Digital literacy 171218 - Tidsskrift.dk

Læring & Medier (LOM) – nr. 19 – 2018 ISSN: 1903-248X

http://www.lom.dk 1

Digital literacy – a qualitative systematic review

Andreas L. Tamborg Ph.d.-stipendiatInstitut for Læreruddannelsen, Københavns Professionshøjskole/Institut for Læring og Filosofi, AAU

Jonas Dreyøe

Ph.d.-stipendiat Ledelse, Organisation og Forvaltning Københavns Professionshøjskole/Institut for Læring og Filosofi, AAU

Simon Skov FougtLektor, Ph.d.Institut for Læreruddannelsen, Københavns Professionshøjskole


http://www.lom.dk 2

Abstract Thispaperisaqualitativesystematicliteraturereviewthatseekstoidentifydefinitionsandusagesoftheconceptofdigitalliteracyinrecentresearchwithinelementaryandprimaryeducation.Whereasitiswidelyacknowledgedthatdigitalliteracyisanambiguousterm,thispaperinvestigateshowandwhythisisthecase.Inthepaper,weidentifyninecategoriesofdefinitionsandusagesofthetermandarguethatthisdiversitycanbeexplainedastwotendencies:1)thelackofdefinitionsandexplanationsofhowthetermisused,and2)thefactthatdigitalliteracyisstudiedwithinawiderangeofdifferenttheoreticalperspectivesthateachshapetheconceptualizationoftheterm.Weconcludebyconceptualizingamodelofstandpointsinthedefinitionsofdigitalliteracywhichmayfunctionasatoolforfutureresearchofdigitalliteracy.

Introduction Theincreaseofdigitizationhashad,andislikelytocontinuetohave,tremendousimplicationsforteachingandlearninginschoolcontexts.ManyoftherecentlydevelopedinnovativedigitalapproachestoteachingsuchasMOOCSi,FlippedClassroom,andthepedagogicalapproachesdevelopedinrelationtoBYODiiorCYODiiiarecloselyinterwovenwiththeincreaseofreadilyavailabletechnologies.Theincreaseofdigitaltechnologiesaroundusisbynomeansanisolatedphenomenonthatonlytakesplaceineducationalcontexts;itisperhapsbetterunderstoodasareflectionofwhatisgoingonintheworldoutsideschool.Schoolsandeducationingeneralcouldbesaidtohaveadoubleroleintheirworkwithtechnology.Teachers,teachereducators,andeducationalresearchershaveanobligationtoinvestigateandexperimentwithhowtechnologymayenrichexistingapproachestoteachingorthedevelopmentofnewapproaches,becauseschoolsalsohavearesponsibilitytopreparestudentsforlivinginasocietycharacterizedbyever-changinganddevelopingdigitaltechnologies.Thelatterobligationisespeciallyreflectedininternationalpolicyprogramssuchas21stcenturyskills,aswellasininmanynationalcurriculumreforms(e.g.,www.p21.org;Kinzer,2010;Aesaert,Vanderlinde,Tondeur&vanBraak2013);effortsinmeasuringstudents’abilitiestousetechnologyhavealreadybeenmadein,forexample,ICILSiv.Thisresearchshowsthatitiscommonlythoughtthatyoungpeoplearedigitallynativebutthatthisbeliefneedstoberevised(e.g.,Bundsgaard,Pettersson&Puck,2014).Whetherthisisthecaseornot,thereisaneedtocarefullyreflectonwhatisrequiredtonavigatesafelyinatechnology-richsociety,whetherinsideoroutsideschoolcontexts.

Inrecentyears,severalconceptshavebeencoinedtoidentify,articulate,andaddressthesechallengesmoreprecisely.Theseconceptsinclude,amongothers,ICTliteracy,medialiteracy,computerliteracyanddigitalliteracy


http://www.lom.dk 3

(Buckingham,2006).Withineducationresearch,digitalliteracyiswidelyused(Bawden,2009).ItwasoriginallydefinedbyGilster(1997)as:

“theabilitytounderstandanduseinformationinmultipleformatsfromawiderangeofsourceswhenitispresentedviacomputers.(...).Digitalliteracylikewiseextendstheboundariesofdefinition.Itiscognitionofwhatyouseeonthecomputerscreenwhenyouusethenetworkedmedium.”(p.1-2)

Thisdefinitionforegroundscognitionasakeyelementofdigitalliteracy.However,since1997manyresearchershaveaddeddefinitionsofdigitalliteracythatforegroundotherelementsofdigitalliteracy(forexample,Bawden(2009),Søby(2003),Martin&Grudziecki(2006)).Thisincreasednumberofdefinitionswithdifferentfocihaveledtoatermthatisoftenreferredtoasambiguous(Bawden,2009).

Thecomplexityofdigitalliteracypracticeshasfurtherincreasedsincethedomesticationoftheinternetandtheconstantflowofnewemergingdigitaltechnologies.Thisimpliesthatacomplexdefinitionofliteracyisneededtomaintainthemultiplepractices,contextsandtechnologiesrelatedtodigitalliteracy(Buckingham,2006;2015).However,thiscomplexityfostersambiguity,whichconstitutesaproblem.Theprimaryobjectiveofthisreviewisthereforetocontributetountanglethisambiguitybyidentifyinghowthetermisambiguousandtoinvestigatepossibleexplanationsofwhythisisthecase.Wedothisbyinvestigatingthevarietyofwaysinwhichdigitalliteracyisdefinedandusedinresearchinelementaryandprimaryeducation,andwhatthepotentialreasonsforthisvarietycouldbe,therebyaddressingthefollowingresearchquestion:

Howisdigitalliteracydefinedandusedintheresearchliteratureaboutprimaryandelementaryeducation,andwhatarethepotentialreasonsforthevarietyindefinitionsandusages?

Webeginthepaperbyexplainingourmethod,includinghowwesearchedandselectedthepapersandtheresourceswedevelopedandusedinthisprocess.Wethendescribethefindingsofthereview,whichweorganizeinthreesections.Thefirstsectiondescribesninetendenciesidentifiedinthepapersrelatedtodigitalliteracy.Inthesecondsection,weidentifymissingdefinitionsofdigitalliteracyandatendencytosubstitutedigitalliteracywithanothersimilarterm,andwesuggestthatthisisasignificantreasonfortheconfusionrelatedtotheterm.Inthethirdsection,weshowhowtheuseofestablisheddefinitionsofdigitalliteracyincombinationwithothertypesoftheoryconstitutesanothersignificantfactorinthevarietyofdefinitionsandusagesof


http://www.lom.dk 4

digitalliteracy.Weconcludebypresentingaconceptualizationofstandpointsinthedefinitionsofdigitalliteracy,whichwearguecanpreservethecomplexityofdigitalliteracywhileallowinganaccumulationofresearchfindings.

Method Thisreviewisaqualitativesystematicreview(Grant&Booth,2009)withthepurposeofexploringandpossiblyexpandingourunderstandingofdigitalliteracy.Qualitativesystematicreviewsarecharacterizedbyanalyzingstudieswithafocusofexploringthemesandconstructsinand/oracrossliteraturewithinaspecificareaofresearch(Grant&Booth,2009).Thisreviewisthereforenotorientedtowardsaggregatingresearchresultsand/orhighlightinga“best-practice,”butisbettercharacterizedasaninterpretiveapproachaimingatdevelopinganoverarchingnarrativeofaresearchfieldorobject(Grant&Booth,2009).Qualitativesystematicreviewsareahighlyrelevantapproachinthiscontext,whichsupportsusinbroadeningtheunderstandingofdigitalliteracy.

SearchandselectionofpapersAsstatedabove,themainobjectiveofthispaperistoinvestigatehowdigitalliteracyisdefined,interpreted,andusedinEnglisheducationalresearchliteratureregardingelementary/primaryschools.Toidentifyrelevantpapersforthispurpose,weconductedasearchforpeer-reviewedpapersinfourdatabaseswithineducationalresearch,includingAcademicSearchPremier(110hits),ERIC(48hits),SCOPUS(68),andORIA(13hits),generatingatotalof239papers.Thesearchwasmadefromusingthefollowingstring:("digitallitera*")AND("elementaryschool"OR"elementaryeducation"OR"primaryschool"OR"primaryeducation").ThisisillustratedinFigure1.Oursearchwasnotrestrictedtoanytimespan,asthesearchprocessresultedinanumberofpapersthatweconsideredmanageable.

