and his father then summons him (15). Matt resumes his talk with the repetition of ‘it’s’ and provides a comparison between the lizard and the basilisk (17). His father again summons Matt and requests his help to fix the YouTube clip that his younger brother is watching (17).
Excerpt 3
Following the identification of the lizard, Matt determines that he will do a Google search to find out more information about the green basilisk lizard. To do this, he copies the name from the book into the Google search term box on the computer. At the point where the transcript and analysis begin, Matt is writing ‘green’ and has just keyed in the letter ‘g’. In the talk that follows he initiates interaction with the researcher in order to obtain information that he needs to write the next letter. At this time, the researcher is the only other person in the room.
Matt looks at the keyboard for several seconds (1). He then looks at the researcher and then at the keyboard again. Matt’s utterance that follows (4) is directed at the researcher who is still the only other person in the room. The turn accounts for Matt’s previous action (looking at the keyboard rather than keying in the next letter in the word ‘green’). Matt’s talk here encompasses an assessment of the activity of finding letters. It accounts for what he has been doing when looking at the keyboard but does so in a way that makes locating the letter the difficulty rather than a lack of knowledge. The researcher’s response is an offer of help (5). It takes the form of a personal state enquiry and indicates the researcher’ hearing that Matt is talking about himself and a letter that he needs to find. After a short silence, Matt confirms the previous formulation of himself as being in need of help (6–7). The silence is perhaps indicative of a kind of dispreferred response by Matt because accepting help also requires acknowledging that help is needed.
1 (6.0)↔((M looking at keyboard)) 2 ((M looks at the researcher)) 3 (1.0)↔((M looking at keyboard)) 4 M: ((looking at R)) it’s pretty hard to find some letters= 5 R: =do you need ↑help? 6 (1.0) 7 M: yes 8 (0.4) 9 R: what are you looking for? 10 (1.0) 11 M: ‘r’ 12 (1.0)↔((M looks back a book)) 13 M: yes 14 (2.0)↔((R points and M keys it in))
There is a gap after Matt confirms that he needs help (8). This is a place where he could extend his turn to explain what kind of help is needed, however he does not. So, the researcher asks a question that seeks further information from him (9). There is a pause before Matt replies (10) and, after providing the answer, he checks the book and audibly confirms his answer (13). The researcher then indicates the letter on the keyboard and Matt keys it in (14).
Matt then looks back at the book (15). His use of ‘u::::::rm’ coincides with looking for the next letter. This vocalization accounts for his activity as ‘doing something’, that is, looking or searching for the letter he needs. Matt’s utterance in line 17 appears to recall or be indexed to his previous assessment that finding some letters is ‘pretty hard’. In this case, his use of ‘definitely know’ indicates his knowledge on this particular occasion.
15 M: ((looking at book)) u::::::rm (0.4) ‘e’ 16 (2.0)↔((M looks back at keyboard)) 17 M: I definitely know where that is ((hits key on ‘that’)) 18 M: u:::rm ((looks at book)) 19 (2.0) 20 M: ‘e’ again
After keying in the letter (17), Matt scans the book for the next letter (18), again producing a vocalization while he does it. He then indicates out loud what that letter is. His talk appears to be for the overhearing audience of one – the researcher – and indicates that he knows what he is doing.
There is a long silence in talk during which Matt types and then looks at the book (21). Then he names the next letter (22). This is followed by a sound (‘e:::rr’) that accompanies and accounts for looking at the keyboard. Matt continues to look for quite a few seconds (23).
21 (8.0)↔((M typing and looking at keyboard)) 22 M: ‘n’ (0.4) e:::rr (looking at keyboard) 23 (26.0)↔((continues looking at keyboard)) 24 M: o↓kay ↑what's (0.4) the:::::r (0.8) letter that faces that way? 25 (1.0)↔((M makes gesture)) 26 R: [‘b’ ] 27 M: [that w-] 28 M: °there we go° ((presses key))
Matt then initiates talk that requires a response from the researcher (24). The use of ‘okay’ to begin the utterance can be heard to resume the previous activity (Beach, 1999) whereby information was needed and given. The question encompasses a formulation of what is required that provides some information about the letter – its orientation but not its name. The gap in talk encompasses a hand gesture by Matt whereby he points to the right (25). The answer provided by the researcher is overlapped by Matt (26–27) who breaks off his talk (indicated by the dash ‘w-’). He then indicates that he knows where the letter is on the keyboard (28).
