Digital competence - Springer Link

Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679 DOI 10.1007/s10639-014-9346-4

Digital competence – an emergent boundary concept for policy and educational research Liisa Ilomäki & Sami Paavola & Minna Lakkala & Anna Kantosalo

Published online: 21 August 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Digital competence is an evolving concept related to the development of digital technology and the political aims and expectations of citizenship in a knowledge society. It is regarded as a core competence in policy papers; in educational research it is not yet a standardized concept. We suggest that it is a useful boundary concept, which can be used in various contexts. For this study, we analysed 76 educational research articles in which digital competence, described by different terms, was investigated. As a result, we found that digital competence consists of a variety of skills and competences, and its scope is wide, as is its background: from media studies and computer science to library and literacy studies. In the article review, we found a total of 34 terms that had used to describe the digital technology related skills and competences; the most often used terms were digital literacy, new literacies, multiliteracy and media literacy, each with somewhat different focus. We suggest that digital competence is defined as consisting of (1) technical competence, (2) the ability to use digital technologies in a meaningful way for working, studying and in everyday life, (3) the ability to evaluate digital technologies critically, and (4) motivation to participate and commit in the digital culture. Keywords Digital competence . Digital skill . School . Pupil . Student

1 Introduction In recent years, digital competence has become a key term in policy-related papers. It is used especially in general discussions on what kinds of skills and knowing people should have in a knowledge society, what to teach young people and how to do so. L. Ilomäki (*) : S. Paavola : M. Lakkala Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki( P.O.Box 9, 00014, Finland e-mail: [email protected] A. Kantosalo Helsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT, University of Helsinki, Helsinki( PO Box 68, 00014, Finland

656

Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679

Nowadays the term digital is used instead of such previously used terms as information and communication technology (ICT) or information technology when talking about technology-related skills. In this new form, the term digital competence still carries the broad meaning of technology skills – but what else?1 Digital competence is a relatively novel term which is not yet well-defined. It appeared first in policy-related documents and papers; and in relatively recent policy papers, such as The OECD’s Definition and Selection of Competencies (OECD 2005), it was not mentioned. But, for example, in Ala-Mutka et al. (2008) and Punie (2007) it was already used, and connected with digital literacy. In an OECD report from 2010, one of the policy recommendations suggested identifying and fostering the development of 21st -century skills and competences, and pointed out that “most of these competences, if not all, are either supported or enhanced by ICT” (OECD 2010, p. 169). Changes in society and culture, based on new technology, have effects on the terms used. It is expected that the content and scope of these terms will continue to change. In the European Commission’s Key Data on Learning and Innovation through ICT at School in Europe 2011 (Eurydice 2011), several terms were used, without any specific definition, to describe the competences students should have: “ICT practitioner skills, including digital and media literacy (eLearning, digital/media literacy, eSkills)” (p. 26). Ala-Mutka et al. (2008) and Ala-Mutka (2011) recommend in their policy-related papers that approaches to terms should be dynamic and regularly revised because of the evolution of technologies and their use in society. The terms are not standardized or clearly defined, not even in quite recent policy papers; in the European Commission’s new reports concerning digital competence this lack of clear concepts was one of the starting points (Ala-Mutka 2011). Digital competence seems to be a ‘loose’ concept: one that is not well-defined, still emerging, with meanings varying based on users from different approaches. There is, however, a need to use the concept in societal discussion and thus to find a common ground for using the same concept by different users. Recently the importance of ‘loose’, historically evolving and future oriented concepts has been recognized in contrast to an old cognitivist idea of well-defined concepts (Engeström et al. 2006). Löwy (1992) introduced the term boundary concept to refer to the importance of imprecise or ‘fuzzy’ terms which are used and constructed in inter-group collaboration in particular. Löwy’s example was the concept of ‘self’ in the history of immunology, which helped various scientific and medical actors to redefine immunology as a discipline. According to Löwy, boundary concepts are close to boundary objects. Star and Griesemer (1989, 393) defined boundary objects as “objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites”. Miettinen (2013) used the concept transdiscursive term to highlight the tension-laden and debated terms which operate in between research and policy making, and are not just crossing disciplinary boundaries in research. In this article, we investigate the phenomenon which is described by the term digital competence but also by its close synonyms: the background, scope, content, change 1

We use concept when speaking about a defined meaning, or an aim for defining a term, and term when speaking about an undefined meaning.