Figure1.Anillustrationofthesearchstringusedtosearchforpapers.


http://www.lom.dk 5

Havingidentifiedthesepapers,weprocessedthembyfollowingtheguidelinesdescribedinHiggins,Green,&TheCochraneCollaboration(2017)toscreenandselectthepaperstoincludeinthisreview.Theseguidelinesincludemergingthesearchresults,examiningtitlesandabstracts,retrievingfulltexts,examiningfull-textreports,andmakingthefinaldecisionofinclusionbeforecontinuingtodataanalysis.Inthisprocess,weexcludedpaperswhichwithoutadoubtdidnotincludedigitalliteracyasaresearchobject,forexample,papersinwhichdigitalliteracyonlyappearedasaminorrelevantelementandwasnotstudiedassuchinthepaper.Inthisprocesswealsodiscardedpapersthatdidnotstudydigitalliteracyinprimaryandelementaryeducation,but,forexample,atuniversitiesorinotherhighereducationalcontexts.Afterhavingmergedthesearchresultsintoasingledocument,wecontinuedthisprocessbylookingforduplicatesinthesearchresultsfromthedifferentdatabases.Thisexcludedatotalof44papersthatappearedintwoormoreofthefouruseddatabases.Hereafter,weexaminedthetitlesandabstractsofeachpaperwiththeprimaryobjectiveofassessingwhetherthepaperwasaboutdigitalliteracyinthecontextofelementary/primaryeducation.Thisprocessexcludedanadditional156papersandleftuswithatotalof80peer-reviewedpapersaboutdigitalliteracyinthecontextofelementaryorprimaryeducation.

Wethenretrievedthe80potentiallyrelevantpapersandcodifiedthemtosystematizeouranalysis.Forthis,wedevelopedandusedacodificationtableconsistingoffieldsrepresentingtheinformationtoberetrievedfromthepapersforlateranalysis(seeFigure2).Thefieldswerechosentoretrievebasicinformationaboutthepaperandabouthowdigitalliteracywasdefinedandused.Further,thefieldsentitledmethods,geographicallocationofresearcher(s)/research,andschoollevelwerechosenfromahypothesisthattheremightbestabilitiesinthevariationofdefinitionsofdigitalliteracyaccordingtothesefieldsv.

Figure2.Thedevelopedcodificationtable.

Incodifyingthepapersaccordingtothesefields,atotalofyetanother25paperswaseliminatedbecausethey1)werewritteninanotherlanguagethanEnglish,2)didnotcontaintheworddigitalliteracy,or3)becausethestudywasnotrelatedtoelementary/primaryschool,but,forexample,highereducationorkindergarten,leavingusatotalof55papersthatare


http://www.lom.dk 6

includedinthisreview.TheselectionprocessisrepresentedinFigure3below.

Figure3.Theprocessofscreeningpapers.

Afterhavingreadanddescribedeverypaperaccordingtoourscheme,webegancategorizingthedefinitionsofthetermdigitalliteracyinaspreadsheetvitoidentifythevariousdefinitionsoftheterm.

Findings Inthissection,wewillpresentthefindingsofourreview.Thesectionisorganizedintotwomainsubsections.Thefirstsubsectionaddressesthefirsthalfofourresearchquestion,namelyhowtheresearchliteraturerelatedtoelementaryandprimaryeducationdefinesandusesthetermdigitalliteracyandwhatdifferencesweidentify.Weapproachtheanswertothisquestionbydescribingeightdifferenttopicsinthepapers’definitionsandusagesofdigitalliteracy.Inthesecondsubsection,weinvestigateanddiscussthepotentialreasonswhydigitalliteracyisambiguousanddefinedandusedinmanydifferentways.Here,weidentifyalackofdefinitionsandimplicitmethodologicaloperationalizationsofdigitalliteracyasthefirstoftwosignificantreasonsfortheambiguityoftheterm.Thesecondreasonisthewiderangeoftheoreticalapproachestodefiningtheconcept.

VarietiesinthedefinitionsandusagesofdigitalliteracyAsdescribedinthemethodsection,wecategorizedhoweachofthepapersdefinedanduseddigitalliteracy.Theend-productofthisprocesswasaspreadsheetwithninenodesrepresentingthecategoriesthatappeared


http://www.lom.dk 7

amongthepapers,wherepaperscouldappearinmorethanonegroup.Thesecategoriesarelistedbelow.

1. Readingandwritingwithdigitaltechnology

2. Communication

3. Accesstoandacquaintancewithdigitaltools

4. Attitudetowardtechnology

5. Digitalskillsandknowledge

6. Socialpracticeandclassroomculture

7. Ethics

8. Criticalthinking

9. Nodefinition/nousage

Inthefollowingsection,wewilldescribethesecategoriesindetailandprovideempiricalexamplesfromthepapers.Wewilladdresstheninthcategoryentitled“nodefinition/nousage”inaseparatesectionafterwards,asweidentifiedthiscategoryasapotentialexplanationforsomeofthevarietyinhowdigitalliteracywasdefinedandused.

ReadingandwritingwithdigitaltechnologyThiscategoryincludesstudiesthatprimarilyconsiderdigitalliteracyasrelatedtoprocessingorcommunicatingtextthrough,in,orwithdigitaltechnologies.Studieswithinthiscategorywereoftenbasedontheideathatnewdigitaltechnologiesimplynewtextmodalitiesthatredefinethepracticesofreadingandwriting(Gilster,1997)andfrequentlydefinedigitalliteracybyusingtheworkofNewLondonGroup(1996)orKnobelandLankshear(2006;2008).AnexampleofsuchstudiesisMacken-Horarik(2009),whoarguedthattheEnglishlanguageasacommunicationsystemischallengedbydigitalization,andthattheroleofgrammarisnolongerasufficienttooltohelpstudentsnavigatewebsitesandsocialnetworkingsitesproficiently.ThisisalineofthinkingwhichMerchant(2005)followedbystatingthatstudents’textualpracticesarebeingrecontextualizedfromthevarietyoftechnologytheyuseintheirdailylives,suchasmobilephonesandcomputers(Merchant,2005,p.52).Inhisstudyfrom2007,Merchantdefineddigitalliteracyas

“thestudyofwrittenorsymbolicrepresentationthatismediatedbynewtechnology.Itsprimeconcernwouldbetheproductionand


http://www.lom.dk 8

consumptionoftheverbalandsymbolicaspectofscreen-basedtexts”(Merchant,2007,p.121)

Thoughsomeofthesestudiesacknowledgedigitalliteracytotranscendpracticesofreadingandwritingwithdigitaltechnology,theyareallcharacterizedbyforegroundingstudiesofcommunicationoftextasakeyelementofdigitalliteracy.

CommunicationThestudiesinthiscategoryemphasizethatdigitalliteracyinvolvescommunicationinabroadersensethanmerelyreadingandwriting.CaseyandBruce(2011)wereratherexplicitinthiswhenarguingthatdigitalliteracy

“extendsbeyondreadingandwritingasusuallyconceived.Literacyimpliesthecapacitytocommunicatemeaning–fromspeakertolistener,fromwritertoreader,fromcreatortoviewer”(Casey&Bruce,2011,p.77)

OtherstudiessuchasBrown(2016)didnotdefinedigitalliteracy,butmentionedthat

“theuseofe-readersorsimilardevicesofferedyoungstudentswaystodevelopand/orenhancetheirdigitalliteracies,whichareessentialforcommunicationinaglobalworld”(Brown,2016,p.44)

ThestudybyHagge(2017)isanotherexample,asdigitalliteracyherewasdefinedbroadlyas“relatedtoskillsassociatedwithcommunicationtechnologies(ICT)”(p.154-155)andKinzer(2010)whodefineditasmerely“theabilitytocommunicateandtofindandevaluateinformationcritically”(p.51).ThesestudiescontributeinexpandingdigitalliteracytoinvolvevariouskindsofinformationperhapsexpressedmostclearlybyCaseyandBruce(2011)asthecapacitytocommunicatemeaning.

AccesstoandacquaintancewithdigitaltoolsWhereasthetwocategoriesabovedefinedigitalliteracyastheabilitytodosomethingwithdigitaltechnology,paperswithinthiscategoryfocusontheprerequisitesofusingtechnology,namelyactors’accesstoandacquaintancewithtechnology.Thisincludesinvestigationsofmatterssuchasstudents’accesstocomputersandinternetconnectionandtheextentof


http://www.lom.dk 9

theiracquaintancewithusingvarioussoftwareprograms.Withinthiscategory,wefindthestudyofPombo,CarlosandLoureiro(2015)whoinvestigatedteachers’levelofdigitalliteracythroughasurveyinwhichteacherswereaskedtowhatextenttheyuseICTintheirteaching(p.15).AnotherexampleisThorvaldsen,Egebjerg,PettersenandVavik(2011),whoinvestigatedstudents’digitalliteracybymeasuringtheirself-reportedabilitiestochatonMSN,useMicrosoftWord,andsearchinformationontheinternet.Falkner,VivianandFalkner(2014)isanexampleofanexplicitdefinitionofdigitalliteracyasrelatedtoacquaintancewithdigitaltools,namelyasstudents’“familiaritywiththetoolsandapproachestointeractwithtechnology”(p.3).Thoughnotdefiningdigitalliteracy,Ravasco,etal.(2014)andRavasco,Brigas,Reis,Fonseca,MateusandBolota(2015)alsofallswithinthiscategoryasthesestudiesbothinvestigateddigitalliteracyinasurveywhichincludeditemssuchas:“Haveyougotacomputer?Canyouuseacomputer?Doyouusethecomputer?”(Ravascoet.al.p,3-8).

