You may recall that last February we highlighted a great article by Trudi Jacobson and Thomas Mackey introducing  ‘metaliteracy’ as a framework for understanding information literacy. The number of alternative “literacies” has seemed to explode over the past few years, and the article does a great job of reining competing literacies in and organizing them under a more manageable conceptual framework.  But, certain questions remain. In particular, how are terms like ‘metaliteracy, ‘transliteracy’, ‘information literacy’, and other literacies understood in the library profession? Well, to find the answer, Jacobson and Mackey have come up with a survey to find out how “librarians and faculty members worldwide who teach information literacy in some form conceive of information literacy” in light of the explosion of alternative literacies.

I’ll let Jacobson explain, from a message circulating on various listservs:

If you teach information literacy at an academic institution (in any format, such as a stand-alone course, a component of another course, or single sessions), I welcome your participation in a survey. The online survey is available at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/metaliteracy

The purpose of the survey is to learn more about the impact of the changing information environment and social media on the teaching of information literacy. This research follows up on my work with Dr. Thomas Mackey in connection with our article, “Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy,” which appeared in the January 2011 issue of College & Research Libraries. Data gathered via this survey will contribute to a book we are currently writing on the same topic, which will be published by Neal-Schuman in 2012.

Your feedback will be most helpful in getting a sense of changes that may be occurring as a result of the evolving information environment and emerging literacy frameworks. Learning what others are doing, through the information that will be presented in the book and through other venues, may be beneficial in considering your own teaching.

So, if you’re interested in transliteracy, metaliteracy, information literacy, or some other putative literacy (hyperliteracy, anyone?), please chime in on the metaliteracy survey. The more data they collect, the better will be the picture of multiple literacies in librarianship. Once again, the survey is available at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/metaliteracy

As a bit of a bonus, Trudi Jacobson was kind enough to send me a selected reading list. Go ahead and check it out if you’re interested in the concept of metaliteracy (or of transliteracy).

Suggested Reading (thanks to Trudi Jacobson)

• Bobish, Greg.  2011. “Participation and Pedagogy: Connecting the Social Web to ACRL Learning Outcomes.”  The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37, no 1: 54–63.
• Breivik, Particia Senn and E. Gordon Gee.  1989.  “Taking a New Look at Libraries,” In Information Literacy: Revolution in the Library, 1-29.  New York: Macmillan.
• Dunaway, Michele Kathleen. 2011.  “Connectivism: Learning Theory and Pedagogical Practice  for Networked Information Landscapes.”  Reference Services Review 39, no. 4: 675-685.
• Ipri, Tom. 2010. “Introducing Transliteracy: What Does It Mean To Academic Libraries?” College and Research Libraries News 71, no. 10: 532-567.  http://crln.acrl.org/content/71/10/532.full.pdf+html
• Mackey, Thomas P. and Trudi E. Jacobson. 2011. “Reframing Information Literacy as a  Metaliteracy.” College and Research Libraries 72, no. 1: 62-78. http://crl.acrl.org/content/72/1/62.abstract 
• Siemens, George.  2004.  “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age.” Elearnspace: everything elearning. http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
• Society of College, National and University Libraries. 2011. “The SCONUL Seven Pillars of Information Literacy, Core Model for Higher Education.” Society of College, National and University Libraries. http://www.sconul.ac.uk/groups/information_literacy/publications/coremodel.pdf
• Thomas, Sue, Chris Joseph, Jess Laccetti, Bruce Mason, Simon Mills, Simon Perril, et al.  2007.    “Transliteracy: Crossing Divides.” First Monday [Online], 12 no. 12.                       http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2060/1908

This past week-end I had the honor of presenting to the Greater New York Metropolitan Chapter of the ACRL at their annual ACRL/NY Symposium.  This year’s theme was “the global librarian” and, as you’ve probably guessed, I presented on transliteracy. My slides are posted below, but, unfortunately, at 80 megabytes, the original PowerPoint file was too large for the free version of SlideShare to handle. So, the slides are in PDF format which does not allow for speaker notes. Granted, even with speaker notes attached, slides shows are not meant to stand on their own. Still, I can at least give a quick rundown of the presentation…

Slides 1-9: Introduction. What is a global librarian?

Slides 10-14: Is transliteracy a buzzword?

