Literacies
Stordy (2015) examined literacy/ literacies to create a taxonomy that encompassed a multitude of definitions and variations of relevant terms. This taxonomy included both an autonomous perspective outlining psychological cognitive definitions and an ideological perspective relating to socio-cultural approaches that defined literacy/literacies. Stordy (2015) differentiated these into those literacies that integrated no-or-few digital technologies (conventional), those that incorporated new technical elements (peripheral), and those literacies that assimilated new technical stuff with new ‘ethos stuff’ (paradigm), further described in the Taxonomy of Literacies image (see Figure 9).
The taxonomy was grounded in literacy research and provided a working definition of literacies that “captures the complementary nature of literacy as a cognitive ability and a social practice” (Stordy, 2015, p. 472). While Stordy (2015) acknowledged the challenges and limitations of this framework, and recognized that the borders between these concepts were fuzzy and permeable, this taxonomy supported the reframing of literacies in a way that clarified understanding necessary for this research.
Literacy terminology was frequently confused or conflated with notions of skills, fluency and competency. For this research, I regarded these as different conceptions (see Figure 10). Fluencies are the ability to speak, read, and write in a given language quickly and easily, while competency is defined by having skills and abilities to do a job (“Competency,” OED Online; “Fluency,” OED Online). These definitions are not the same thing, but can be considered to be subsumed within the broader term of literacy. This clarification is made here since research applies these terms interchangeably, yet they are distinctly different conceptions (see Figure 10).