AttitudetowardstechnologyThepapersinthiscategoryusethetermdigitalliteracytorefertostudents’,teachers’orotherrelevantactors’vieworstancetowardsdigitaltechnology,althoughnoneofthepaperswithinthiscategoryexplicitlydefineattitudetowardstechnologyasacomponentofdigitalliteracy.Threestudiesnonethelessaddressactors’attitudetowardsdigitaltechnologyasakeyelementofincreasingtheirdigitalliteracy,eitherbyinvestigatingitorseekingtochangeit.Thisis,forexample,thecaseofFernandez-Montalvoet.al.(2016),whodesignedaninterventionforstudentsspecificallyaimedatincreasingtheirdigitalliteracyunderstoodasto“becomemoreawareofhowtheyusetheinternet”(p.8).Inastudyofstudents’levelofdigitalliteracy,Thorvaldsen,Egeberg,PettersenandVavik(2011)screenedthestudentsfor“PCanxiety/poorattitudes”(p.313).

ThestudyofGruszczynska,MerchantandPountneyalsodealswithteacher-trainingstudents’attitudeasanindicatorofdigitalliteracy,inthatthisexplorativestudyinvestigatedstudents’viewsontheirusageoftechnologyforeducationalpractices(2013p.211).

DigitalskillsandknowledgeThiscategoryincludespapersthatdefineorusedigitalliteracytomeanasetofskillsoracertainknowledgeofdigitaltechnology.Thepapersdealingwithskillsoftenclusterskillsastheproceduralelementofdigitalliteracy,whereasknowledgeisreferredtoasaconceptualelement.Somepapersfurtherspecifytheskillsrelatedtodigitalliteracyassocialmediaskills(Morgan,2014),internetsafetyskills(Fernandez-Montalvo,Penalva,Irazabal&Lopez-Goni,2016;Lotherington&Ronda,2009)and


http://www.lom.dk 10

instrumentalskillsinacademiccontext(Cohen&Tally,2004)orleisurecontexts(Vélez&Zuazua,2017).

Intermsofmediaskills,Morgan(2014)arguedthatsocialmediaskillsinparticularareanimportantaspectofdigitalliteracyasemployers“currentlyvaluedigitalliteracyandlooktohireemployeeswhoareskilledinsocialmedia”(Morgan,2014p.75).Thispaperdidnot,however,specifywhatsocialmediaskillsinvolve,butonlyarguesthatdigitalskillscanbedevelopedbyusingsocialmediasuchasTwitter.LotheringtonandRonda(2009)defineddigitalliteracyasinvolvingmediaskills,whichinthiscaserefersspecificallytotheabilitytomanipulatedigitalenvironments(p.19)whendesigningandbuildingcomputergames.Thislatterexampledemonstrateshowabroadtermsuchasmediaskillsmayrefertoaveryspecificsetofskillswhenitappearsinastudyinaparticularcontext.

ThefactthatcontextplaysaroleforhowdigitalliteracyisdefinedisalsoillustratedinthestudybyCohenandTally(2004).ThispaperstudiedtheroleoftechnologyinK-12standardsandarguesthattheintegrationoftechnologyinthecurriculumrequiresdigitally-literateteachers.Inthiscase,digitally-literateteachersisdefinedassomeonewithcontext-specificinstrumentalskillstoutilizeandevaluatesubject-specificapplications,suchassoftwarefordoingmathorreading(Cohen&Tally,2004,p.7).

ContextalsoplayedabigpartintheworkofVelézandZuazua,whicharguesthatICTrequiresdigitalliteracyinmanydifferentcontexts:“atrelationshiplevel,atcommunicationlevel,atlearninglevel,atcuriositysatisfactionlevel,atentertainmentandleisurelevel(Machargo,Luján,León,López&Martín,2003;Castellana,Sánchez,Graner&Beranuy,2007;Vélez&Zuazua,2017,p.110).Thisquoteillustratesthatdigitalliteracyinvolvescontext-specificskillsformanydifferentcontexts.

Thepapersinthereviewrefertodifferentkindsofknowledgethatareimportantforbeingdigitallyliterate,includingconceptualknowledge(vanDerMeij,2012),proceduralknowledge(Thorvaldsen,Egeberg,Pettersen&Vavik,2011),andknowledgeaboutinternetsafety(Vélez,Olivencia,&Zuazua,2017).Othersemphasizethatknowledgeisimportanttobedigitallyliteratewithoutspecifyingwhatisimportant.ThisisthecaseofAl-QallafandAl-Mutairi(2016),whoinvestigatedteachers’abilitytodeveloptheirstudents’digitalliteracythroughfocusgroupinterviewsthatevaluatedtheirknowledgeofandabilitytoidentifystudentproblemsthatcouldemergewhenusingblogsintheirteaching(Al-Qallaf&Al-Mutairi,2016,p.530).Similarly,TurculetandTurbule(2015)focusontheknowledgeneededamongteacherstobuildtheirstudents’digitalliteracy.Thispaperdefineddigitalliteracyas



“theabilitytounderstandanduseinformationinmultipleformatsfromawiderangeofsourceswhenpresentedwithadigitaldevice”(Turculet&Turbule,2015,p.348)

andemphasizedthatteachersneedknowledgeaboutboththedigitaltechnologytheyuseintheirteachingandthespecificcontenttheyteachwiththistechnologytobuildthedigitalliteracyoftheirstudents(Turculet&Turbulure,2015).

Somepapersdefinedanduseddigitalliteracyasinvolvingbothskillsandknowledge.vanDerMeij(2012),forexample,arguedthatmanychildrenknowbasicdigitalskillsneededinmodernsociety,suchashowtousetextprocessorsandindependentlysearchandfindinformationontheinternet(vanDerMeij,2012,p.1104).Accordingtothisauthor,suchskillsaresuperficial,fragile,andfarfromsufficient.Instead,suchskillsneedtobecombinedwithconceptualknowledgeabouthowinformationontheinternethasgottenthere,andthatstudentsshouldbeabletoreviewthewebsitestheyvisit“withakeeneyeontheircredibility”(vanDerMeij,2012).

Thorvaldsen,Egeberg,PettersenandVavik(2011)alsoemphasizedthatbeingdigitallyliteraterequiresacombinationofskillsandknowledgeofproceduresindigitalprocesses.Thisstudyinvestigatedstudents’digitalliteracythroughpracticaltests,surveys,andinterviews.Thepracticaltestsinvestigatedthestudents’abilitiestousechatprogramsandothersoftwareprograms,whereastheinterviewsaddressedtheirlevelofknowledgeofhowtoperform“basic”tasksonacomputer,suchasdownloadingmusic,sendingemail,etc.Thisstudytherebybothmeasuredstudents’abilitytoperformtasksonacomputeraswellastheirknowledgeabouttheseoperationsandcapabilityofexplainingthem.

SocialpracticeandclassroomcultureThecategoryentitledsocialpracticeincludespapersthateitherdefineorusedigitalliteracytobroadlyrefertostudents’and/orteachers’practiceswithdigitaltechnologiesinsocialcontextsorfora.OneexampleofthisisMartyetal.(2013),apaperthatdidnotdefinedigitalliteracyexplicitly,butinvestigated

“whatdigitalliteracyskillsstudentsemployastheyengageinscientificinquiryactivitiesininformallearningenvironments”andhow“involvingstudentsasactiveparticipantsintheirownscienceeducationhelpsencouragetheuseofdigitalliteracyskills”(Martyetal.,2013,p.416).



Focusingonstudents’inquiryactivitiesandhowstudentsparticipateintheireducation,thisstudytherebyinvestigateddigitalliteracyasasetofsocialpracticeswithineducation.ThestudybyVelézandZuazua(2017)isanotherstudywithoutadefinitionofdigitalliteracy,butthatnonethelessexamined3rd-6thgraders’socialbehaviorontheinternetandwiththeirmobilephonesasanindicationoftheirdigitalliteracy.Theseusagesofdigitalliteracytherebyemphasizethatitisrelatedtothepracticesofagroupofpeopleusingtechnology.

Somepaperswithinthiscategoryexplicitlydefinesocialpracticeasakeyelementofdigitalliteracy,e.g.,Tran(2016).Inthispaper,digitalliteracyinvolved“meaningmakingandparticipatinginsocialpracticesaroundvariouskindsofdigitaltexts”(Tran,2016,p.213).ThisisalsothecaseinthestudyofBhatt,DeRoockandAdams(2015)thatconceptualizeddigitalliteracyas

“ashiftinmind-setfromonewhichperceivesliteraciesassimplymore‘technologized’duetonewmedia,toonethatacknowledgesthemasradicallyre-shapingandre-organizingsocieties”(Bhatt,DeRoockandAdams,2015,p.480).

ThispointisalsofoundinUnderwood,ParkerandStone(2013)whoarguedthatinformallearningcontextsenabledstudentstolearn

“howtocoordinatetheirworkactivityinacomplementarymannerandhowtoincorporateeachother’sideasproductivelywithincreasingtactanddiplomacy”(Underwood,Parker&Stone,2013,p.490).

EthicsThiscategoryincludespaperswithadefinitionofdigitalliteracythatfocusesonethicalintegrity,responsibility,andprincipleswhenusingdigitaltechnology.Thisis,forexample,thecaseofFernandez-Montalvo,Penalva,Irazabal&Lopez-Goni(2016),forwhominformingstudentsaboutcyberbullyingandhowtodealwiththesekindsofsituationismentionedasanimportantpartofbuildingthedigitalliteracyofprimaryschoolstudents.AstudyofMerchant(2007)alsoemphasizedthatdigitalliteracyincludesto

“learnaboutthepower,responsibilitiesandethicalconsiderationsthatcomeintoplayincommunicativesettings.(...)examineandcritiquediscoursesthatrelatetowidersocialissues,power



relationships,prejudicesorinequities”(Merchant,2007,p.123)

Anotheraspectthatappearedasanethicalelementofdigitalliteracywasinternetsafety.Oneofthestudiesstressedthateducationalsystemsholdaresponsibilitytotrainstudentsinhowtonavigatesafelyontheinternet(Ybarra,Mitchell,Wolak&Finkelhor,2006)andanotherpaperdefineddigitalliteracyasfirstandforemostrelatedtothis,namelyas“asafeandresponsibleuseoftheinternet”(Fernandez-Montalvo,Penalva,Irazabal&Lopez-Goni,2016,p.1).

CriticalthinkingThepapersinthiscategoryassociatedigitalliteracywiththeabilitytocritically,safely,and/orprofessionallynavigateinatechnology-richinformationsocietyinschoolcontexts.Definitionswithinthiscategoryofteninvolvesomeoftheskillsortheknowledgementionedabove(oracombinationthereof)buttendtoemphasizethatbeingdigitallyliterateistheabilitytoconvertandcombinetheminareflectiveandcriticalpractice.

OneexampleofpaperswithinthiscategoryisMartyet.al.(2013).Thispaper,buildingonHobbs(2011),defineddigitalliteracyasinvolvingtheabilitytoanalyze,evaluate,andcriticallyengagewithtechnologyinlearningenvironments(Martyet.al.,2013).AnotherexampleofthisviewisPianfetti(2001),whichsuggestedthatdigitalliteracyincludestheabilityto“processinformationfromavarietyofsourcesandformatssothatshemaybeabletodrawherownconclusionsandcreateherownknowledge”aswellascriticalknowledgeofhowtoassembleandproducedigitalproducts(Pianfetti,2001,p.256).ToscaandEjsing-Duun(2017)isalsoplacedinthiscategory.Theseauthorsdefineddigitalliteracytoincludetheabilitytoappropriatelyusedigitaltechnologiestoevaluate,synthesize,evaluate,andconstructnewknowledge,whileatthesametimebeingabletoreflectuponthisprocess(Tosca&Ejsing-Duun,2017,p.241-242).

Thesectionsaboveclearlyreflectsthealready-knownfactthatdigitalliteracyisusedanddefinedinnumberofdifferentways.Besidesreinforcingthisfact,thesectionhasillustratedthatthesedifferencescanbedescribedineightdifferentcategorieswithwhichdigitalliteracyisassociated.Asalreadymentioned,westressthatthecategoriesarenotmutuallyexclusive,butareanalyticaldistinctionsdevelopedtoseparatethecontentofthedefinitionsfromoneanother.Somepapersdoincludebothethicsandcommunicationorothercombinations.Aswewillarguelater,wesuggestconceptualizingthedifferencesamongthecategoriesinamoregeneralway.Theadvantageofthisapproachisthatsucha



conceptualizationmakesroomformoreanddifferentcategoriesofdigitalliteracythantheoneswehaveidentifiedintheempiricalcorpusofthisreview.Beforethis,wewill,however,turntothesecondpartoftheresearchquestion:thereasonswhyweseesuchvarietyinthedefinitionsandusagesofdigitalliteracy.

Nodefinition/nousageInthesectionabove,wedistinguishedbetweenhowdigitalliteracywasdefinedandhowitwasused.Wemakethisdistinctionbecauseasubstantialnumberofthepaperseitheraddresseddigitalliteracywithoutdefiningitordefineddigitalliteracyinonewaybutuseditinanother.Usageofthetermdigitalliteracydothereforenotnecessarilyimplymadefinitionofit.Infact,in20ofthe55papersinthisreview,digitalliteracyappearedineitherthetitle,abstract,orkeywordswithoutbeingdefinedinthetext.Insomecases,thelackofadefinitioncouldbeduetothemarginalrolethattheconceptplayedinthestudy.ThiscouldbethecaseinOwston,Wideman,RondaandBrown(2009),whomeasuredwhethergamedevelopmentcouldimprovethemotivationandengagementofprimarystudents.Here,digitalliteracyappearedasafinding,astheauthorsstatethattheir“(...)projectclearlygavestudentsextendedopportunitiestodevelopdigitalliteracyskills”(Owston,Wideman,Ronda&Brown,2009,p.987)andtherebynotasakeyaspectoftheresearchobject.Suchcaseswereuncommon,however,andevenstudieswheredigitalliteracyplayedapivotalrolesometimesdidnotincludeadefinitionoftheterm.ThisisthecasewithHostoveckyandStubna(2012),whichdevelopedacourseforprimarystudentswiththeprimaryaimofdevelopingtheirdigitalliteracy.Inspiteofthisaim,thepaperdidnotincludeadefinitionofdigitalliteracyandthemethodologysectionmerelystatedthataquestionnaireconsistingof23questionsregardingphysicsandcomputersciencewasansweredbyteachers(Hostovecky&Stubna,2012).

Thislackofdefinitionscreatesawidearrayofusagesofdigitalliteracythatoftenhasnotheoreticalfoundation.Aswewillargueinthefollowingsection,wehaveidentifiedtwomainstrandsintheresearchpapersthatdonotdefinedigitalliteracy.Werefertotheseastacitreplacementsandtacitdefinitions.Thetermtacitreplacementreferstopapersinwhichthetermdigitalliteracyappearsinthetitle,abstract,asakeyword,orinitiallyinthebodytext,butsubsequentlyisreplacedwithanothersimilarterm(suchasICTliteracy).Thetermtacitdefinitionsrefertopapersthatdon’tdefinedigitalliteracy,butwheredigitalliteracynonethelessistransformedintoaresearchdesignthatstillinvestigatesormeasuresthedigitalliteracyofagroupofpeopleinaspecificway.Inthefollowingsection,wegive



examplesofhowthesephenomenaappearinthereviewedpapersandelaborateontheissuesrelatedtothem.

TacitdefinitionsThoughdigitalliteracyisnotnecessarilydefined,somestudiesdidnonethelessspecifymethodologicalapproachestoinvestigatethedigitalliteracyofagivengroupofpeople.Werefertothisphenomenonastacitdefinitions,becausethechoicesandthereflectionsbehindtranslatingthetermdigitalliteracyintoaconcreteresearchdesignremainstacit.ThisisthecaseofastudybyCiampa(2017),whoinvestigatedthreeteachers’useoftechnologyintheirteachingfordevelopingtheirstudents’digitalliteracy(Ciampa,2017).Withoutdefiningdigitalliteracy,theauthorexplainedhowfieldnotesfromclassroomobservations,teachers’reflectionblogs,andstudentproductsampleswereusedtogeneratethefindingthatateacher

“providedherstudentsreal-worldpurposesforwritingevenastheydevelopedtheirwriting,digitalliteracy,andmathematicalreasoningskills”(Ciampa,2017,p.102)

Thelackofadefinitionofliteracymakesituncleartothereaderhowexactlytheconcernedteachermanagedtodevelopherstudents’digitalliteracy,andwhatthisinvolves.

AnotherexampleofthisphenomenonisfoundinastudybyLovinandLambeth(2014).Theirresearchinvestigatedtheimpactofanonlinelearningcoursewiththepurposesofimprovingthedigitalliteracypracticesofprimaryschoolstudents.Despitethispaperfocusexplicitlyondigitalliteracy,thetermisonlyvaguelydescribedinthefollowingway:

“Visualdigitalcommunicationisonefacetofdigitalliteracythatisparticularlyvaluableinart,asstudentsneedtheabilitytointerpretvisualimagesandapplythemtotheirartproducts.”(Lovin&Lambeth,2014,p.15)

Thisvaguedefinitionofdigitalliteracyisthenoperationalizedintospecificfociforclassroomobservationsofhowstudentslocateartresources,howtheydiscussinanonlineforum,andthelike(Lovin&Lambeth,2014,p.19).