657

and relation to various background domains. For the study, we have conducted a review based on scientific articles in which the phenomenon, digital competence, is investigated. We focus on schools, especially on general education in primary and secondary schools for several reasons: Policy strategies and their educational aims are often targeted at ‘school’ learning. School mainly mean educational levels from one to nine or twelve, depending on the school system in a country, which are administered and regulated by national educational authorities. It is generally assumed that the basic competences that are important for every citizen, including digital competence, should be acquired at school. In vocational education, work-related competences are more specific, including particular competences for using technologies; although policy papers seldom focus on this level. Higher education is less bound by policy regulations and it is often more independent from the national authorities. Digital competence is not a central topic of the curriculum at this level. It appears, furthermore, that the school level is the main object for policy-makers when it comes to learning and teaching digital competence. Our hypothesis is that digital competence is an emerging, broad concept, which connects various domains in that it consists of something from each domain, and which operates as a loosely defined boundary concept (and a transdiscursivte term) amongst policy-makers, practitioners and researchers. It is necessary to aim at a better understanding of the content and scope of digital competence because high-level policy papers emphasize that it is a key competence. Moreover, as it is disseminated to education across national curriculums and monitored world-wide, it is important to understand what is really expected of it. For research, digital competence offers a boundary concept within various domains for investigating interdisciplinary competences and digital technology. In this study, we first describe how digital competence is used in policy papers in order to outline its scope and content in political discourse. Then we review how digital competence and related terms appear in educational research. We analyse, further, how the term connects research in various domains. In the conclusion, we introduce our suggestion for defining digital competence and discuss its scope and use as a boundary concept.

2 Digital competence and related terms in policy papers Digital competence is a strongly political term by nature, reflecting beliefs and wishes about the future skills, thought to be necessary for capable citizens. It has roots in economic competition, an area in which new technologies and knowledge-intensive work are expected to have a major role in the future (Eurydice 2011; OECD 2005; 2010). In A Digital Agenda for Europe (EC 2010), several strategic initiatives were introduced to strengthen the role and use of ICT. Schools and in particular education in general are regarded as key actors in enhancing digital competence. In education the use of ICT is monitored worldwide; as an example, Eurydice’s (2011) data concerning ICT in schools consisted of statistics about how well “digital and media literacy as well as e-skills” (p. 9) are spread across Europe and how national ICT strategies are monitored in various countries. These expectations have created considerable interest within educational policy making and communities of practitioners in grasping what

658


digital competence is; to define it and to adopt and apply it in educational strategies and curricula. The term skills is nowadays often replaced by the term competences, reflecting the need for a wider and more profound scope for issues related to skills: “A competence is more than just knowledge and skills. It involves the ability to meet complex demands, by drawing on and mobilizing psychosocial resources (including skills and attitudes) in a particular context” (OECD 2005, p. 4). Tchibozo (2010) widened the term to include not only internal resources, but also external ones, such as networks of cooperation, documentary resources, and instruments. Moreover, competence means successful behaviour in nonstandardized situations and, for education, it should be measurable (Westera 2001). Another reason for using competence instead of the traditionally or more narrowly defined term skill is based on the connection between educational outcomes and assessment practices in general. There is a shift from a contentbased (and knowledge-based) assessment approach to a competence-based approach, focusing on “new skills for new jobs” (Eurydice 2011, p.7). New suggestions for developing qualification and assessment frameworks based on competences have been linked to the demands of globalisation, modernization, and the knowledge society (European Union 2010). Korthagen (2004) suggested that competence-based education, or performance-based as it is also called, serves as a basis for novices because it provides with specific, observable behavioural criteria. However, as Westera (2001) wrote, competence is a confusing term, and, from the research point of view, there is no appropriate and commonly accepted definition of it. Several policy-related organisations have initiated and/or conducted projects to define what kind of understanding of technology people should have. The OECD (The OECD’s Definition and Selection of Competencies, 2005) provided a framework for guiding the longer-term extension of assessments into new competence domains. This framework is used in OECD’s PISA studies. In the framework, the key competences for a successful life and a well-functioning society are classified in three broad categories; these are the abilities to (1) use tools interactively, (2) interact in heterogeneous groups, and (3) act autonomously. The first key competence, “use tools interactively”, seems to come close to what is understood by digital competence. It is defined as the ability to use technology with other people for communication, that is, for working and for playing, which requires an awareness of new ways of using technologies in daily life. An individual should have the ability to make use of the potentials of ICT to change his/her way of working, to access information and to interact with others. The first key competence is, further, divided into three sub-competences, which focus on using (1) language, symbols and texts interactively, (2) knowledge and information interactively, and (3) technology interactively. The European Parliament and the European Council recommended certain key competences for lifelong learning (Eurydice 2011), and the OECD (2010) suggested that governments should try to identify and conceptualise the required set of skills and competences, and then incorporate them into educational standards. In response to these suggestions, several countries have national strategies and are working defining these key competences. Most often ICT is regarded as helping pupils and students to gain at least some of the key competences; in these papers ICT competences are often