I wanted to get right out in front of the common objection that transliteracy is just a silly buzzword. Yes. Absolutely. Transliteracy is a buzzword. From ebooks to digital literacy to libraries on Google+, transliteracy is showing up in all sorts of conversations and often without much context. Just to get it out of everyone’s systems, I went so far as to make an alternate title slide with every library buzzword I could think of crammed into one awkward title. It got a few laughs. However, my point was simple: just because something is used as a buzzword does not mean that it is meaningless. To me, transliteracy is not the future of libraries, a cure-all for what ails us, or a great revolution. Instead, it’s a simple, intuitive concept that, when embraced, can get us more mileage out of instruction, staff training, and resource management.

Slides 15-21: Defining ‘transliteracy’

Regular readers of this blog will recognize the standard definitions and quotes. The main points here were that transliteracy is (1) an incredible simple, intuitive term, and (2) it isn’t something we teach. You don’t teach first-graders ‘literacy’; you teach them how to read and write. Literacy describes a certain threshold level with respect to reading and writing. Likewise, you don’t teach transliteracy, you teach about best practices for making use of information resources. Transliteracy describes a certain facility and threshold level with respect to that information technology use.

Slides 22-28: Transliteracy and Information Literacy

I’ve written about the difference between transliteracy and information literacy before, and it is such a common objection that it needs to be addressed. Elsewhere, I’ve described the distinction between literacy as communication and literacy as evaluation, so I stuck to that line of thinking. However, it works just as well to open up a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary and look at the definitions of literacy which are both descriptive (“ability to read and write”) as well as figurative (“competence or knowledge in a particular area”). The general thrust of my argument was that we have been focusing on information literacy to the exclusion of simpler, communicative literacies. With the explosion of information resources available in the 21st Century, it’s time to rethink the vast array of communication-based literacies, hence, transliteracy is a complement to information literacy, not a replacement.

Courtesy of Jonas_K on Flickr

Slides 29-32: Transliteracy as a framework

It was here that I started to build out a pedagogical approach based on transliteracy. Maybe it’s just a holdover my previous career as a philosopher, but I wanted to stick strictly to those things that logically follow from the definition of ‘transliteracy’. Rather than explore every possible way in which transliteracy can benefit librarianship, I wanted to keep it simple and uncontroversial. So, I introduced three principles that logically follow from transliteracy. First, effective information use requires multiple information sources. Second, information sources don’t stand alone, they interact. Third, and finally, we need to focus on skills that transfer across tools, platforms, and media.

Slides 33-38: Effective information use requires multiple information sources

If  we’re going to move across or between multiple tools, platforms, and media, then it’s trivially true that there need to be multiple tools, platforms and media. Yet, we often do a funny thing and only focus on library resources, forgetting that students are going to be using whatever they get their hands on. Rather than wall ourselves off from the world outside the library, transliteracy encourages us to go directly to where our students are. I included examples from the instruction program here at UT-Chattanooga, such as our active presence on Facebook and Twitter, our integration of Wikipedia and Google Scholar into library instruction, and our popular workshops and classes on Google, free online tools, Facebook, and building your own online “brand”.

Slides 39-42: Information resources don’t stand alone, they interact

It isn’t enough to simply embrace multiple tools, platforms, and media. We have to look at how they interact. Again, the definition of transliteracy involves reading and writing across or between resources, so we have to think in terms of interaction. Many programs that do include non-library resources do so in a predictable way: a librarian talks about Wikipedia for a few minutes, then moves on. She talks about Google for a few minutes, and then moves on. The librarian introduces a non-library resource, says a few words about it, and then leaves it behind to get to the “serious” stuff. Unless we give students a bridge between the popular resources and the library, they’re going to struggle to understand academic research. So, at UTC we encourage our students to use Wikipedia and Google. We go so far as to make it a required activity in library instruction. Prior to coming to the library, students are asked to look-up their topic in Wikipedia and write down anything that looks interesting. The students are more than willing to participate because, to them, it’s a “blow off” assignment. They don’t realize that they’ve just created a list of keywords and gained some useful background information on their research question.