Pombo,CarlosandLoureiro(2015)alsodidnotdefinedigitalliteracybutdevelopedaquestionnaireabouthowoftenteachersuseICTintheirpreparationsofclasses,whichisusedasameasureoftheteachers’levelofdigitalliteracy(Pombo,Carlos&Loureiro,2015,p.21-24).



Oneoftheissuesemergingwhenresearchersareoperationalizingaconceptintoaresearchdesignwithouthavingdefinedthisconceptisthatthedefinitionofdigitalliteracyatbestremainsimplicitandcanonlyberetrievedfrominterpretingthemethodologicalinstruments.Tacitreflectionsofhowitisoperationalizedrepresentagreatthreatinbuildingsolid,research-basedknowledgeaboutdigitalliteracyanditsrelatedissues.

TacitreplacementsThesecondstrandofpapersthatdonotdefinedigitalliteracyarecharacterizedbyreplacingdigitalliteracywithanother,oftensimilar,term.Werefertothiscategoryastacitreplacementsbecausedigitalliteracyinthesecasesistacitlytranslatedintoanothertermwithoutexplanation.Thesetermsincludedigitalmedialiteracy(Machado-Casas,Sánchez&Ek,2014),digitalcompetencies(Perez-Escoda&Rodriguez-Conde,2015),21stcenturyskills(Price-Dennis,Holmes&Smith,2015),DigitalDivide(Machado-Casas,Sanchez&Ek,2014)andICTliteracy(Chang&Tsou,2006;Thorvaldsen,Egeberg,Pettersen&Vavik,2011).Inthesestudies,thetermdigitalliteracyappearedineitherthetitleofthepaper,theabstract,orasakeyword,butanotherconceptwasusedinthebodytext.

ThestudyofMachado-Casas,SanchezandEk(2014)is,forexample,entitled“TheDigitalLiteracyPracticesofLatina/oImmigrantParentsinanAfter-SchoolTechnologyPartnership,”butthetermdigitalliteracyonlyappearedinthetitlewhereasthestudyinvestigatedthedigitaldivideofLatinostudents.Similarly,inthestudyofChangandTsou(2006),theabstractstatedthattheprimaryaimofthepaperwasto“understandthecurrentstatusofthecharacterofdigitalliteracyinTaiwan”(Chang&Tsou,p.191),butdigitalliteracywasreplacedwithinformationliteracyintherestofthepaper.

Thephenomenadescribedaboveconstitutetwopotentialreasonswhydigitalliteracyisanambiguousterm,inthatstudiesofthiskindapplymoreorlessrandomdefinitionsorusagesofthetermthathappenstofitthecontextofthegivenstudy.Thesephenomenaareaprobleminthattheymakeitdifficulttoaccumulateknowledgeofdigitalliteracy,asitisunclearwhattheyreferto.Aswewilldescribeinthefollowingsection,thereisyetanotherpotentialreasonforthevarietyofdefinitionsandusagesofdigitalliteracy,namelyhowthetermisstudiedtheoretically.Inthefollowingsection,wewillillustratehowtheuseofdifferenttheoreticalresourcesimplysubstantialdifferencesinhowtheconceptisdefinedandused.



Theoretical approaches for studying digital literacy practices Thewiderangeofdifferencesinthedefinitionandusageofdigitalliteracyisremarkableconsideringthatthevastmajorityofthepapersdefinethetermbyusingestablishedframeworks,mostfrequentlyLankshearandKnobel(2006;2008),NewLondonGroup(1996),orMartins(2008)(see,forexample,(Gruszczynska,Merchant&Poutney,2013;Burnett,2009;Merchant,2005)).Inthepapers,theseframeworksseldomstoodalone,butwereoftencombinedwiththeoriesoflearning,identitytheories,orsocializationtheories.Inthissection,weshowhowsuchcombinationsofframeworksmayimplythatestablisheddefinitionsofdigitalliteracycanbesubordinatedto,orre-framedwithin,othertheoreticalframeworks.Thistranslatesintoshiftsinhowdigitalliteracyisunderstoodandstudied,whichcontributestobroadeningthevarietyofhowdigitalliteracyisdefinedandusedevenfurther.

AnexampleofthisisastudybyBjørgenandEgstad(2015)thatdrewonLankshearandKnobel’s(2006;2008)definitionofdigitalliteracyasthe

“sociallyrecognizedwaysofgenerating,communicatingandnegotiatingmeaningfulcontentthroughthemediumofencodedtextswithincontextsofparticipation”(Lankshear&Knobel,2006,p.64in:Bjørg&Erstad,2015,p.115)

Intheirstudy,theauthorscombinedthisdefinitionwiththeoriesofidentitytheoryaspositional(Moje,Luke,Davies,&Street,2009)tofocuson“howstudents’conceptionsofdigitalliteraciesandtheirpositionalidentitiesaredefinedacrossschoolandhome”(Bjørgen&Erstad,2015,p.113).Consequently,thispapergaveparticularemphasistostudents’shiftingsenseofagencyindifferentcontexts(inthiscase,schoolandleisure)andviewedthesedifferentcontextsasopportunitiesforexperiencingdigitalliteracypractices(Bjørgen&Erstad,2015).Thisconceptualizingofdigitalliteracyfromacombinationofseveraltheoreticalsourcestherebyopenedtheopportunitytostudydigitalliteracyunderstoodasdifferencesamongstudents’perceptionsofusingtechnologyinanoutside-schoolsetting.Suchastudycanprovideimportantinsightsontherelationbetweenstudents’useoftechnologyindifferentcontexts,butitalsobroadenstheunderstandingofLanskhearandKnobel’s(2006)originaldefinitionofdigitalliteracy.

OtherexamplesarethestudiesbyShinandSeger(2016)aswellasUnderwood,ParkerandStone(2016).Thecommoncharacteristicofthesetwopapersisthattheycombinedtheoriesofdigitalliteracywith



sociologicalperspectivesbasedontheworkofBourdieu(1990;1991).ThestudyofShinandSeger(2016)defineddigitalliteracybasedontheNewLondonGroup(1996)as“thesocialpracticeandfunctionalskillsrelatedtomakingmeaningsindigitalenvironments”(Shin&Seger,2016,p.313).UsingtheworkofBourdieu(1990;1991),ShinandSeger(2016)argued,however,thatdigitalliteracycannotbestudiedinisolationfromtheupbringingandsocialbackgroundoftheindividualstudent.Instead,digitalliteracymustbeconsideredaproductofcultural,social,political,andmaterialcapitalofthestudentandtheirparents(Shin&Seger,2016,311).Therefore,thisresearchisparticularlyinterestedinstudyinghowparentsofthestudentsparticipatedintheirchildren’slearningprocesses,inthiscasedigitalblogpostingsthatwereapartofthecourse.

AlsobuildingonBourdieu(1991),Underwood,ParkerandStonesuggestedthatdigitalliteracypracticesmustbestudiedas“digitalliteracyhabitus’’(Underwood,Parker&Stone,2013,p.483).Accordingtotheseresearchers,adigitalliteracyhabitusbothinvolvedinstrumentalskillsinvolvingvarioustechnologies,suchastheabilityto

“carryoutinternetresearch–howtolocateandgleanrelevantinformationandhowtointerprettheinformationtheyhadcollectedandaccommodateitfortheirownproject”(Underwood,Parker&Stone,2013,p.490)

andtheabilitytocollaborateandnegotiatewithpeersindigitalenvironments(Underwood,Parker&Stone,2013).BuildingonBourdieu(1991),suchahabitusisconsideredcrucialforstudents’futureopportunitiesofperformingwellinacademiccontexts.Theseauthorsalsoarguedthatschoolshaveanimportantroleinequalizinganotherwiseunevendistributionoftheskillsofusingandcollaboratingwithtechnologies,whichtheyconsiderarequirementtoperformwellintheeducationalsystem(Underwood,Parker&Stone,2013).