659

related to digital competence (Eurydice 2011). As an example, in the curriculum reform in Norway, digital literacy was defined as one of the central competences needed in the future, and the ability to use digital tools was defined as a basic skill (Sefton-Green et al. 2009) and it is also defined as a key competence for teachers, emphasizing the educational perspective (Krumsvik 2008; 2009.) Also for example in Finland, the National Board of Education (2011) in which promoting digital competence is one of the aims for the future. The European Union (2010) has created a detailed framework for key competences for lifelong learning in a knowledge society, one of which is digital competence. It maintains that new technology for schools is needed to ensure basic ICT skills, which are part of digital competence. The authors state that besides basic ICT skills, other aspects have received less attention, such as critical thinking in the use of new technologies and media, safe and responsible use, risk awareness, and ethical and legal considerations. They suggest that these issues should also be explicitly addressed in teaching and learning. In 2011–2012 the European Commission (Ala-Mutka 2011) also had a specific project, Digital Competence (DIGCOMP), to identify the key components of digital competence, and to develop descriptions in order to support a Europeanlevel framework (for the framework, see Ferrari, 2012). In the project’s report, the digital competence areas identified were (1) Instrumental knowledge and skills for digital tool and media usage; (2) Advanced skills and knowledge for communication and collaboration, information management, learning and problem-solving, and meaningful participation; (3) Attitudes to strategic skills usage in intercultural, critical, creative, responsible and autonomous ways. Other institutions and organisations have also been interested in the phenomena that can be described by the term digital competence. These phenomena are, however, often discussed using different terms. Various institutions, consortia and national policy makers have projects seeking to define eligible meanings for competences either in a general sense or for a chosen group, such as teachers or students. The target groups for these consortia are three-fold: policy-makers, educational practitioners and (educational) researchers.

3 Purpose of the literature review In order to arrive at a more precise meaning of the term digital competence, we conducted a review to investigate which terms are used and to see how t the phenomenon of digital competence in school-related peer-reviewed research articles has been described during the years 2005–2013. We consider its content, emergence, and connection to the educational field in particular. In addition, we used the most important policy-related papers, discussed in the previous chapter, to compare the usage of the term in research and policy papers. The research questions of the review are as follows: What is the content of digital competence in education-related studies? Which other terms close to or similar to digital competence are used? What are the background domains for its use? How should the concept of digital competence be defined?

660


4 Method of the review Previous reviews concerning the use of concept have used varying methods. Armitage and Keeble-Ramsay (2009) wrote about making a rapid structured literature review (RSLR) of novel concepts, offering a strategy for dealing with the fragmented ontological and epistemological tensions. By the term rapid structured literature review they meant a process which consisted of conceptualisation (the needs and problem definition), operational aspects (conducting the literature search), and structuring and reporting the RSLR results (reporting). Hulleman et al. (2010) examined whether researchers, focusing on achievement goals, use different labels for the same constructs or put the same labels on different constructs. They conducted a statistical analysis of the concepts, and their results showed that researchers use similar terminology to refer to different underlying constructs. Schoen and Teddlie (2008) investigated the use of concepts school culture and school climate. The authors conclude that the concepts have little substantive difference, but they are from different levels in school, and the concepts have been researched differently in various research communities. Their review was conducted, first, by conceptualising the terms used, and second, by creating a framework for the construction of the concept. The present review has similarities with all three approaches mentioned above: we investigated a phenomenon described by different terms with the same content but also described by the same term for different contents. In addition, we used the idea of a rapid literature review. The research questions were answered by conducting a descriptive review focusing on empirical studies on the subject. The review process consisted of (1) the definition of the research questions; (2) the selection of sources; (3) the choosing of the search terms; (4) the applying of practical screening criteria; (5) the applying of methodological screening criteria; (6) doing the reviews, and (7) synthesizing the results (Fink 2010). 4.1 Search procedures The searches for relevant articles the focused on the phenomenon of digital competence were conducted in two electronic databases: EBSCOhost (the databases Academic Search Complete and Education Research Complete) and ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center). 4.1.1 Search terms The search terms were generated based on (1) the researchers’ own previous understanding on the subject, (2) the terms used in policy papers. As search terms, digital competence and digital skills were used in the first search; digital literacy, ICT skills and ICT competence were added as search terms based on the first articles found. These key terms produced articles in which other terms were also used, such as Internet-skills; media literacy and 21st-century skills. We decided not to use these although they could have produced some results coming close to digital competence. Internet-skills were most often related to ICT skills, media literacy would have widened the focus onto media education which was not the focus of this review, and 21st -century skills also stretches


661

out of technology-related skills. The following search terms and combinations produced results: & & & & & &

Digital competence* (all text), Definition (all text), Education (subject terms) Digital skill* (all text), Definition (all text), Education (subject terms) Digital competence* (all text), Definition(all text), Education (subject terms) Digital skill* (all text), Definition (all text), Education (subject terms) Digital literac* (all text), School (subject terms) Digital literac* (all text), School (subject terms)

4.1.2 Search options The searches were conducted with the following limitations: Peer-reviewed articles, where there was a full-text available, written in English, with a publishing period between January 2005 and February 2013. In the first search procedure we started the search from the year 2000 but digital competence as a term did not appear during the first years of 2000 so we continued the searches from 2005 on. The searches were first conducted in EBSCO databases and, after that, in the ERIC database. The ERIC database did not, however, produce any new articles as results. Altogether 272 articles were found through the search procedures. 4.2 Criteria for inclusion Two criteria were established to narrow the pool of articles generated during the electronic search. The goal in narrowing the pool was to focus on education and on the school level (from primary school to upper secondary school). After the basic searches, all the articles were organised in RefWorks application and duplicates were removed. After that, 245 articles were left for the selection. The summary of the article (and sometimes also the conclusions) was read in order to estimate the relevance of the article. The articles not relevant for the study were excluded. After that, the articles left were read more carefully and again those articles were excluded which were not relevant for clarifying the questions of this study. Altogether 192 articles were excluded, which is partly based on the too wide meaning of the search terms (education, school). These search terms produced a lot of articles in which the focus was not in digital competence. The reasons for excluding an article (with the number of articles excluded and examples of the focus) in the second phase were the following: Societal issues, not education (31; e.g., Internet safety, digital divide); learning in general with technology (22); teacher training, or teachers’ attitudes and knowledge as the main focus (21); focus on literacy, general or specific, without any connection to digital technology (18); technical emphasis, usually one technology introduced and investigated (16); higher education focus (16); learning theories, education or specific pedagogical approaches (8); nonresearch basis of the subject (8; an interview, introduction to articles); media education (7; without referring to digital etc. competence); school, school leader (7); learning environment (7); adult education (5); technology teaching visions

662


(3); a methodological study (2); not available (2); other content (19; e.g., gaming, gifted students). Altogether 63 articles were finally left for the review. The authors also used a few other peer-reviewed journal articles, which they found relevant for the theme. Altogether 7 articles were added with these manual searches. In all, 70 articles were used for the analysis of the review (see Appendix 2). 4.3 Coding The unit of analysis was one article. Each article was analyzed for defining the following features: Terms In each article the terms used for describing digital competence were collected. In many articles several terms were used, and all the variations were collected (Appendix 2). Background The background of the research described in the article was interpreted based on the context and the theories mentioned in the article. Because education was the general background of all the articles, it was not coded. For describing the background, various types of descriptors were first used, such as games and digital divide (specific focuses of the articles) or socio-cultural approach (theoretical approach of the article), but to achieve a more general level of description, the following background categories were defined: Literacy studies, Media studies, Library studies, Technology studies, the Societal approach, and Others. The four first backgrounds were oriented to a theoretical background, the Societal approach was more general. It was used when classifying studies which were related to societal questions, like digital divide or immigrants; they also had a direct connection to policy-issues, often to the knowledge society. The Others represented fields such as, gender studies or science education, or those which were impossible to classify based on their background. A few articles (8) were classified to represent two backgrounds, and the term(s) used were coded in the background mentioned first. Type of article Articles were also classified based on their type. The following types were found: Theoretical, Empirical, A polemic article, A comment (a shorter article representing one opinion), An overview (based on empirical evidence but not a review), A meta-analysis, A Practical article for administration, and A research-based project report (see Appendix 2).