Slides 43-55: Identify skills that transfer

This, I think, is the real meat of transliteracy: embracing transfer of learning as a pedagogical approach to library instruction. Transfer of learning is well-trodden territory in psychology and education, though it is rarely encountered in library literature. In fact, only nine articles in LISA have the subject heading “transferable skills”. This, compared to thousands of articles in ERIC and PsycINFO under their subject headings “transfer of training” and “transfer of learning”. Put simply, transfer of learning is the application of skills learned in one domain to a new and different domain. It’s all about teaching in such a way that the skills taught will apply in future situations. Following the literature coming out of education and cognitive psychology, an effective way to teach for transfer is through analogical reasoning. There’s too much to adequately summarize here, but the goal is to teach skills that will actively assist in understanding new technologies, tools, platforms, and media. So, teach how a database works, not just how to use one. Teach about the editing process, not just what a scholarly journal is. Teach so that the next time a database changes its interface, or the next time a new resource is invented, students don’t have to relearn everything from scratch.

Slide 56-66: Conclusion

One way of thinking about transliteracy is as transfer of learning applied to communication and information technology skills.  It is teaching with an eye towards adaptability. Interfaces change. Social media sites come and go. Students graduate and lose access to your library’s resources. Transliteracy simply asks us to prepare for these inevitabilities by asking whether we’re teaching skills that move across the diversity of information resources. If we’re going to be global librarians, we need the mobile, flexible, and adaptable skills hinted at by transliteracy.

So, there you have it. A quick and dirty rundown of the presentation. The Q&A that followed was incredibly instructive and enlightening and I thank everyone that asked questions (assuming you’re reading this). For more on the subjects of transliteracy, mental models, transfer, and analogical reasoning, please see the selected reading list at the end of the presentation slides.

Call for Proposals (deadline December 1, 2011)

My presentation at AASL 2011 that outlines how an inquiry driven, participatory learning centered environment is essential for learning experiences that honor and privilege transliteracy.

Works Cited:

Berger, Pam. “Student Inquiry and Web 2.0.” School Library Monthly 26.5 (2010): n. pag. School Library Monthly. Web. 23 Oct. 2011. <http://www.schoollibrarymonthly.com/articles/Berger2010-v26n5p14.html>.

Fontichiaro, Kristin. “Nudging Toward Inquiry (AASL 2009).” American Association of School Librarians National Conference. Charlotte, NC. Nov. 2009. Vimeo. Web. 23 Oct. 2011. <http://vimeo.com/7715376>.

- – -. “Rigorous Learning with 21st-Century Technology.” Vermont Dynamic Landscapes Conference. Burlington, VT. May 2011. Kristin Fontichiaro. Web. 23 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.fontichiaro.com/uploads/2011/VT-rigor-web.pdf>.

Harada, Violet. “Self-assessment: Challenging students to take charge of learning.” School Library Monthly 26.10 (2010): 13-15. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Oct. 2011. http://proxygsu-sche.galileo.usg.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=51003266&site=ehost-live >.

Mathews, Brian. “What It Takes To Become A Scholar: Helping Students Scale the Taxonomy.” The Ubiquitous Librarian. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 26 Sept. 2011. Web. 23 Oct. 2011. <http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/theubiquitouslibrarian/2011/09/26/what-it-takes-to-become-a-scholar-helping-students-scale-the-taxonomy/>.

Stripling, Barbara. “Assessing Information Fluency: Gathering Evidence of Student Learning.” 21st Century Learning in School Libraries. Ed. Kristin Fontichiaro. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited, 2009. 166-170. Print.

- – -. “Teaching Students to Think in the Digital Enviornment: Digital Literacy and Digital Inquiry.” School Library Monthly 26.8 (2010): n. pag. School Library Monthly. Web. 23 Oct. 2011. <http://www.schoollibrarymonthly.com/articles/Stripling2010-v26n8p16.html>.

'Disagreement' by cabbit, on Flickr

A legitimate criticism

‘Transliteracy.’ Is it a bold new concept or the current enfant terrible of librarianship? It’s no secret that transliteracy has a polarizing effect, with the past year’s worth of commentary ranging from uncritical acceptance to critical analysis to dogmatic skepticism, and everywhere between. Obviously, this blog leans towards a more positive approach to transliteracy, But, what of the objections to the concept? Are there substantive concerns that we should be addressing, or is it all just snark?