AnotherexampleofhowdigitalliteracyisframedwithinaspecifictheoreticalframeworkisastudyofCaseyandBruce(2011).Thispapersoughttodevelopapedagogythatsituatesdigitalliteracyasanintegralpartofanotherpedagogybasedonpragmaticeducationalphilosophy(Dewey,1991;1997)entitled“TheInquiryCycle”(Casey&Bruce,2011).ThisstudyinvestigatedthepracticesandwaysofparticipatinginlessonsthatareenabledwhenanapproachcalledInquiryCycleisimplementedinatechnology-richclassroom(Casey&Bruce,2011).ThispaperdrewexplicitlyonbothLankshearandKnobel(2008)andNewLondonGroup’s(1996)definitionofdigitalliteracyas



“activities[that]occurinsocial,culturalandtechnologicalcontexts,andarecreatedandsustainedbycontextualfactors–literacyisasocialproductand,likelanguageitself,isinteractiveanddynamic”(NewLondonGroup,1996in:Casey&Bruce,2011,p.77)

CaseyandBruce(2011)howeverarguedthatthe“InquiryCircle”pedagogyisbasedonprinciplesthatrequireanunderstandingofdigitalliteracywithinpragmaticphilosophy.Therefore,theauthorsdefineddigitalliteracyinthefollowingway:

“Literacyisbestunderstoodthroughtheconceptofparticipation.Literacyenablesparticipation,andnewtechnologiesgiverisetonewformsofparticipation,andhencenewliteracies”(Casey&Bruce,2011,p.78)

Andfurther:

“Digitalliteracyinprimaryschoolsinvolvespupilsandteachersusingdigitaltechnologytoenable,sustainandenrichallaspectsoftheinquirycycleoflearningas:ask,investigate,create,discussandreflect”(Caseyetal.,2009,p.7)

Thisexampleillustrateshowawidely-accepteddefinitionofdigitalliteracycaneasilybeshapedandshiftmeaningwhencombinedwiththeoretically-rootedpedagogicalaims.

Alloftheexamplesabovearewell-suitedtodemonstratethecomplexityoftheresearchliteratureaboutdigitalliteracy.Theyalsohelptoidentifythatthecomplexityregardingthetermdigitalliteracyisnotonlyduetothevarietyofdefinitionsoftheterm.Thecomplexityisalso,andperhapsmoreimplicitly,relatedtothetheoreticalresourceswithwhichestablisheddefinitionsofdigitalliteracyarecombined.

Towards a conceptualization of standpoints in definitions of digital literacy Inthefindingssectionabovewehaveidentifiedabroadvarietyinhowdigitalliteracyisdefinedandusedintheresearchliteratureinthecontextofelementaryandprimaryeducation.Thisfindingisnotneworsurprising,asthetermisoftenexplicitlyreferredtoasambiguousandbroad(Stepic,2013;Aesaert,Vanderlinde,Tondeur&vanBraak,2013;Hagge,2017;Underwood,Parker&Stone,2013;Merchant,2009).Unlikethedominant



perspectiveintheliteratureaboutdigitalliteracy,wedonot,however,thinkthebroadnessandmultiplemeaningsofdigitalliteracyisaproblemthatneedstobeovercome.Onthecontrary,theremightalsobeadvantagesofmakingeffortsinmaintainingandperhapscontinuingtobroadenourperspectivesondigitalliteracy.

Sofar,wehaveidentifiedthreepotentialsourcesofthesevarieties:Thevarioustopicsthatdigitalliteracyisrelatedto,thefactthatdigitalliteracyisoftennotdefinedorsubstitutedwithanothersimilarterm,andthatestablisheddefinitionsofdigitalliteracyarecombinedwiththeoriesfromotherfields.Studiesthatdidnotexplicitlydefinedigitalliteracyrepresentagenuinethreattobuildingaresearch-basedfoundationofknowledgeaboutdigitalliteracy,asitisunclearexactlywhatthetermcovers.Explicitvariationsinhowthetermisdefinedandused,however,enablesresearchtocapturethecomplexityofdigitalliteracyandthemanyactorsandcontextsthatcanberelevanttoincludeinstudiesofthisphenomenon.Suchavarietyindefinitionscontributestostudyingdigitalliteracyfromdifferentanglesusingdifferenttheoreticalresourcesandcanbroadenourknowledgeofwhat,who,andwheredigitalliteracypracticesareperformed.Inordertoinformthechoiceofdefinitionsandusagesofdigitalliteracyforresearch,we,however,believethataconceptualizationoftheopportunitiesathandwouldbebeneficial.Suchaconceptualizationcouldhelpsystematizetheaccumulationofknowledgeandresearchfindingsrelatedtodigitalliteracy.Basedonthevarietyofdefinitionsandusagesoftheterm,wewillthereforeintroduceamodelthatillustrateshowthedefinitionsrelatetooneanother.Thoughthismodelfirstandforemostisbasedonempiricalfindings,itisourhopethatitwillconstitutearoadmapthatcansupportdefinitionsofdigitalliteracyprospectively.

Figure4illustratesamodelconsistingoftwoaxeswithtwopoles.Werefertothesedimensionsasinterpersonal/intrapersonalandtechno-centric/human-centric.Thepurposeofstructuringourfindingsaccordingtothismodelisthatitallowsustomapthedefinitionsandusagesofdigitalliteracyanddescribehowtheyrelatetoeachother.



Figure4.Amodelillustratingtheeightcategoriesplacedinfourquadrantsontheaxesintrapersonal/interpersonalandhuman-centric/techno-centric.

Inthefollowingsection,wewillexplaintheaxesandtheirempiricalfoundationinmoredetail.

Theverticalaxis:thetechno-centric/human-centricdimensionThetechno-centricendoftheverticalaxisrepresentspapersthatinferadefinitionofdigitalliteracyfromwhatnewtechnologyrequiresofaproficientuser.AnexampleofthistypeofdefinitionisfoundintheworkofMerchant(2007)onhowweshouldunderstanddigitalliteracyinrelationtowriting.Inthispaper,hedefineddigitalliteracyas

“writtenorsymbolicrepresentationthatismediatedbynewtechnology.Furthermore,thespecificaffordancesofdigitalliteracycouldbeconceptualizedasaproductofthetechnologicalmeansofitsproductionandconsumption”(Merchant,2007,p.121)

Thelattersentenceespeciallyillustratesthekeyroleofthetechnologyindigitalliteracyandtheunderlyingconceptionthattechnologybringsrelativelypredictablenewchangestowhichwemustadapt.



Thetopendoftheverticalaxisrepresentsahuman-centricperspectiveondigitalliteracy.Thisperspectivedefinesdigitalliteracyasthehumancapacitiesandvaluesweshouldstrivetomaintaininatechnology-richsociety.Thisincludesdefinitionsandusagesofdigitalliteracythatarecloselyconnectedtohowtocommunicateproperlyusingtechnology,howtoavoidcyberbullying,orotherwisemaintainethicallycorrectbehaviorwhenusingdigitaltechnology.AnexampleofsuchadefinitionisfoundintheworkofVélez,OlivenciaandZuazua(2017),whodefineddigitalliteracyandindividual’sabilityto

“buildadigitalidentityinthenetasanindependent,cultivatedanddemocraticcitizen.Digitalliteracyshouldalsotakeintoaccounteveryrelationalprocesslinkedtoconvivialitythattakesplaceinthedigitalworld”(Vélez,Olivencia&Zuazua,2017,p.616)

Thisdefinitionforegroundstheabilitytobuildanidentityinacontextofdigitaltechnologyconviviality,therebyemphasizingthepracticeswithdigitaltechnologyratherthanthetechnologyitself.AnotherdefinitionthatclearlyfallswithinthiscategoryisfoundintheworkofShinandSeger(2016),whodefineddigitalliteracyas“discursivepracticesthatareshapedbyone’ssocial,cultural,andpoliticalaccess(p.311)”.

Thehorizontalaxis:theintrapersonalandinterpersonaldimensionTheintrapersonaldimensionrepresentsdefinitionsandusagesofdigitalliteracyasintrinsiccapabilitiesofindividualsoragroupofindividualsinrelationtodigitaltechnology.Thedefinitionsatthisendoftheaxisoftentendtomeasureorevaluatethelevelofdigitalliteracyagainstapre-definitionofdigitalliteracy(eitherqualitativelyorquantitatively,e.g.,Sun,Wang&Liu,2017;Perez-Escoda,Castro-Zubizarreta&FandosIgado,2016;Pombo,Carlos&Loureiro,2015;Fernandez-Montalvo,Penalva,Irazabal&Lopez-Goni,2016,Thorvaldsen,Egeberg,Pettersen&Vavik,2011;Bjørgen&Erstad,2015).AtypicalexampleofsuchausageofdigitalliteracyisthestudybyMeneses,Fabregues,Rodrıguez-GomezandIon(2012),whoinvestigatedteachers’digitalliteracyfromtheir

“self-reportedcompetenceinsixInternetpractices(i.e.,usingabrowser,downloadingafile,sendinganemail,usinginstantmessagingapplications,publishingontheInternet,andbuildingawebpage”(Meneses,Fàbregues,Rodríguez-Gómez&Ion,2012,p.918)

Inthisway,digitalliteracyismeasuredasaninherentcapabilityoftheindividualteacher.