After keying in ‘green’, Matt begins to write ‘basilisk’ but makes a mistake. The use of ‘oops’ indicates his understanding that he has made an error and the gap following it provides a place for a response from the researcher (30). The absence of a response indicates the researcher's hearing that ‘oops’ was not directed at her. Matt then makes an announcement that formulates what he needs to do (30). This utterance results in a response from the researcher and indicates her hearing that now he is directing his talk at her. The researcher responds with a question that seeks clarification and confirmation as to whether Matt has made a request for help. Matt does not provide a yes/no turn, instead he provides another formulation of what he needs to do. In so doing, Matt has made apparent that he needs to do two things: get rid of a letter and make a space before beginning to type the word ‘basilisk’. The question that follows specifically makes relevant a yes/no answer (33). The gap in talk is a harbinger (Macbeth, 2000) of a dispreferred response that is to come.
29 (6.0)↔((Matt keying)) 30 M: ↑oops (2.0) I need to clear one out 31 R: can you do ↑that? 32 M: I need to do a ↓space 33 R: do you know how to do it? 34 (1.0) 35 M: °nuh° 36 (0.4) 37 R: ↓oh
The question and the negative response to it are acknowledged by the researcher with the use of ‘oh’. This free-standing token and its sequential placement in third position (Schegloff, 2007), after the question and its answer, close the sequence with the indication by the researcher that Matt's admission is not what she expected to hear despite the question she has asked.
Matt’s mother enters the room at around line 33. Her own utterance uses ‘oh’ and is followed by words that indicate her overhearing of the previous talk between Matt and the researcher (lines 33 and 35 above). Therefore ‘oh’ indicates new information for her and she then formulates Matt as not knowing how to do something (although she softens this through her use of ‘darl’). Her talk requests information and makes the offer of help or information sequentially relevant and the provision of help possible. Matt provides the information but again there is a gap before he responds, which, together with the use of ‘um’, indicates some trouble in the talk. His mother’s response provides information and indicates her understanding that Matt has forgotten how to clear a letter off the screen, rather than he does not know how to do it. Her words require remembering rather than understanding new information. She then hits the appropriate key and Matt responds with the change of state token ‘oh’. This usage is a response to the change on the screen but indicates through the downward pitch that this action has not addressed the problem completely (45).
38 L: ↑oh (0.4) what don’t you know how to do darl? 39 (0.4) 40 M: u::m:: clea::r (0.2) that ↔ ((pointing)) letter out 41 (0.6) 42 L: that one (0.2) it’s this one remem↑ber 43 (0.6)↔((L hits key)) 44 (0.2) 45 M: °↓oh° 46 L: is that [the one 47 M: [I need because I need to leave a space? 48 (0.8) 49 L: ↓oh (0.2) oh o↓kay (0.6) yeah it’s that bar (0.2) which the- 50 which one are you trying ↑to:: (0.4) to spell in 51 M: that one (0.4) °‘green° ((pointing at his book)) 52 L: okay so it’s green that’s right and that’s the space 53 (0.4) 54 L: and then you do::: the nex::t (0.2) letter 55 (9.0)
Leeann’s question (46) indicates her hearing that her previous action is not adequate, and so she seeks confirmation for her action by making relevant a yes/no answer. Instead, Matt provides a formulation of what he needs to do next. When Leeann responds, her use of ‘oh’ receipts Matt’s information and indicates a change of understanding. This is that the problem has not been righted yet. The use of ‘oh okay’ that follows provides a now-existing new understanding of what is required overall and provides an acknowledgement of the information that has contributed to this. The word ‘okay’ also closes the sequence initiated by Leeann’s question.
The use of ‘yeah’ (49) indicates agreement that a space is needed. Leeann names the space bar but then stops abruptly and initiates self-repair with a request for more information (50). The elongation of ‘to’, and the gap that follows it, appears to indicate a search for what will be said next. Leeann formulates this as ‘to spell in’ (50). Matt indicates the letter and then names it. Leeann’s ‘okay’ (52) provides a third turn comment that concludes the information-getting sequence by acknowledging Matt’s answer in response to her question. The token ‘so’ then makes relevant the talk to come as the speaker’s turn continues (52). The rest of Leeann’s utterance formulates the entire activity through a kind of list. She names the first word and an assessment of it as correct, then the space and then the action to follow (52–54). Matt does not reply verbally to this information but resumes his activity on the keyboard.
