Introduction: Software and Other Literacies

  • Elaine Khoo
  • Craig Hight
  • Rob Torrens
  • Bronwen Cowie
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Education book series (BRIEFSEDUCAT)


This chapter outlines the role and significance of software in contemporary society. Drawing from the new field of Software Studies, it sets outs key concepts relevant to the study of software, including affordances, agency, human-machine assemblages, and performance to explain the ways users co-create with software. It proposes the notion of software literacy as a framework to help readers unpack the ways the affordances of software can (re)shape the ways we think and act. These ideas are then grounded in an examination of an educational research project into the ways in which students become more literate about the nature and implications of software which they encounter as part of their tertiary studies.


  1. Adams, C. (2006). PowerPoint, habits of mind, and classroom culture. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ala-Mutka, K. (2011). Mapping digital competence: Towards a conceptual understanding. Seville: JRC-IPTS. Retrieved from
  3. Alexander, B., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., & Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). Digital literacy in higher education, Part II: An NMC horizon project strategic brief (Volume 3.4). Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from
  4. Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2010). Digital literacy framework. Retrieved from
  5. Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berry, D. M. (2011). The philosophy of software: Code and mediation in the digital age. Houndmills, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frabetti, F. (2014). Software theory: A cultural and philosophical study. London, UK: Rowan and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  9. Fuller, M. (2003). Behind the blip: Essays on the culture of software. New York, NY: Autonomedia.Google Scholar
  10. Fuller, M. (2008). Software studies: A lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galloway, A. R. (2004). Protocol: How control exists after decentralisation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Goodfellow, R. (2011). Literacy, literacies, and the digital in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodfellow, R., & Lea, M. R. (2014). Literacy in the Digital University: Critical perspectives on learning, scholarship and technology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hawk, B., Rieder, D. M., & Oviedo, O. (2008). Small tech: The culture of digital tools. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Heim, M. (1987). Electric language: A philosophical study of word processing (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hight, C. (2015). Software studies and the new audiencehood of the digital ecology. In F. Zeller, C. Ponte, & B. O’Neill (Eds.), Revitalising audience research: Innovations in European audience research (Vol. 5, pp. 62–79). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. JISC. (2014). Developing digital literacies. Retrieved from
  18. Johnson, S. (1997). Interface culture: How new technology transforms the way we create and communicate. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), 722–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kennedy, G., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K.-L. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108–122.Google Scholar
  21. Khoo, E., & Cowie, B. (in press). Trial-and-error, Googling and talk: Engineering students taking initiative out of class. In D. Corrigan, C. Bunnting, A. Jones, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), Navigating the changing landscape of formal and informal science learning opportunities. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Khoo, E., Hight, C., Cowie, B., Torrens. R., & Ferrarelli, L. (2014). Software literacy and student learning in the tertiary environment: PowerPoint and beyond. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 18(1), 30–45.Google Scholar
  23. Khoo, E., Johnson, E. M., Torrens, R., & Fulton, J. (2011). It only took 2 clicks and he’d lost me: Dimensions of inclusion and exclusion in ICT supported tertiary engineering education. In Y. M. Al-Abdeli & E. Lindsay (Eds.), 22nd Annual Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (pp. 166–171). Fremantle, Australia: Engineers Australia.Google Scholar
  24. Kirschenbaum, M. G. (2016). Track changes: A literary history of word processing. Harvard, MA: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2011). Code/Space: Software and everyday life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lankshear, C., Knobel, M., & Peters, M. A. (2016). New literacies and digital epistemologies. Retrieved from
  27. Laurel, B. (1992). Computers as theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  28. Livingstone, S. (2004). Media literacy and the challenge of new information and communication technologies. Communication Review, 1(7), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Livingstone, S. (2008). Engaging with media – a matter of literacy? Communication, culture & critique, 1(1), 51–62. doi:  10.1111/j.1753-9137.2007.00006.x
  30. Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Manovich, L. (2008). Software takes command (online draft). Retrieved from
  32. Manovich, L. (2011). Inside photoshop. Computational Culture: A Journal of Software Studies, Issue One, available from
  33. Manovich, L. (2012). How to follow software users. Available from
  34. Manovich, L. (2013). Software takes command. In International texts in critical media aesthetics (Vol. 5). NY: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
  35. Martin, A. (2008). Digital literacy and the “Digital Society”. In Colin Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies & practices (pp. 151–176). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  36. Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy development. Innovations in Teaching & Learning in Information & Computer Science, 5(4), 249–267.Google Scholar
  37. McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. In Proceedings of graphics interface 2000 (pp. 179–186), May 15–17, 2000, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  38. Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, gen-Xers, and millennials: Understanding the “new students”. EDUCAUSE Review, 38(4), 36–45.Google Scholar
  39. Peeters, J., Backer, F. D., Buffel, T., Kindekens, A., Struyven, K., Zhu, C., & Lombaerts, K. (2014). Adult learners’ informal learning experiences in formal education setting. Journal of Adult Development, 21(3), 181–192. doi: 10.1007/s10804-014-9190-1.
  40. Sefton-Green, J., Nixon, H., & Erstad, O. (2009). Reviewing approaches and perspectives on ‘Digital Literacy’. Pedagogies, 4(2), 107–125. doi: 10.1080/15544800902741556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (2007). Beyond the digital divide: Rethinking digital inclusion for the 21st century. Futurelab. Retrieved from
  42. Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  43. Tsatsou, P. (2017). Literacy and training in digital research: Researchers’ views in five social science and humanities disciplines. New Media & Society. doi: 10.1177/1461444816688274.
  44. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2013). Global media and information literacy (MIL) assessment framework: Country readiness and competencies. Retrieved from
  45. Valtonen, T., Dillon, P., Hacklin, S., & Väisänen, P. (2010). Net generation at social software: Challenging assumptions, clarifying relationships and raising implications for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 49(6), 210–219. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2011.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vee, A. (2017). Coding literacy: How computer programming is changing writing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elaine Khoo
    • 1
  • Craig Hight
    • 2
  • Rob Torrens
    • 3
  • Bronwen Cowie
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research (WMIER)University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.School of Creative IndustriesThe University of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia
  3. 3.Faculty of Science and Engineering, School of EngineeringUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations