2. WEB LITERACY THROUGH SOCIO-CONSTRUCTIVISM

2.3.2 Web literacy as content knowledge of the multimodal medium

The second category in Table 1 in chapter 2.3 illustrated the aspects of web literacy related to content knowledge of the medium. As the previous chapter focused on skills of acting as a web user, that is, on web literacy as a social practice, this chapter examines web literacy from the viewpoint of knowledge of the web as a medium. As has already been argued, to become web literate, autonomous managing of the web requires knowledge of the characteristics of the medium itself. Thus, we will now take a closer look at what kind of a medium the web is. We will present the web through four contextual parameters related to web literacy: material conditions, semiotic mode, domain, and power and ideology (Karlsson 2002), through which various aspects of the web can be approached. In the present study these four parameters are referred to as material conditions, multimodality, text typologies and web domains, and power and ideology (see Figure 4). Each of these parameters will be introduced and further discussed in their own sections as we now have our focus on some of the issues of the content knowledge of the web. Our aim is again on presenting the diverse viewpoints a web reader and writer can take when focusing on the concept of web literacy.

Figure 4. Web literacy as content knowledge of the multimodal medium

a. From paper to screen: material conditions of the web

The first parameter through which we will examine the nature of the web is material conditions. Material conditions refer to the technical principles and structure of storing and displaying information on the web (Karlsson 2002). In other words, the web being an electronic medium influences on the ways information is structured, which then again has an effect on reading and writing, through which meanings are constructed. Conventional reading skills are still valid and needed on the web. Yet, web poses new challenges to its readers and writers. One of these challenges is the hypertext. Cross-linked information of hypertext requires a new kind of cognitive orientation, for the web users are continuously posed with opportunities for new associations when having to create their own reading paths on-line (Luke C. 2000:72-73). It is characteristic of hypertext literacy, that each reader can decide the order of reading or browsing interconnected web pages. We will now examine how information is structured through hypertext, as well as the nature of hypertext reading.

Hypertexts can be defined as "a set of different potential texts awaiting realization". Hypertexts on the web consist of units of information connected to each other by hyperlinks. In the simplest form, this means that a web page is connected to another page by a hyperlink. (Bolter 1998:5.) Hypertext literacy can be illustrated by contrasting it to reading traditional print texts. Becoming aware of the distinctions between these helps a web reader to identify the strategies needed in finding and evaluating information on the web.

However, as we now move on to elaborate on hypertexts, we want to emphasise that even though we contrast the conventional print texts with digital hypertexts, the distinction is not so straightforward. In fact, there are characteristics of hypertexts for example in printed newspapers, and digital texts do not always take advantage of the possibilities hypertext could offer.

To begin with, digital hypertexts can be regarded as unstable and unpredictable. Although they exist in a fairly stable form, they are easy to edit and change. Print texts, in turn, are fixed, printed on a paper and distributed to their audience. In addition, hypertexts are multi-linear, in other words, they provide their readers the chance to create their own personal reading paths. Print texts (in their usual forms) are linear and the readers can be seen more passive in the sense that the sequential form, the order of the reading, has been already decided for them. There are, of course, exceptions such as many of the Web sites that are constructed merely by copying print texts into digital form. On the other hand, newspapers and dictionaries are good examples of print texts that are more multilinear, thus the distinction is not so straightforward but more like a continuum. (Bolter 1998:5.)

Moreover, hypertexts consist of texts linked to other texts, which again may be linked to further texts. The extent of hypertext is not set. It often lacks clear boundaries and may be multi-authored. A print text, in contrast, has a beginning and an ending. (See eg. Snyder 1998:127.) This results in differences in the nature of reading. Hypertexts can be seen to be inclusive by nature, that is, all the references made through links can be reached through a singular reading process. Printed texts, in contrast, are by nature selective and exclusive, in that although they can refer to other texts, accessing those other texts require activities outside reading. (Burbules 1998:103.) The aspect of reader choice also relates to the effect of hypertext on formation of different genres or text types on the web. Text typologies on the web are discussed in more detail in chapter 2.3.2.

Another distinctive characteristic between the digital hypertext and print text is related to the interaction between the author and the reader. If we compare a printed book to digital texts, there is a clear asymmetric relationship when it comes to the author of the book and its readers. The author of a print text seems to enjoy a higher status when the readers can relate to the linear and fixed text. The text has been written and most likely edited several times before publishing and distributing it to stores where it can be purchased. Editing an existing print text is impossible (Bolter 1998:6). Electronic texts, in turn, are retrieved on-line and changing them is easier, less expensive and the questions of plagiarism are more present. The reader can more easily copy and edit the text on-line. Hypertext readers also make their own connections and follow the paths they select from those provided by the author. This can be seen as blurring the boundaries between authors and readers, too (Snyder 1998:127). Bolter (1998:4-6) calls the relationship between hypertext authors and readers a more egalitarian one, for there is a collaborative aspect involved. By this he refers to the possibility of contacting the author more easily and affecting the text content. In fact, both writing and reading on the web are based on this assumed interaction.

As the reader of a hypertext creates his/her own reading experience by following links, two aspects are important to consider. First, all links are not the same in nature, and second, every link has a purpose. Burbules (1998:103-106, 110-117) argues that links differ in their type of semic relation. This means the associative relations of information and associations that readers make when interpreting the nature the link implies. Links are like tools of rhetoric. For example, they have a metonymic relationship, like in cases where certain icons always function as certain links, for instance, by clicking the image of a letter you most often open a web based e-mail software (for more on iconic relationships, see ch 2.3.2). When two pieces of information are linked together, it implies that they relate to each other in some way.

Thus, as Burbules (1998:110-111) argues, a critical hyperreader must consider why a particular link is made, which values it implies, and how appropriate and relevant these associations and values are for the reader. Although the readers may construct their own texts through following certain paths of hyperlinks, the initial point they begin their path from is created by someone for some reason and motivation. In other words, critical hypertext literacy is not just using links, but also being aware of their purposes.

As we have now introduced some of the characteristics of the web through the parameter of material conditions of the web, it is important to relate this content knowledge more carefully to the concept of web literacy. Electronic texts force the readers to become more active, because of the continuous choices that the multilinear, multiauthored hypertexts offer. The choices of a web literate person should, of course, be conscious, goal-oriented and dependent on the purpose of reading, for it is literally possible to get lost on the web. The hypertext structure also challenges the reader to search the information and requires effective skimming and scanning techniques, in addition to the critical assessing of the web content itself. The web structure of hypertexts can also be seen as a skill transferable outside the web. As Sorapure et al. (1998:420) point out, "[d]iscussing how and why links link can help us understand not only the value of the web site, but also how ideas can connect, coordinate, and subordinate in any writing". Meaning making requires these kinds of active processing of information and linking scattered pieces of information together with various associations. This mental process becomes visual on the web, as all the readers and writers on web construct their reading paths. Thus, through knowledge about hypertext reading and writing, it is possible to learn about meaning making and manage the info-glut already discussed in chapter 1.

This awareness of the way in which the technology of hypertext makes meaning construction partly visible is one of the most significant aspects of web literacy. As an electronic medium, the web also enables the hypertext to be constructed of several modes of meaning. This aspect of semiotic mode on the web is the next web parameter discussed in the scope of this chapter.

b. Multimodality and the role of visual literacy on the web

Multimodality is one of the most significant aspects of meaning making especially on the web. The web enables to make use of a variety of modes of meaning. It not only becomes possible to use a larger variety of modes, but it is cheaper and easier to construct digital texts, which in addition to their hypertext structure make use of, for instance, elements of written language, colours, visual images, animations, sound and their combinations. According to the Multiliteracies pedagogy (The New London Group 2000:25-30), there are six Design elements involved in meaning making. These are Lingusitic, Visual, Gestural, Spatial, Audio, and Multimodal Design, which connects the other Design elements. Kress (1998:57) points out that the users of multimodal materials are assumed to be competent in all modes of representation. Thus, knowledge on how information is presented in different modes, and an ability to interpret and make meaning of the multimodal content of the web, is a natural part of web literacy, too.

Multimodality is not a new phenomenon. Written and visual elements have coexisted already in print forming multimodal texts. However, until recently, writing has been the dominant mode of representing information. (Bolter 1998:8, Kress 1998:62-63.) Relevant and important information has been provided in written form, and images and other visual element have been used as illustrations or decorations. Now, this relation of the verbal and visual has changed and Kress (1998:66, 2000:183) uses the term visualisation to describe this change. Visualisation refers to the fact that information in written form is 'translated' into the visual form, as the visual mode is seen to be a more effective way of transporting information. Once again, this is important on the context of the web for various reasons. For instance, the amount of information on-line is huge. The ease of digital image manipulation, combining text and images, and web publishing has resulted in the web being very visual in nature. On the web, visual aspects are emphasised also in the written texts, the possibilities of font-types and size, colours, and layout being so many. Since the amount of information on the web is so vast, as mentioned before, reading on the web is often merely skimming or scanning. Even the web browsers used in accessing information on the web are visual in nature. According to Kress (1998:70-72), the visual mode is likely to dominate on the screen, as the screen itself is a new space of representation. In consequence, our focus is on the visual mode. We do not claim that the verbal mode is not significant, but in the scope of this study, we feel the need to integrate visual literacy into web literacy and want to combine the visual mode with the verbal one.

Visual literacy on the web is connected the notion of hypertext discussed in the previous chapter. Since images or parts of images often function as hyperlinks, they have become unstable and arbitrary symbols. This has an effect on reading. Every image or other graphic element on a web page is a potential hyperlink, which is part of the whole construction of a text. (Bolter 1998:8.) Thus, as Bolter (1998:4) notes, "reading web pages requires an appreciation of the graphics themselves and the relation between graphics and text."

Visual literacy can be examined through the framework of visual social semiotics. Semiotics is study of signs. In semiotics, signs refer to expression or representation that manifests a meaning or content. Furthermore, signs exist in semiotic systems, examples of which are language or imagery. (Harrison 2003:47-48.) Social semiotics, in turn, is a field of semiotics that is interested in how people use signs, how they produce and communicate meaning through signs in different social settings (Kress and van Leeuwen 1996:264). According to Jewitt and Oyama (2001:136), visual social semiotics involves "the description of semiotic resources, what can be said and done with images (and other visual means of communication) and how the things people say and do with images can be interpreted". Thus, understanding signs used on the web can be considered important in web literacy.

Visual social semiotics provides web users many useful tools for analysing and interpreting visual elements on the web. To begin with, as Harrison (2003:49-50) notes, visual social semiotics involves knowledge of three categories of images. These are the icon, the index and the symbol. Representatives of all three can easily be found on the web. First, an icon is an image that is similar or resembles an object or a person as it is conceived in reality. For example, an image of fire is an icon of fire in reality. An example of an icon on the web is image of a house representing a home page. Second, an image is an index if its relationship to the concept it represents is understood. Smoke, for instance, is considered an index of fire. On the web, in turn, an arrow indicating a link to the top of the page is an index. Since an index is not recognisable based on similarity, a reader has to be aware of its function. That is, a web user has to recognise the relationship between the arrow and the link to the top of the page. Finally, a symbol is an image the meaning of which is based on convention, and has no visual or conceptual connection to the object it refers to. In other words, the meaning of a symbol has to be learned. Symbols found on the web are, for example, lines beneath words to indicate that the word is a link. (See also Hammerlich and Harrison 2002:140-142.)

Since icons, indexes and symbols are very common on the web, it is important for a web reader to be able to interpret them and understand their function. Navigating and reading web texts rely on these signs that are conventional in the community of web users. In addition, however, visual literacy involves the ability to analyse all kinds of visual elements, including more complex images. Kress and van Leeuwen (1996:40-42) present a social semiotic framework for analysing images that is well applicable to the web. Similarly to language as a semiotic system, images have specific functions in creating meaning. According to Kress and van Leeuwen (1996:40-42), the three metafunctions of images in creating meaning are the ideational, the interpersonal, and the textual metafunction. The first, the ideational metafunction, refers to how objects are represented in the image, and how they relate to each other. The second, the interpersonal metafunction, refers to the relationship between the producer and the receiver of an image. In other words, it refers to the way in which the image engages the viewer. Finally, the textual metafunction refers to the composition of an image. This includes, for example, the layout of the image, that is, the information value and the salience of the image. Together, the metafunctions create the visual meaning for the readers. (See also Harrison 2003.)