Excerpt 4
During the rest of the recording, Matt keys in the lizard’s entire name, with some further assistance. He does the Google search and the result is a list of sites for the green basilisk lizard. The first one in the list is coloured purple, indicating that it has been opened previously on this computer. Matt summons attention (1), followed by an announcement (‘I’ve seen this one before’) and an assessment of the site (3). The announcement accounts for the assessment since the screen has no image on it as yet. Matt is indicating therefore that his assessment is based on his sighting of the image on another occasion. When there is no response, Matt again makes a summons (5) and then directs attention to the image (7). The response by the researcher marks the noteworthiness of the image and this is positioned as an agreement with Matt’s initial assessment of it as ‘cool’.
1 ((Google search results appear on the screen)) 2 ((M clicks on the first site on the list)) 3 M: hey I’ve seen this one before it’s cool 4 (7.0)↔((green basilisk lizard appearing on the screen)) 5 M: see there 6 (2.0) 7 M: look (0.6) on that pic[ture 8 R: [wo:::w 9 M: it’s running on the water 10 (13.0)↔((M scrolls down the page and then up)) 11 M: ↑we:::ll I am actually making a li::zard book and 12 this might be a good one (4.2) ↓for ↑it 13 (5.0)↔((clicks on the picture)) 14 M: I’ll make it bigger (0.4) a bit 15 (10.0)↔((enlarged picture of lizard appears on screen))
Matt’s comment in line 9 names the physical attribute that has been central to his search. Its use here draws attention to the attribute and thus confirms that the lizard he has found is the lizard that he has been seeking. Matt scrolls down the screen while it is downloading. He then makes another announcement (11) followed by the assessment that this image would be good for the book he is making (12). Although the researcher does not respond to the talk, aspects of Matt’s utterance indicate that it is designed for her. It introduces information that is new to her and is said with some emphasis on certain words. The first word (‘↑we:::ll’) is elongated and serves to draw attention to the words that are to follow. Matt then clicks on the image and provides a formulation of his action (13–14). The talk appears to be for the researcher since she has been watching the screen following Matt’s earlier directive (7).
Discussion
The uptake of digital technology into homes and communities has given rise to a range of practices that have been referred to as digital literacy practices (Merchant, 2008), digitized literacy practices (Marsh, 2006), or digital literacies (Reinking, 2008). From the perspective of EM/CA, digital literacy practices can be examined in order to establish how they observably are what they are. In other words, the analysis of the social accomplishment of the Google search, and other activities that led to it, enables some insight into what constitutes those practices. Further, it is possible to consider some aspects of how the child is acquiring various practices through examining the doing of them. This perspective aligns with understandings of practices as activities that are socially recognizable (Lankshear and Knobel, 2006; Scribner and Cole, 1981) and accomplished through social interaction (Sacks, 1995).
First, the use of digital technology displayed what could be thought of as a local specificity. That is, it was used in particular ways as determined by the young child rather than necessarily by the possibilities or affordances of the technology itself. Some of Matt’s online reading and writing practices were being shaped by his practices with offline texts such as books (Lewis and Fabos, 2008). For example, another user of the computer on a different occasion might be to key ‘lizard running on water’ directly into the Google search term box and quickly produce the name of the lizard that Matt was seeking. Instead, Matt searched for the image of the lizard in a book he had in order to find out its name and then did a Google search to locate information about it. All these actions provided publically observable orientations to particular ways of using both technologies (book and computer) that were recognized by others. For example, his mother asked ‘do you think you can find it?’ when Matt began turning pages and looking at images in the book.
Online content is brought into a physical context through use of the tool (computer) in order to be visible in that context. So, texts, images, and so on, are retrieved in order to exist ‘right now’. We saw Matt do this with his Google search. Once the list of sites appeared, he clicked on the first one on the list whose colour showed that he had ‘been there before’. The image – yet to appear – became the topic of his talk through his assessment of it as ‘cool’. By way of contrast, the image of the basilisk lizard also had to be found by Matt in order to determine its name though it physically existed in the book in the room. Shut the book and open it again and it was there. Not so with the computer image. So Matt showed that he was able to bring an image onto the screen, into the room and into the conversation. Furthermore, he made it an aspect of the context then and there – to be talked about, used and manipulated. These orientations were integral to his acquisition of digital literacy practices.
The analysis reveals the occasioned interrelatedness of technologies and texts. That is, there are ‘continuities with other forms of technology’ (Hutchby and Moran-Ellis, 2001: 9) that occur during social use of them. Matt’s encountering of an image on the screen led to seeking information in a print-based text (the book). Then he used the same print-based text to produce a digital text himself (the search terms he copied in) and then another (the search result). After that he talked about how he would use the digital text to contribute to the production of a print-based text (the book he was making about lizards) by printing out the image (yet another text). All of these activities were formulated for others before or during their course.