Theinterpersonalendofthehorizontalaxisdefinesorusesdigitalliteracyasactors’abilitiestoapplytheircapacitiesinaspecificcontextandinrelationtootherpeople.Theinterpersonaldimensiondoesthereforeoftenincludeintrapersonalcapacities,butalwayssubordinatesthesetoaninterpersonalabilityorcontext.Unliketheintrapersonalperspective,paperswithinthisendofthehorizontalaxistendtoexplorativelyinvestigatedigitalliteracypractices,oftenbyusingqualitativemethodssuchasobservationsorotherethnographicapproaches(seee.g.Casey&Bruce,2011;Bhatt,deRoock&Adams2015;Merchant,2009).

Ways forward Themodelaffordsseveraldifferentusages.Beforeaddressingtheusages,wemustmakethepointofdepartureclear.Theaxesareempiricallygenerateddichotomiesthatrepresentpolesandnotacontinuum.Itispossibletochallengethisinfutureresearchandisinbynomeansmeanttobecomprehensive.Besidesdepictingandplacingtheempiricallygenerateddefinitionsandusagesofdigitalliteracy,themodelalsoshowshowdefinitionsarebasedondifferentassumptions,thusmakingitclearthatitisnotatrivialtaskofcomparingtwodigitalliteracyconceptionsbasedondifferentassumptions.Anotherpotentialusageofthemodelisthatitcanassistinidentifyingandarticulatingwhatismeantbythetermdigitalliteracy.Inthisway,themodelallowsresearchfindingsaboutdigitalliteracytoaccumulatewithoutde-legitimizingsomedefinitionsorusagesofthetermoverothers.

AswehaveillustratedinFigure4,themodelleavesuswithfourquadrantsthatrepresentcombinationsofpositionsbetweentheverticalandhorizontalaxes.Themodeltherebyallowsustoplacethepapersinthemodelaccordingtowhichoftheninecategoriestheirdefinitionand/orusageofdigitalliteracyrelatesto,whichwehavealreadydoneinFigure4.

Conclusion Thepurposeofthispaperhasbeentoinvestigatehowdigitalliteracyisdefinedandusedintheresearchliteratureinthecontextofprimaryeducation,andtoidentifyreasonsforthevarietyofdefinitionsandusages.Wehavedescribedthedifferentdefinitionsandusagesofthetermthrougheightcategories.Further,wehaveidentifiedtwomainreasonsforthissubstantialvarietyofusagesanddefinitions,namelyawidespreadtendencyforpaperstonotincludeadefinitionofthetermandthatdigitalliteracyisstudiedfrommanytheoreticalstandpoints.Contrarytotheviewofmanyresearchers,wedonot,however,considerthevarietyofdefinitionsandusagesofthetermtobeanunconditionalproblem.Onthe



contrary,thebroadnessofthecategoriesrelatedtodigitalliteracyillustratethecomplexityofthetermandthemultiplecontextsinwhichitmayappear.Ifthecomplexityremainsimplicit,however,itrepresentsathreattoaccumulatingknowledgeaboutdigitalliteracy.Topreservethecomplexitywithoutsimultaneouslylegitimizingsomedefinitionsoverothers,thispaperpresentsamodelthatcanservethediscussionofwhichaspectsofdigitalliteracyagivenstudycouldbenefitfromfocusingon.Itisourhopethatthismodelcanhelpresearchersandpractitionersinaccumulatingknowledgeaboutdigitalliteracybasedonexplicitandcoherentdefinitionsandusagesoftheterm.

References Aesaert,K.,Vanderlinde,R.,Tondeur,J.,&vanBraak.J.(2013).Thecontentofeducationaltechnologycurricula:across-curricularstateoftheart.EducationalTechnologyResearchandDevelopment,61,1,13.

Al-Qallaf,C.L.,&Al-Mutairi,A.S.R.(2016).Digitalliteracyanddigitalcontentsupportslearning:TheimpactofblogsonteachingEnglishasaforeignlanguage.ElectronicLibrary,34,3,522-547.

AmericanLibraryAssociation(ALA)(2013).DigitalLiteracy,Libraries,andPublicPolicy,ReportoftheOfficeforInformationTechnologyPolicy’sDigitalLiteracyTaskForce,availableat:www.districtdispatch.org/wp-content/uploards/2013/01/2012_OITP_digitalreport_1_22_13.pdf.

Bawden,D.(2001).Informationanddigitalliteracies:areviewofconcepts.JournalofDocumentation,57,2,218-259.

Bhatt,I.,deRoock.R.,&Adams,J.(2015).Divingdeepintodigitalliteracy:emergingmethodsforresearch.LanguageandEducation,29,6,477-492.

Bjørgen,A.M.,&Erstad,O.(2015).Theconnectedchild:tracingdigitalliteracyfromschooltoleisure.Pedagogies:anInternationalJournal,10,2,113-127.

Bourdieu,P.1990.TheLogicofPractice.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Bourdieu,P.(Ed.).(1991).Languageandsymbolicpower.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Brown,S.(2016).YoungLearners’TransactionsWithInteractiveDigitalTextsUsingE-Readers.JournalofResearchinChildhoodEducation,30,1,42-56.

Buckingham,D.(2015).Definingdigitalliteracy:Whatdoyoungpeopleneedtoknowaboutdigitalmedia?NordicJournalofDigitalLiteracy2015,4,21-34.



Bundsgaard,J.,Pettersson,M.,&Puck,M.R.(2014).Digitalekompetencer-Itidanskeskolerietinternationaltperspektiv.Aarhus,DK:AarhusUniversitetsforlag.

Burnett,C.(2009:That'smorelikehowtheyknowmeasaperson:oneprimarypre-serviceteacher'sstoriesofherpersonaland&professionaldigitalpractices.Literacy,43,2,75-82.

Casey,L.,&Bruce,B.C.(2011).ThePracticeProfileofInquiry:ConnectingDigitalLiteracyandPedagogy.E-learningandDigitalMedia,8,1,76-85.

Casey,L.,Bruce,B.C.,Martin,A.,Shiel,G.,Brown,C.,Hallissy,M.etal.(2009).DigitalLiteracy:newapproachestoparticipationandinquirylearningtofosterliteracyskillsamongprimaryschoolchildren.Dublin:CentreforResearchandInnovationinLearningandTeaching,NationalCollegeofIreland.http://hdl.handle.net/2142/9765.

Ciampa,K.(2017).BuildingBridgesBetweenTechnologyandContentLiteracyinSpecialEducation:LessonsLearnedFromSpecialEducators’UseofIntegratedTechnologyandPerceivedBenefitsforStudents.LiteracyResearchandInstruction,56,2,85-113.

Cohen,M.,&Tally,B.(2004).NewMapsforTechnologyinTeacherEducation:AfterStandards,ThenWhat?JournalofComputinginTeacherEducation,21,1,5-9.

Dewey,J.(1991/1938).ExperienceandEducation,inJ.A.Boydston(Ed.)JohnDewey:thelatterworks,1938-1939,vol.13.Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress.

Dewey,J.(1997/1910).HowWeThink.NewYork:Dover.

Dowdall,C.(2009).Impressions,improvisationsandcompositions:reframingchildren'stextproductioninsocialnetworksites.Literacy,43,2,91-99.

Falkner,K.,Vivian,R.,&Falkner,N.(2014).TheAustraliandigitaltechnologiescurriculum:Challengeandopportunity.ConferencesinResearchandPracticeinInformationTechnologySeries,148,3-12.

Fernandez-Montalvo,J.,Penalva,A.,Irazabal,I.,&Lopez-Goni,J.J.(2017).Effectivenessofadigitalliteracyprogrammeforprimaryeducationstudents.CulturaYEducacion,29,1,1-30.

Gilster,P.(1997).Digitalfusion:definingtheintersectionofcontentofcommunications.N.A.Martin&D.Madigan(Eds.),Digitalliteraciesforlearning(p.42-50).London:FacetPublishing.

Grant,M.J.,&Booth,A.(2009).Atypologyofreviews:ananalysisof14reviewtypesandassociatedmethodologies.HealthInformationandLibrariesJournal,26,2,91-108.



Gruszczynska,A.,Merchant,G.,&Pountney,R.(2013)."DigitalFuturesinTeacherEducation":ExploringOpenApproachestowardsDigitalLiteracy.ElectronicJournalofE-Learning,11,3,193-206.

Hagge,J.(2017).ScratchingBeyondtheSurfaceofLiteracy:ProgrammingforEarlyAdolescentGiftedStudents.GiftedChildToday,40,3,154-162.

Higgins,J.P.T.,Green,S.,&TheCochraneCollaboration.(2017).Cochranehandbookforsystematicreviewsofinterventions.Chichester:Wiley-Blackwell.

Hobbs,R.(2011).“EmpoweringLearnerswithDigitalandMediaLiteracy.”KnowledgeQuest39(5):12–17.http://http://aasl.metapress.com/content/r077370r202254m1/.