If a web page is seen as one visual image constructed of elements of different modes, the textual metafunction becomes of particular importance on the web. This is because the layout, composition and information value of the different elements of the page have an effect on how the page is read. Kress and van Leeuwen (1996:181-211) identify four parts of visual space, each of which has a regular information role: left, right, bottom and top. According to them, the left side of an image has the value of being 'given' or familiar, whereas the right presents 'new' information. Furthermore, the top of an image is considered as 'ideal' information, while the bottom section has the role of 'real' information. (See also Kress 2000:200-202.) This division of layout can also be applied to web pages. For example, the static navigation bar of a page is often situated on the left, representing familiar information. New or current information such as a notice board, in turn, is often situated towards the right. Similarly, 'real' information like information of copyright and authors are usually presented at the bottom of the page. Naturally this is not always the case. However, since a page is often loaded with a large amount of multimodal information, this model of the visual space may provide the web reader useful clues of where on the page to find particular kind of information.

It is important to notice that the framework by Kress and van Leeuwen is based on analysing images in Western cultures where reading proceeds from left to right. Applying this kind of analysis on the web, we have to keep in mind that the web is a global and multicultural medium. As Kress (1998:57) points out, the visual is not a neutral mode, but as culturally bound as the verbal mode. The question of cultural diversity and dominance on the web will be discussed in chapter 2.3.2.

Before that, however, we will discuss texts on the web. We have already noted that information on the web is presented in many modes and organised and structured by hypertext. The result is a wide range of various kinds of texts. Finding and evaluating these texts require identifying different text types. In the following chapter we will discuss different approaches to identifying text typologies on the web.

c. Text typologies and web domains

Since the web is a new medium, it still lacks established writing conventions and genres. Sorapure et al. (1998:410) note that web readers encounter many different rhetorical situations, different kinds of texts, for which the web in itself does not offer much classification or categorisation. However, reading, analysing, evaluating and interpreting information requires knowledge about the different types of texts a reader may encounter on the web. Thus, we need to address the third contextual parameter on the web, that of text typologies. In other words, we will try to find out whether it is possible to distinguish different text types on the web, and what their relevance is to web literacy.

To conceptualise the world people have the tendency and the need to categorise its phenomena. When thinking about literacy as such, text types have been categorised in various ways and their characteristics have been described. One of these traditional classifications is presented by Werlich (1983:39-41). He classifies texts into five text types based on the contextual focus of the text. The categories are described in the following way:

"Description is the type of textual communication in which the encoder [...] deals with factual phenomena in space. It is the text type related to the cognitive process of perception in space."

"Narration is the type of textual communication in which the encoder [...] deals with factual and/or conceptual phenomena in time. It is the text type related to the cognitive process of perception in time."

"Exposition is the type of textual communication, which the encoder chooses for presenting either constituent elements, which can be synthesized into a composite concept (manifested in a 'term') or a mental construct (manifested in a 'text'), or those constituent elements into which concepts or mental constructs of phenomena can be analysed. The encoder thus explains how the component elements interrelate into a meaningful whole. This text type is related to the cognitive process of comprehension."

"Argumentation is the type of textual communication in which the encoder proposes relations between concepts of phenomena. The encoder makes his propositions in explicit or implicit opposition to deviant or alternative propositions. Argumentation is the text t type is related to the cognitive process of judging in answer to a problem."

"Instruction is the type of textual communication in which the encoder tells himself [...] or others [...] what to do. This text type is related to the cognitive process of planning."

Each of Werlich's text types introduced above can be found on the web. As noted in the previous chapters, however, the multimodal, hypertextual and interactive nature of the web results in texts different from conventional print texts. Rather than representing any single text type Werlich presents, web texts can often be seen as combinations of the different types. For example, an argumentative essay can be connected to a page containing the writer's career history by a hyperlink and the text can be seen as a combination of argumentation and narration. Furthermore, interactive web texts such as chat rooms and whiteboards may be combinations of any of the text types depending on each usage, and do not fit to any of Werlich's text types. Thus, there is a need to find new and perhaps broader categories for identifying web texts.

There are many suggestions for text categories focusing on web texts. For example, Kamil and Lane (1998:332) divide web texts into three: primarily narrative, primarily expository and completely graphical. They argue that most texts encountered on the web are expository. Their categories resemble the hypermedia genres presented by Eagleton (2002). She, too, presents the categories of narrative and expository, and adds the category of communicative, which includes, for example, on-line games, live chats and e-mail. Eagleton's categories, however, do not address web content as such, but are cases of Internet literacy, for they contain the element of e-mail, which is not a part of the web (see ch 2.2 for the definitions of the web and the Internet). Nevertheless, in contrast to Werlich's classification, both of these two categorisations take notice of the multimodal and communicative aspects that are central in web texts. In addition, they acknowledge the fact that web texts may include aspects of many different types of texts, being only primarily of some type. This characteristic may well be typical for many current print texts, too. However, some problems arise also in these classifications. First, the class of purely graphic texts only focuses on the mode of the text, but ignores what is more important, the content of the text. Furthermore, communicative aspects can surely be found in the other text types besides the communicative. For example, electronic magazines, although considered expository, often include discussion forums or other possibilities for communication.