Matt informed the researcher of what he would do with the image (Excerpt 4), for example, he showed his understandings of what can be done with such an image. And his description of what he was going to do took for granted that the researcher would recognize and understand what it was that he was proposing to do. That is, he described a social activity and invited recognition of that through the very doing of talking about it. He took it that practices and activities such as ‘making a book’ and ‘enlarging’ were shared and understood. This was also evident when he spoke about seeing the image previously.
The interactions that occurred during the course of Matt’s activities provide situated accounts of reading and writing – of the book and of digital on-screen texts. For example, Matt’s mother’s description of how to find and read the name of the lizard in the book provided a detailed account of the practice of reading as sense making on just this occasion. Brandt (1992) refers to these kinds of accounts by people as the practical reasoning of reading and writing. Similarly, requests for information and help from Matt were often produced as formulations or accounts of what he had done or needed to do. These also showed what he knew about producing reading and writing as sense making (e.g. ‘bu::t I can’t do tho::se ones (0.4) they don’t have names’ and ‘because I need to leave a space’), as well as providing accounts of those very same sense-making practices. Although it is not always obvious whether his accounts were for others (Sacks, 1995) or for himself (Vygotsky, 1986), they frequently resulted from problems that occurred and provided socially recognizable actions (Goffman, 1981).
Situated accounts of reading and writing were also tied reflexively to learning to read and write print on the screen and on the page; the talk that Matt initiated with adults showed that he was still acquiring understanding of aspects of the alphabet (such as recognizing and naming upper and lower case letters) and keying (locating and identifying letters on the keyboard), and acquiring this knowledge in tandem. The analysis provides further evidence that ‘the reading of letters and other symbols is intrinsic to study of children’s interactions with digital texts’ (Levy, 2009: 76), although reading from the screen is not the same as reading from a book and learning to write on the screen is not the same as learning to write on the page (Merchant, 2008).
Both Matt and the adults present employed methods to accomplish the acquirement of information. For example, the child oriented to adults to find out the information that he needed about letters and keyboard actions (such as backspacing). He did this in ways that made clear what he did and did not know (e.g. ‘I definitely know where that is’). Also, Matt resumed his own activity after the provision of help, sometimes indicating or announcing what he was doing or knew. Thus, through his talk he indicated knowledge that he already possessed and, although needing information from others, obtained this while preserving his identity as being a competent user of the computer.
Adults employed a range of methods to help Matt know and understand various things. For example, recourse to remembering was one way that adults sought to occasion background information. The father does this in excerpt 2 (‘remember the basilisk was in (0.4) Harry Potter’). In the talk that followed, Matt provided an insight into his sense making as he talked aloud, making the connection between the name of the lizard and the appearance of the basilisk that his father reminded him about. Telling or showing was another way that was used to provide information, as was providing more detailed accounts of how to do something (such as take out the space or read the information book).
Also integral to the provision of specific information were indications of understanding what was required. This was accomplished through the use of tokens such as ‘oh’ and ‘okay’, which confirmed understanding, sometimes following trouble in the talk where it was not always immediately clear what the child needed to know. Repetition of previous talk by another was also used to confirm understanding, or to indicate lack of it, depending on the particular occasion of its use. Ultimately, the provision of information was a mutual accomplishment requiring more than the mere exchange of information. Instead, we find requests and offers of information and help, repairs of misunderstandings and confirmations of understanding of information. These are accomplished through talk and interaction and constitute social practices as routine and orderly activity.
Conclusion
The acquisition of literacy during the use of digital technology is challenging to document. This study focused on the ways a young child obtained information, including how the child and adults informed each other of what they knew and did not know, during interactions that led to a Google search for the green basilisk lizard. Talk about information and informing through talk are powerful ways for young children to develop, indicate and use knowledge about digital literacy practices, including where these intersect with understandings of print and more traditional literacy practices.
This study shows how a child accomplished sense making and doing during his online activity; it has encompasses understandings of print and image, but is more than that. The young child was learning to ‘draw in’ the world using digital technology and to situate it in the here and now of his home. He accomplished this as ordinary and mundane activity through his social interaction with others and with technology itself, blurring the boundaries between online and offline activity in the process. Future studies might seek to examine how other young children make digital technology, and the virtual, an aspect of their everyday lives.