Chapter 1: The Related Challenges of Digital Literacy and the Dynamic of Blame.

Selfe posits that there has been a drastic shift in the responsibility of literacy educators as, by the end of the 20th century, English instruction became "fundamentally and inextricably linked with computer-based systems of digital communication" (Selfe, pg. 2). This shift resulted from a decades-long process beginning as early as the 1980s with the process of putting computers into classrooms (fueled by the belief that merely providing access to this technology would allow all students to achieve success in a culture that was become more and more entrenched in technology) and culminating in a permanent shift in our national definition of "literacy" as "federal legislation on education, state performance frameworks, and the standards documents of various professional organizations" were altered to include "digital literacy" or "technological literacy" (Selfe, pg. 3).

Selfe believes that the simplification of this process to a phrase like "technological literacy" hides the immense level of complexity in evolving traditional literacy practices. As we now know, simply putting technology into the classroom does not automatically result in its effective use in the classroom. According to Selfe, this is frequently a result of a lack in English and Language arts teachers' access to adequate professional development to enact standards for technological literacy as well as their lack of influence in the development of those standards or their implementation - factors that often create a "debilitating dynamic of blame that distracts teachers, administrators, and staff members from being active, critical, and productive managers of technology in their classrooms, schools, and institutions" (Selfe, pg. 8). In this dynamic, teacher's, administrators, and staff members are influenced by their own, often logical and appropriate, concerns; their inability to effectively shape technology policies and practices; and their limited scope of understanding for the context of each others' concerns and actions in dealing with technology incorporation. While the influencing factors make it easy to understand how this type of dynamic can develop, it doesn't negate the fact that allowing this dynamic to continue or develop in the first place can result in "paralysis, misdirection, and a lack of productive action" (Selfe, pg. 11).

In response to this dynamic of blame, Selfe offers the alternative of a People, First; Pedagogy, Second; and Technology, Third method of developing technology-rich educational environments. This type of methodology allows teachers to "construct themselves into an active role in relation to technology decisions. In such a relationship, teachers participate in technology decision making - basing their own input on the foundation of their background as humanists and literacy specialists, rather than simply on their needs as technology users. This sense of agency is important if teachers are to take on [the effort of] building technology-rich environments that focus on the needs of students and the teaching of literacy" (Selfe, pg. 12-13).