It seems that web texts are difficult to divide into strict categories, and none of the classifications of web text or web genres discussed above seem to fully describe the diversity of text forms on the web. Therefore, a useful way of approaching web texts is to examine them through a set of continuums. By this we mean that each text on the web is comprised of a set of continuums related to the text production and usage, rather than representing any particular text type (see Figure 5). Also Karlsson (2002) presents a set of continuums related to writing and reading conventions in different web domains, in other words, different areas of web content. Web texts can be considered public or private, local or global, and non-professional or professional. Karlsson discusses these domains in relation to her study of personal homepages, and does not define the continuums beyond this focus. However, her approach can well be applied also in other web texts. With the help of these ideas we wish to provide web readers an additional viewpoint to cope with the multiplicity of text forms on the web. Thus, we will next elaborate on the continuum approach and discuss how web texts can be looked at through each of the domain continuums.

Figure 5. Web continuums

First, the local-global continuum refers to the intended audience of the text. Although the web is a global medium, many texts are targeted to a certain group of readers. Karlsson (2002) notes that, for example, the use of personal homepages usually is rather local than global, in that there is a certain community of those who visit the pages. However, any web user can be seen as at least a potential international author (Warschauer 1999:7). The target audience of a web text depends naturally on the language choices of the content. Using the English language naturally results in the target audience becoming more international; then again, a choice of a minority language may restrict the audience to a more local level. The content of the text may also vary in its level of detail, which may also be interpreted as a more local or global characteristic of a text.

Second, the public-private continuum addresses the question of whether a web text is a kind of private form of writing, or a public mass media text. Again, Karlsson (2002) sees personal homepages more public than private, although they often contain, for example, journals and other modes of writing traditionally considered as confessional. The fact that the web is a medium that, at least in principle, makes everything public, does not mean that every writer aims at a public audience. The relevance of the private-public continuum for a web reader, thus, is to consider whether the text in fact is meant to be public or private, and what the relevance of the information thus is.

Third, the non-professional-professional continuum has many dimensions. First, it can be examined in terms of the professional skills of the author both in the contents of the text and the design of the web page. For instance, professionalism on the content refers to the writer's expertise on the subject matter and can be presented in the text in various ways. It can be even inferred from the URL address of the web page or, then again, from merely acknowledging the author's background as an expert on a specific field. Professionalism on-line can also be faked, and critical reading skills are needed when assessing the web content. Not always does a technically professional third generation web page contain valid nor reliable information. On the other hand, web content may be very linear and poorly presented but still be highly professional in terms of the information. Second, the continuum refers to the use of the page, that is, whether it is used for professional purposes. For example, even a personal homepage can at times be regarded as professional, for the page may be used for research purposes and thus, be of professional use. Then again, organisations can also have so-called non-professional web sites, for not all the content is meant for institutional purposes (eg. games, cafes etc.).

In addition to the three continuums, we suggest that a fourth continuum can be applied relating to hypertext. This is the continuum between restrictive and open (Snyder 1998:128). At the one end, a restrictive text is like a linear version with few navigational choices. At the other end, a text has multiple navigational choices. By focusing on the web content through this continuum the reader can focus on the hypertext characteristics of the web already presented when introducing the parameter of material conditions.

To sum up, instead of trying to divide web content into strict categories we suggest that the web can be understood as consisting of various domains, each of which can be examined through four continuums. The continuums help the reader to consider the purpose of the text and its target audience, which, in turn, helps in evaluating the relevance of the text to the reader. Through this process of thinking about the web content the reader can make conscious decisions and critically choose valid information from the flood of information on the web. The continuum thinking may also have an effect on the sense of control the web reader has over web content. And as open continuums that are not too strict and allow the medium and its content to change, the web continuums also support the dynamic, life-long nature of the meaning making processes. In other words, it may support managing the change.