Given the novelty of the term, the enthusiasm of early-adopters, and the “almost-but-not-quite” similarity of transliteracy to other “literacies”, it’s only natural for librarians to be skeptical. Unfortunately, this skepticism frequently manifests itself as snarky comments on Twitter, false analogies with Library 2.0, or obsessively pedantic linguistic prescriptivism. Some critics hammer away at style rather than substance. Others object to any nontraditional uses of the word “literacy” or the prefix “trans-”. Yet others lament that librarians would be interested in a concept that doesn’t come pre-packaged with a precise, committee-approved definition and bulleted-list of standards, objectives, and outcomes. And, my personal favorite, the red herring that we’re just confusing our patrons. These are all common objections to transliteracy, but they don’t amount to much more than impassioned rhetoric.  (Of course, there’s also a lot of empty rhetoric in support of transliteracy, but that’s a topic I’ll save for another post).

However, there is at least one really good objection to transliteracy as it is currently being applied by libraries, namely, that the concept of transliteracy is redundant…it’s already covered under existing information literacy standards. As Meredith Farkas wrote several months ago,

“The way librarians and other instructors teach information literacy instruction has grown and changed in response to the changing information ecosystem…And while there are librarians who don’t change the way they teach, that’s just being a bad instructor. It has nothing to do with information literacy instruction somehow being insufficient.” (12/21/2010)

So, existing information literacy standards already have mechanisms in place to cover transliteracy. Moreover, any real or perceived failures to meet the stated goals of transliteracy (communicating across media, reading and writing across platforms, etc.) are failures on the part of lazy librarians who resist change, not on information literacy. So, why do we need some new, faddish term when we already cover the same concepts under information literacy? I think this is a fair criticism, though I’m not convinced that information literacy already covers transliteracy. So, here goes an attempt at addressing this legitimate criticism of transliteracy. I have two responses…

Response 1: Transliteracy is not covered by information literacy.

One of my favorite aspects of transliteracy is that it is a relatively new concept that’s still being weighed and considered. There is no authoritative definition of transliteracy, and neither are there authoritative standards in place. In contrast, the detail with which information literacy standards are defined has become a sort of model for the kind of precise definition critics demand of transliteracy. So, let’s look at the standards and see if they cover transliteracy. My goal here is to fairly present information literacy and offer suggestions for where critics of transliteracy may want to focus their attention. Unfortunately, even information literacy standards admit of variation, so I’ll stick to three approaches I’ve seen in recent blogs and tweets: ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards, Big6 Information & Technology Skills for Student Achievement, and The Four Resources Model. Do any of these models cover transliteracy?

ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards

Perhaps the most popular information literacy standards in U.S. academic libraries, the ACRL standards are detailed and methodical almost to excess. I think that these are the standards most critics have in mind when they allege that information literacy already covers transliteracy. The five overarching standards are:

1. The information literate student determines the nature and extent of the information needed.
2. The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently.
3. The information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base and value system.
4. The information literate student, individually or as a member of a group, uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose.
5. The information literate student understands many of the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses information ethically and legally.

A closer look at the standards reveals that, though the use of multiple information sources is a component of information literacy, that isn’t sufficient to cover transliteracy. The real meat of transliteracy is in the “between-ness”, not merely in the use of the multiple media. The question raised by transliteracy is whether students (or patrons) can take information from one source, adapt it for use in another system, and understand the interplay between the two. For what it’s worth, I don’t see that the ACRL standards cover the interaction between wildly divergent media. Sure, the standards hint at multiple literacies, but they seem silent on the issue of interacting literacies. In any event, I think the Standards I’ve listed are the best place for librarians to look if they really don’t like transliteracy.

Big6 Information & Technology Skills for Student Achievement

However, as I see it, Big6 is not committed to the criticism that transliteracy is a degenerate form of information literacy. According to the curriculum, Big6 seems to be addressing information literacy and information technology skills quite independently. These technology skills and competencies are the same as those discussed by transliteracy advocates, so it looks to me like we could describe Big6 as “information literacy + transliteracy”. Those more familiar with Big6 may disagree, and I think that the best argument to pursue would be that information literacy encompasses technology skills and, hence, encompasses transliteracy.

The Four Resources Model

1. Break the code of texts
2. Participate in the meanings of text
3. Use texts functionally
4. Critically analyze and transform texts

Extended to non-print and non-textual information sources, the model seems to share some of the same areas of interest as transliteracy, including “drawing on existing schemas” to understand texts, understanding the way information is shaped by new media, and encouraging participatory information use. Luke and Freebody have an excellent overview here.

