While the influence of digital technologies on literacy expression has long been a central concern of literacy studies, the proliferation of digital platforms across contemporary life has prompted increased scholarly attention to their influence on literacy. How, this scholarship asks, do platforms’ interfaces, algorithms, and business models produce particular formations of literacy, and what do those formations mean for ethical and equitable literacies learning and living? To reckon with these questions, this article brings a postdigital literacies perspective to data collected at the Giga-Games Camp, a video game design summer camp, where young people interacted with each other using Discord, a social media platform. The author describes how the Giga-Gamers and the Discord platform engaged in the mutually articulated platform practice of economics and argues that attention to such platform practices can help educators and researchers respond to the economic forces (re)shaping literacy in the platform society.
AmundsenD. (2022). Using digital content analysis for online research: Online news media depictions of older adults. In Sage Research Methods: Doing Research Online. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529798364
2.
ApperleyT.JayemanneD.NansenB. (2016). Postdigital literacies: Materiality, mobility and the aesthetics of recruitment. In ParryB.BurnettC.MerchantG. (Eds.), Literacy, media, technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 203–218). Bloomsbury.
BhattI.de RoockR. (2013). Capturing the sociomateriality of digital literacy events. Research in Learning Technology, 21(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21.21281
BurrellJ. (2016). How the machine “thinks”: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 205395171562251. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
DecuypereM. (2021). The topologies of data practices: A methodological introduction. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2021.1.650
9.
DerooM. R.WatsonV. W. (2020). “Air I breathe”: Songwriting as literacy practices of remembrance. Journal of Literacy Research, 52(2), 158–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X20915518
Dixon-RománE.NicholsT. P.Nyame-MensahA. (2020). The racializing forces of/in AI educational technologies. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 236–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1667825
13.
DuffyB. E.PoellT.NieborgD. B. (2019). Platform practices in the cultural industries: Creativity, labor, and citizenship. Social Media + Society, 5(4), 205630511987967–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119879672
JandrićP.KnoxJ.BesleyT.RybergT.SuorantaJ.HayesS. (2018). Postdigital science and education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(10), 893–899. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1454000
20.
KleekampM. C. (2020). “No! turn the pages!” repositioning neuroqueer literacies. Journal of Literacy Research, 52(2), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X20915531
21.
KressG. R. (2011). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Taylor & Francis.
22.
LankshearC.KnobelM. (2011). New literacies. Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
LightB.BurgessJ.DuguayS. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20(3), 881–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816675438
24.
LynchT. L. (2017). Soft (a) ware in the English classroom: Babble labs: Reimagining English class for a multimodal world. English Journal, 107(1), 96–98. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26359531.
25.
McMillan CottomT. (2020). Where platform capitalism and racial capitalism meet: The sociology of race and racism in the digital society. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 6(4), 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649220949473
26.
MillsK. A. (2010). A review of the “digital turn” in the new literacy studies. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246–271. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310364401
27.
MoneaB. (2020). Looking at screens: Examining human-computer interaction and communicative breakdown in an educational online writing community. Computers & Composition, 58, 102605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102605
28.
NicholsT. P.JohnstonK. (2020). Rethinking availability in multimodal composing: Frictions in digital design. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 64(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1107
29.
NicholsT. P.LeBlancR. J. (2021). Media education and the limits of “literacy”: Ecological orientations to performative platforms. Curriculum Inquiry, 51(4), 389–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2020.1865104
30.
NicholsT. P.LeBlancR. J.SlompD. (2021). Writing machines: Formative assessment in the age of big data. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 64(6), 712–719. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1160
31.
NicholsT. P.SmithA.BulfinS.StornaiuoloA. (2021). Critical literacy, digital platforms, and datafication. In Zacher PandyaJ.MoraR. A.AlfordJ. H.GoldenN. A.de RoockR. S. (Eds.), The handbook of critical literacies (pp. 345–353). Taylor & Francis.
RobinsonB. (2022). Governance on, with, behind, and beyond the Discord platform: A study of platform practices in an informal learning context. Learning, Media and Technology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2052312
SrnicekN. (2017). Inventing the future: Postcapitalism and a world without work. Verso Books.
40.
StreetB. (1993). Introduction. In StreetB. (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 1–22). Cambridge University Press.
41.
StreetB. (2001). Literacy events and literacy practices: Theory and practice in the new literacy studies. In Martin-JonesM.JonesK. (Eds.), Multilingual literacies reading and writing different worlds (pp. 17–29). John Benjamins.
42.
Suarez-VillaL. (2009). Technocapitalism: A critical perspective on technological innovation and corporatism. Temple University Press.
43.
TrumanS. E.HackettA.PahlK.McLean DaviesL.EscottH. (2021). The capaciousness of no: Affective refusals as literacy practices. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(2), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.306