Focusing on each of the four continuums also includes an aspect of critical literacy, for they can be used as tools with which the web reader can operate when thinking about the purpose, the target audience or the author of the text. It is important to keep in mind that also the choices of modes and structure of texts reflect the goal of the author. These thoughts lead us to the fourth and the last parameter of the web discussed in the scope of this study: the role of power and ideology on the web.

d. Power and ideology on the web

The fourth parameter of power and ideology can be regarded as content knowledge of the web when thinking about critical orientation to the content of the medium. The question of power and ideology is relevant both for examining individual web texts, as well as the medium as a whole. In other words, a web reader faces the questions of who has power on the web, and whether the web is a medium where certain ideologies dominate. In addition, multimodality and the ease of web authoring set demands for evaluation of web texts. Thus, in this section we will first take a look at "who owns the web", that is, the power relations and dominating ideologies on the medium, and then focus on issues of how to critically approach the web.

The issue of power and ideology on the web can be examined, for instance, through Janks's (2000) four-dimensional frame on teaching critical literacy. She presents critical literacy as consisting of four conceptualisations, the focus of which are interdependent, yet one is always more dominant than the others. In other words, one conceptualisation is always on the foreground at the expense of the other three. These four conceptualisations are those of domination, access, diversity and design. Let us now elaborate on these four conceptualisations and see how they can be adapted to critical literacy on the web.

According to Janks (2000), domination focuses on the question of "who is empowered or disempowered by the language used". Access, then again, focuses on the problems of choosing the texts and discourses to be worked with and the problematic balance between mainstream discourses and more marginalised discourses. The third conceptualisation, diversity, focuses on the variety of different discourses and the possible positive outcomes of being faced with these different discourses. The last of the four, design, refers to the ideas of the New London Group (2000) of meaning making as Designing, which has already been discussed in chapter 2.2.1 and will not be examined here in more detail.

As to web literacy, all of the above conceptualisations are relevant. Domination in the scope of the web is very present, yet not often questioned. Burbules (1998:119) notes that "like any other medium, the web advantages certain voices and perspectives and disadvantages others". This means that certain cultures, languages and ideologies are clearly more present than others on the web. The web is dominated by wealthy well-educated elite and most of the content is shaped in the U.S. (Warschauer 1999:17). Thus, the web is still very much a medium of the Western industrialised world, and as such, empowers the Western worlds' citizens (see eg. Warschauer 1999:172-176). Dominance is also present in the form of the English language being the language of the web and disempowering those lacking adequate language skills (see eg. Warschauer 1999:169-171). However, researchers have remarked that the dominance of the English language, as well as the Western world altogether, may not stay as strong as it is at the moment. For example, the traditions of visual design outside Europe have already become important aspects on the web and more and more members of on-line communities come from non-Western cultures (Lemke 1998:292-293).

Access can also be viewed from a number of perspectives. The web can be seen as a democratic medium, for the possibilities it offers for multicultural publishing. The web readers are faced with an access to a diverse multicultural and international web content. Access can also be understood as the web offering an access to various discourses, for the web not only is a forum of the mainstream discourses, but also the forum for marginalised discourses and subcultural views. For instance, in what other medium can subcultures and small communities publish their thoughts, contact each other and strengthen their social practices? The amount of information accessible to all web users is vast. However, we cannot claim that the web is equal. Access depends on the costs of hardware and software and on the ability to use the web, and it has been researched that gender, wealth and country of origin skew the use of the web (Warschauer 1999:17). Furthermore, Warschauer (1999:167) states that "oppressive governments around the world fear allowing their citizens unfettered access to the Internet". The web could support cultural pluralism, yet, it would require "marginal groups gaining equal access to shape" the web content (Warschauer 1999:20).

Diversity, in turn, presents itself in the various forms of discourse, in the variety of languages, cultures and modes of meanings present on-line. If Kress's (1995 in Janks 2000) idea on including diversity into teaching helps students to deal with and adapt to the ongoing changes in society, isn't the web a valuable source of diverse discourses accessible to students? Access to diverse forms texts and discourses is certainly an advantage, but at the same time, it requires a lot from the web users. When discussing reading and writing on the web, it is important to consider how the reader can cope with this diversity that reflects power relations and ideologies.

Research on web literacy, as well as all critical literacy, emphasises the importance of analysing, evaluating, assessing the content on the web (see Table 1). What makes the evaluation process especially important on the web, and also different in contrast to traditional print texts, is the fact that in principle, whoever qualifies as a writer on the web. Traditionally, certain institutions such as publishing houses or the press have determined and decided what is published and by whom. The web, in contrast, is a publishing space for anyone to publish any kind of information. As Karlsson (2002) notes, the web is a medium where traditional power relations and roles of the media have changed. This means that more responsibility is left for readers to determine the value of information for their purposes.

Thus, critical reading of the web has to do with asking questions about the text's purpose, authors and target audience. As was already noted in chapter 2.3.2 when discussing hypertext reading, all texts are written by someone for some purpose. Authorial expertise and the purpose of the text can be evaluated in terms of objectivity, coverage and writing style, which tell a lot about the values, ideologies and bias it implies, as well as the reliability of the source. However, these kinds of traditional evaluation criteria may be problematic on the web. For example, web sites often lack information about the authors or publication dates, and coverage and reliability may have to be traced and evaluated through wide amount information connected by hyperlinks. (Sorapure et al. 1998:413-416.)

Keeping these problems in mind, Luke A. (2000:453) presents an approach on teaching critical reading that is well applied on the web. He proposes that students should be taught "to read backwards from texts to the context of their social construction […] and to write forwards from the texts to their social use, interpretation and analysis". This means that texts need to be analysed as to their social construction, as well as to the various contextual interpretations of the possible reconstructed texts and discourses. Luke A. (2000:455) points out that conventional approaches to critical reading often focus on, for instance, identifying bias in texts. However, a more fruitful approach might be to simply ask "what a text is trying to do to me". That is, focusing attention to who could have written or read a text leads the reader to question the context in which the text is produced and the context in which it is or is meant to be read. This is without doubt a good starting point to manage the diversity of texts and discourses on the web.

In the context of the Finnish society, the question of access and domination may not seem as relevant as, for example, in the context of Janks's (2000) study in South Africa. However, not everyone even in Finland has access to the web or the ability to approach the medium critically. Thus, we feel that a web literate person, from any background, needs to be aware of both the ideologies and power relations that dominate the web, as well as the diversity of ideologies that can be found on the medium. In addition, access to this diversity of discourses and texts requires an ability to adjust traditional evaluation strategies to web context, in order to be able to reconstruct them according to one's own purposes.

To sum up, we have now introduced the web as a medium through four contextual parameters. We still need to examine what kinds of implications this content knowledge approach to web literacy has for the actual learning space.

Firstly, this approach gives an easy access to the medium, in other words, by viewing web literacy through the content knowledge perspective in Netro, we can overcome the problems of focusing on the skills and introduce the medium as such. For it is naturally easier to ask the learners to read and reflect on some topic than to ask them to master it in practice. For this reason, the content knowledge approach gives us an opportunity to give the learners an access to several web literacy related topics instead of focusing on one or two specific skills.

Secondly, by introducing web literacy through content knowledge of the web we can also ensure that the target audience, the learners, are more likely to broaden their conceptions on what web literacy is and to become aware of the many-sidedness of the concept. For we argue that knowing the medium enables the learners to engage in social practices within that medium.

Thirdly, in the beginning of this study we introduced Castells's (1996:371) idea of the interacted and the interacting. As to the content knowledge approach to web literacy, in the case of the web, we argue that it is those who know the medium and the social practices it entails, who will become the interacting. In other words, only after getting to know the medium you can begin to learn to function in it more properly.

Thus, each of the four parameters is presented in the learning space (for a detailed description of the structure of Netro, see ch 4). For instance, the different aspects of material conditions, multimodality, text typologies and web domains, as well as power and ideology on the web are presented through separate introductory sections to each topic. In addition, there is a chance to learn more about these topics from given references and suggested web links. The learners also encounter tasks related to on-line reading and hypertext, multimodality and different aspects of visual literacy, analysing web texts in terms of text types and web domains, as well as the question of cultural and language issues and the question of power and ideology on the web.

To conclude, in the different sections of Netro the learners' attention is directed to the various contextual features of the medium, and they are challenged to reflect on the topics through various activities. In addition to providing content knowledge, however, the learning space also aims at supporting the building of metacognitive knowledge, that is, knowledge of oneself in relation to the content knowledge. Thus, we will next turn on to discuss the third field of web literacy, that is, to web literacy as awareness of oneself as a web user.