Hostovecky,M.,&Stubna,J.,&.(2012).Developmentofdigitalliteracyintechnicalsubjectsatprimaryschools.IEEE10thInternationalConferenceonEmergingeLearningTechnologiesandApplications,139-141.

Kinzer,C.K.(2010).FocusonPolicyConsideringLiteracyandPolicyintheContextofDigitalEnvironments.LanguageArts,88,1,51.

Lankshear,C.,&Knobel,M.(2006).Newliteracies:Everydaypracticesandclassroomlearning.Maidenhead:OpenUniversityPress.

Lankshear,C.,&Knobel,M.(2008).Digitalliteracies:Concepts,policiesandpractices.NewYork:PeterLang.

Lotherington,H.,&Ronda,N.S.(2009).GamingGeography:EducationalGamesandLiteracyDevelopmentintheGrade4Classroom.CanadianJournalofLearningandTechnology,35,3.

Machado-Casas,M.,Sanchez,P.,&Ek,L.D.(2014).TheDigitalLiteracyPracticesofLatina/oImmigrantParentsinanAfter-SchoolTechnologyPartnership.MulticulturalEducation,21,28-33.

Macken-Horarik,M.(2009).NavigationalMetalanguagesforNewTerritoryinEnglish:ThePotentialofGrammatics.EnglishTeaching:PracticeandCritique,8,3,55-69.

Martin,A.&Grudziecki,J.(2006).DigEuLit:ConceptsandToolsforDigitalLiteracyDevelopment,5:4,1-19,DOI:10.11120/ital.2006.05040249

Martin,A.(2008).“DigitalLiteracyandtheDigitalSociety.”InVol.30ofDigitalLiteracies:Concepts,PoliciesandPractices,editedbyColinLankshearandMicheleKnobel,151–176.NewYork:PeterLang.

Marty,P.F.,Alemanne,N.D.,Mendenhall,A.,Maurya,M.,Southerland,S.A.,Sampson,V.,Douglas,I.,Schellinger,J.(2013).Scientificinquiry,digital



literacy,andmobilecomputingininformallearningenvironments.LearningMediaandTechnology,38,4,407-428.

Meneses,J.,Fabregues,S.,Rodrıguez-Gomez,D.,&Ion,G.(2012).Internetinteachers'professionalpracticeoutsidetheclassroom:Examiningsupportiveandmanagementusesinprimaryandsecondaryschools.Computers&Education,59,3,915-924.

Guy,M.(2005).Digikids:CoolDudesandtheNewWriting.E-learningandDigitalMedia,2,1,50-60.

Merchant,G.(2007).Writingthefutureinthedigitalage.Literacy,41,3,118-128.

Merchant,G.(2009).Literacyinvirtualworlds.JournalofResearchinReading,32,1,38-56.

Mirian,C.-R.(2016).DevelopingSkillsinDigitalContexts:VideogamesandFilmsasLearningToolsatPrimarySchool.GamesandCulture,11,5,463-488.

Moje,E.B.,Luke,A.,Davies,B.,&Street,B.(2009).Literacyandidentity:Examiningthemetaphorsinhistoryandcontemporaryresearch.ReadingResearchQuarterly,44(4),415–437.

Morgan,H.(2014).FocusonTechnology:EnhancingInstructionandCommunicationwithTwitter.ChildhoodEducation,90,1,75-76.

NewLondonGroup.(1996).Apedagogyofmultiliteracies:Designingsocialfeatures.HarvardEducationalReview,66(1),60–92.

Niemi,H.,&Multisilta,J.(2016).DigitalStorytellingPromotingTwenty-FirstCenturySkillsandStudentEngagement.Technology,PedagogyandEducation,25,4,451-468.

Owston,R.,Wideman,H.,Ronda,N.S.,&Brown,C.(2009).ComputerGameDevelopmentasaLiteracyActivity.Computers&Education,53,3,977-989.

Perez-Escoda,A.,Iglesias-Rodriguez,A.,Sanchez-Gomez,M.C.(2016).Nurturingdigitalcitizenship:TeachersandStudentsFacingDigitalCompetences.4thInternationalConferenceonTechnologicalEcosystemforEnhancingMulticulturality,TEEM2016,631-636,AcmInternationalConferenceProceedingSeries.

Perez-Escoda,A.,Castro-Zubizarreta,A.,&Fandos-Igado,M.(2016).DigitalskillsintheZgeneration:Keyquestionsforacurricularintroductioninprimaryschool.Comunicar,24,49,71-79.



Pianfetti,E.S.(2001).FocusonResearch:TeachersandTechnology:DigitalLiteracythroughProfessionalDevelopment.LanguageArts,78,3,255-262.

Pombo,L.,Carlos,V.,&Loureiro,M.J.(2015).EdulabsfortheIntegrationofTechnologiesinBasicEducation–MonitoringtheAGIREProject.InternationalJournalofResearchinEducationandScience,2,1,16.

Price-Dennis,D.,Holmes,K.A.,&Smith,E.(2015).ExploringDigitalLiteracyPracticesinanInclusiveClassroom.TheReadingTeacher,69,2,195-205.

Purcell,M.(2012).Twittertipsandtricksforyourlibraryandclassroom.LibraryMediaConnection,31(3),46-47.

Ravasco,C.,Brigas,C.,Reis,C.,Fonseca,C.Mateus,J&Cordeiro,U.(2014).ICT´Simportanceinprimaryschools-parentsandstudents'perceptions.ProceedingsofEDULEARN14CONFERENCE7TH-9THJULY,Barcelona,Spain.

Ravasco,C.,Brigas,C.,Reis,C.,Fonseca,C.Mateus,J&Bolota,U.(2015).PerceptionsofICTuseinGuarda'sprimaryschools.ProceedingsofINTED2015Conference2nd-4thMarch2015,Madrid,Spain

Shin,D.,&Seger,W.(2016).Web2.0TechnologiesandParentInvolvementofELLStudents:AnEcologicalPerspective.TheUrbanReview:IssuesandIdeasinPublicEducation,48,2,311-332.

Sun,K.-T.,Wang,C.-H.,&Liu,M.-C.(2017).Stop-motiontoFosterDigitalLiteracyinElementarySchool.Comunicar,25,51.

Thorvaldsen,S.,Egeberg,G.,Pettersen,G.O.,&Vavik,L.(2011).DigitalDysfunctionsinPrimarySchool:APilotStudy.Computers&Education,56,1,312-319.

Tosca,S.,&Ejsing-Duun,S.(2017).Designthinkingandimitationinaneducationalsetting.DigitalCreativity,28,3,240-253.

Turculet,A.&Turbulure,C.(2015).DigitalLiteracyChallengesinthecontextofcontemporaryeducation.Proceedingfromthe11thInternationalScientificConferenceeLearningandSoftwareforEducation,Bucharest,April23-24,2015,346-353.

Tran,K.M.(2016)."HerStoryWasComplex":ATwineWorkshopforTen-toTwelve-Year-OldGirls.E-learningandDigitalMedia,13,212-226.

Tyner,K.(1998).Literacyinadigitalworld.London:LawrenceErlbaumAssociatesPublishers.



Underwood,C.,Parker,L.,&Stone,L.(2013).Gettingittogether:Relationalhabitusintheemergenceofdigitalliteracies.Learning,MediaandTechnology,38,4,478-494.

vanderMeij,H.(2012).E-learninginelementaryeducation.InZ.Yan(Ed.),EncyclopediaofCyberBehavior(pp.1096-1110).Hershey:PA:InformationScienceReference.DOI:10.4018/978-1-4666-0315-8.ch090

Vélez,A.P.,&Zuazua,I.I.(2017).DigitalLiteracyandCyberconvivenciainPrimaryEducation.Procedia-SocialandBehavioralSciences,237,2,110-117.

Vélez,A.P.,Olivencia,J.J.L.,&Zuazua,I.I.(2017).TheRoleofAdultsinChildrenDigitalLiteracy.Procedia-SocialandBehavioralSciences,237,2,887-892.

Ybarra,M.L.,Mitchell,K.J.,Wolak,J.,&Finkelhor,D.(2006).ExaminingcharacteristicsandassociateddistressrelatedtoInternetharassment:findingsfromtheSecondYouthInternetSafetySurvey.Pediatrics,118,4,1169-77.

iMassiveOpenOnlineCoursesiiBringYourOwnDeviceiiiChooseYourOwnDeviceivInternationalComputerandInformationLiteracyStudy,http://www.iea.nl/icilsvThecompletedtableisaccessibleathttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/327395670_Analysis_sheet_of_genbeskrivelser_in_digital_literacyviThisspreadsheetisalsoaccessibleathttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/327395498_Beskrivelser_af_papers

Documents

Digital literacy 171218 - Tidsskrift.dk