The Four Resources Model is interesting and may be appealing to librarians interested in a postmodern or Critical Theory approach to information literacy and technology. In particular, the way the model emphasizes the cultural, moral, and political aspects of information use is something we need to pay more attention to. However, it should be noted that the critical theories that underlie the Four Resources Model explicitly require that we abandon notions of authority, meaning, truth, evaluation, and knowledge from our approach to information literacy. Indeed, the model is based on an account of  information literacy that is inconsistent with evaluation, and I’m not sure most information literacy advocates are ready to give up on evaluation.

In sum, it is still an open question whether information literacy already covers transliteracy. The popular standards hint that this may be the case, but they are far from explicit and critics will need to add some substantive clarification. My big worry is that this clarification runs the risk of watering-down information literacy in unattractive ways, casting such a wide net that information literacy becomes an unwieldy concept (for more on this problem with IL, check out this post on Academic Librarian).

Response #2: It doesn’t matter if information literacy already covers transliteracy

'Lunch at Thai Thai III' by Lorenia, on Flickr

For the sake of argument lets assume that information literacy does, in fact, already cover everything that transliteracy researchers are interested in. Does this mean that we should abandon transliteracy as a useless buzzword? I don’t think so. The broad scope of information literacy is at once an asset and a liability, by which I mean that a broad interpretation of information literacy allows librarians to discuss a wide range of concepts and abilities, while at the same time making it difficult to pinpoint what exactly we’re talking about when we talk about information literacy. Is it information evaluation? Access? Use? Ethics? Legalities? Even if information literacy encompasses transliteracy, that doesn’t obviate the need to discuss transliteracy. I say this for two reasons:

First, there is nothing unusual about having a unique term for a specific subset of information literacy skills. For example, ACRL standards claim that the information literate individual “understands many of the ethical, legal and socio-economic issues surrounding information and information technology.” And yet, we don’t hear the argument that intellectual property, copyright law, and information ethics, are redundant concepts. A basic understanding of copyright law is required or information literacy, but copyright law is an area of study all its own, we can’t simply declare that understanding copyright is information literacy. The same can be said of transliteracy: information literacy may require transliteracy, but that doesn’t mean that they are synonyms. Transliteracy may very well just be that part of information literacy that discusses media interactivity.

Second, what looks like old news for some commentators can be brand new to others. It’s no surprise to me that some of the more vocal critics of transliteracy are working within very progressive and innovative information literacy programs. But, just because transliteracy seems familiar to some librarians does not mean it is familiar to all. Perhaps transliteracy is just a new way of looking at one aspect of information literacy, or a new tool to throw in our information literacy toolbox. Whatever the case, if transliteracy provides librarians with a new perspective on information literacy, then it’s worth talking about.

Summing up

I realize that this is a long and somewhat rambling post, but I think it’s important that criticisms be addressed directly and fairly. As I see it, existing information literacy standards may hint at transliteracy, but they are open to interpretation. Even if they do cover transliteracy, that doesn’t establish that transliteracy is a worthless concept. So, if you absolutely can’t stand transliteracy, your best bet is to offer an interpretation of information literacy standards that expressly includes the same issues. Just be wary of watering-down information literacy too much. Further, once it’s established that transliteracy is, in fact, covered under information literacy, you’ll need to explain how transliteracy is different from other, accepted concepts discussed under the aegis of information literacy (technology, copyright, constructivism, etc.). I realize that other criticisms are out there, and I’ll look at them later, but the objection from redundancy seems to be the most common. Meeting that objection head-on is the least that advocates for transliteracy can do, and I hope this post helps.

“They might be called cross-platform stories, transmedia projects, branded entertainment, or even alternate reality games, but, whatever you call them, at the heart of these new forms of entertainment is engagement across platforms. It’s hard to believe that the earliest “extended” experiences are now at least a decade old, and it can be difficult getting a handle on the full scope of what’s already come in the world of transmedia storytelling.”

Read more at DigitalBookWorld.com: What’s Possible with Transmedia: Case Studies in Successful Projects (WEBCast 7/27) | Digital Book Worldhttp://www.digitalbookworld.com/2011/what%e2%80%99s-possible-with-transmedia-case-studies-in-successful-projects-webcast-727/#ixzz1RwqU0WYZ

The webinar will be hosted by Michael Andersen, owner and senior editor at the Alternate Reality Gaming Network (ARGNet), and claims to lead attendees “through a tour of what’s possible with alternate reality games, cross-platform strategies, and transmedia storytelling.” This seems to be worth checking out for those of us who work in public libraries. And hey, it’s free – what have you got to lose?

The StoryWorld Conference + Expo is in San Francisco from October 31 – November 2, 2011 is not free, but sure does sound interesting!

“Be part of the first major gathering of industry leaders to come together for the purpose of exploring new business models, partnering across media boundaries, and building new revenue streams by changing the way consumers experience narrative.”

Wonder how many libraries or librarians will participate?

From the site:

These grants will support the planning and designing of up to 30 Learning Labs in libraries and museums throughout the country. The Labs are intended to engage middle- and high-school youth in mentor-led, interest-based, youth-centered, collaborative learning using digital and traditional media. Grantees will be required to participate, in-person and online, in a community of practice that will provide technical assistance, networking, and cross-project learning. Projects are expected to provide prototypes for the field and be based on current research about digital media and youth learning. There will be two project deadlines for this grant program, with the second deadline planned for spring 2012.

Application guidelines are currently available:

Access FY 2011 Grant Program Guidelines Online Download Printer-friendly PDF Version (489 KB)

FY 2011 Deadline: August 15, 2011

Grant Amount: Planning and Design Grants: up to $100,000

Grant Period: 18 months

Matching Requirement: Cost sharing of at least one third is encouraged, but not required

Project Start Date: January 1, 2012

You can find out more by attending the upcoming free webinar on July 12th Click here for webinar instructions. (PDF)

Bobbi Newman

Gretchen Caserotti

Tom Ipri

Lane Wilkinson

Write Up

• Trans-what? A Day of Literacies at the ALA Annual Conference

How do we, LIS professionals, describe a locale in which access to unbiased information is difficult to obtain?   Are there areas in this country in which people cannot obtain information because of the lack of access to the Internet, community computer centers or a public libraries?  Are some people cut off from access to the sum of human knowledge, and all the benefits derived from such access?

An information desert exists where access to unbiased information is limited either through a digital divide or lack of access to public libraries.   In urban areas, like Chicago or New York, an information desert exists where computer-based Internet penetration falls below 60% and distance to a public library or public computer center exceeds .5 miles.  I come from the school of thought that does not think mobile Internet is a substitute for computer-based Internet or public libraries.

Digital Literacy Portal Launch in the Networking Uncommons Convention Center

Date: Saturday 06/25/2011 Time: 12:00-1:00pm

Sponsored by: NTIA, IMLS, and ALA

WHAT: Roundtable discussion on NTIA’s DigitalLiteracy.gov

WHO: American Library Association Washington Office, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and Institute of Museum and Library Services

WHEN: 12:15 p.m.; Saturday, June 25, 2011

WHERE: Ernest N. Morial Convention Center Networking Uncommons (Lobby Level 1)

Do you teach digital literacy skills at your library? Whether you teach the basics or hold classes on Web 2.0, there is a new resource for you to use– and a place to add your own content– Digitalliteracy.gov. Hear how Digitalliteracy.gov can help you plan and design your classes. Learn how you can contribute your own resources. See how you can collaborate with peers.

Join Tony Wilhelm (NTIA), Susan Hildreth (IMLS), and Emily Sheketoff (ALA) in a roundtable discussion and interactive session about the portal.

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the American Library Association’s (ALA) Washington Office will hold a roundtable discussion about DigitalLiteracy.gov at 12:15 p.m. on Saturday, June 25, 2011, during the ALA’s Annual Conference in New Orleans. DigitalLiteracy.gov is a new online portal that brings together online learning tools, curriculum, job skills training and a host of other resources.

The program will include a question-and-answer session. Media and bloggers are encouraged to participate.

Media and bloggers planning to attend should contact Jenni Terry, press officer to the ALA Washington Office at jterry@alawash.org.

Read more about the Digital Literacy Portal

• ALA collaborates with NTIA to launch, enhance DigitalLiteracy.gov
• New National Digital Literacy Portal
• Partnership with NTIA Bolsters Libraries’ Leading Role in Digital Literacy, Workforce Development
• Department of Commerce seeking input from librarians for new digital literacy portal
• ALA Washington Office to host roundtable with NTIA on new digital literacy portal