5 Results In the results of the review analysis, we first present the descriptive statistics of the appearance of various terms used in the articles, then the definitions of the term digital competence and its synonyms, and then an interpretative summary of the terms used and their connection to the background domains.


663

5.1 The terms used for describing digital competence The most used term, based on the data of this review, was, first, digital literacy (incl. digital literacies or digital literacy skills) (32), second, new literacies (incl. new literacy skills/practices) (13), third, media literacy (incl. media literacies or media literacy skills), fourth, multiliteracies (incl. multiple literacies) (8), and, fifth, digital competence (incl. digital competencies or digital competency) (7). (Table 1; the complete table is in Appendix 1). Altogether 34 different terms were used; and the distribution was wide. Altogether 17 terms were used only once. First of all, the search procedure revealed that digital competence is a new term in research articles. Based on the searches, the term was used in seven research articles published during the years 2006–2012, and even in these articles, other terms were used. Three of the articles (namely Erstad (2006), Krumsvik (2008) and Beqiri (2010)), had a national policy connection. The use of the term was described only by Erstad (2006), who wrote that digital competence relates both to an ability to operate technological applications and to use technology to accomplish personal and collective needs. Gansmø (2009) argued that digital competence is needed in order to use digital media for learning and for developing a democratic and participatory culture in a knowledge society. For Beqiri (2010), digital competence was part of ICT literacy, the first level of technique. Aznar and González (2010) mentioned that it means the effective use of technology. Adeyemon (2009), Delfino (2011) and Krumsvik (2009) used the term without any description and only once or a few times and as a synonym for some other terms. In Norway, educational policy makers have adopted the term digital literacy for Table 1 Terms used more than once and their background Background of the article Terms used

Literacy Media Library Technology Societal Other In sum

21st-century literacies/-literate

1

21st-century skills

1

computer skills

1

2

1

critical digital literacy

1

critical literacies

1

digital competence/-y/competencies

2

1

2 2

2

1

3

1

6

3

7

5

31

14

2

ICT/and e-learning/literacy

1

1

ICT skills

1

information literacy/literacies

1

media literacy/literacies/+skills

1

multiliteracies/multiple literacies

6

multimodal literacy/literacies

3

new literacies+skills/practices

10

1

1

3

1

3

3

4

5

2

1

2

8 8 3

1

new literacy skills of the 21st century 1 2

2

1

1

digital literacy/literacies/+ skills

technological literacy/-literate

4 1

1

2

13

1

2

1

1

5

664


policy papers (see Erstad 2006; Krumsvik 2009), but digital competence is also commonly used in research articles referring to Norwegian policy papers and strategies (Erstad 2006; Gansmø 2009; Krumsvik 2008, 2009). There was no general, research-based acceptance and justification of terms which refer to competences and skills in using digital technology. The lack of generally accepted terms was commented on by several researchers (Aviram and Eshet-Alkalai 2006; Van Deursen and van Dijk 2009; Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan 2008). Terms also have different backgrounds although their content might be nearly the same (Arnone and Reynolds 2009). Hague and Williamson (2009) wrote that definitions cannot be exact and fixed because of the changing nature of the phenomenon. This lack of theoretical justification results in multiple definitions that ignore the full range of digital skills, focusing only on some limited skills, for example, those that are important for practical purposes to educators and designers (Aviram and Eshet-Alkalai 2006). One reason for the absence of definitions of digital competence is that only a small number of studies focus on measuring phenomena related to digital competence (or digital skills). As van Deursen and van Dijk (2009) noted in their review concerning research about digital skills and Internet skills, the studies are often limited in their definitions, sample sizes and methods of data collection. According to them, there is not enough empirical data to validate the structures and the content of digital competences or skills. Sometimes terms are used narrowly, such as, for example, Internet skills, referring only to a limited area of digital technology. Technology literacy is used by some researchers, connecting traditional literacy to technology (Benson 2008). Some of them expand the scope to media and literacy, such as, for example, media literacy skills, digital literacy, and recently more often to general competences like the term 21stcentury skills. Erstad (2010) as well as Jenkins et al. (2006) investigated the necessary digital skills connected to various participatory cultures. They speak about 21st-century literacy, emphasizing social skills, too. In general, the wide variety of terms in research articles reflects numerous issues: (1) the rapid development of technologies; (2) the emergence of various technologies instead of only “ICT”, such as traditional computers, mobile phones, Internet and cloud services, and games; and (3) different areas of interest, such as library studies or computer science (Arnone and Reynolds 2009; Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan 2008). 5.1.1 Digital literacy as the main synonym for digital competence The term most often used close to digital competence, and often as a synonym, is digital literacy and both the terms can be found in the same article (as examples, see Adeyemon 2009; Delfino 2011; Krumsvik 2008). Also digital literacy is an undefined concept; O’Brien and Scharber (2008) investigated digital literacies and they wrote how that term has a range of meanings including digital media, new technologies, new literacies, or new literacy studies. Digital literacies were explained with phrases such as “using computers”, “critically reading webpages”, and “understanding how to view digital images”. Baird and Henninger (2011) defined digital literacies as the capacity to understand and even create the multi-media, multi-modal texts of digital technologies. One definition for digital literacy, suggested by Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan (2008), connects literacy and media traditions: digital literacy represents a person’s ability to


665

perform tasks effectively in a digital environment. Digital means information represented in a numeric form and primarily used by a computer, and literacy includes the ability to read and interpret media, to reproduce data and images through digital manipulation, and to evaluate and apply new knowledge gained from digital environments (Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan 2008). Also Hague and Williamson (2009) interpreted digital literacy as a kind of “concluding concept” which is a combination of social awareness, critical thinking and knowledge of digital tools. Digital literacy was also described as being based on social connections and interactions. Sefton-Green et al. (2009) explained the term by describing people’s engagements with digital technologies since they mediate many of our social interactions. They wrote, however, that the literacies associated with participation in digital practices and cultures are complex. The authors regarded the term of digital literacy as fundamentally useful but that it needed to be analysed more specifically at the intersection between formal and informal learning domains. Poore (2011) distinguished functional and critical digital literacy: the first one involves finding out how the digital world works in a technical sense, and the second one asks how the digital world works in an anthropological or cultural sense. According to the analysis, digital literacy is often understood in a wide and general way. For example, Erstad (2006) defined it, referring to his previous book (Erstad 2005), as skills, knowledge and attitudes in using digital media to be able to master challenges in a learning society. Aviram and EshetAlkalai (2006) described digital literacy as a combination of technical-procedural, cognitive and emotional-social skills. Similarly, Eshet-Alkali and AmichaiHamburger (2004) gave a broad meaning to the term: they suggested that digital literacy consisted of five major digital skills: photo-visual skills (“reading” instructions from graphical displays), reproduction skills (utilizing digital reproduction to create new, meaningful materials from existing ones), branching skills (constructing knowledge from non-linear, hypertextual navigation), information skills (evaluating the quality and validity of information), and socio-emotional skills (understanding the “rules” that prevail in cyberspace and applying this understanding in online cyberspace communication). In addition, one more skill was added to this list by Aviram and Eshet-Alkalai (2006), that is, real-time thinking skills (the ability to process and evaluate large volumes of information in real time). In some articles, digital literacy was defined from an educational perspective: Krumsvik (2009) stated that digital literacy is a holistic perspective on ICT use in school, and thus, in Norway, digital literacy is implemented in schools as a basic competence for all subjects at all stages in the national curriculum. Erstad (2010) broadened digital literacy to media literacy, suggesting the following aspects of media literacies as part of school-based learning: (1) Basic skills, (2) Media as an object of analysis, (3) Knowledge building in subject-domains, (4) Learning strategies, and 5) Digital Bildung/Cultural competence. This kind of approach seems to describe studies which have a connection to national educational policies (e.g., Beqiri 2010). Digital literacy is also connected to 21st-century skills (Adeyemon 2009). Digital literacy was, however, also used in a narrow meaning, consisting mainly of some basic ICT skills and skills in using the Internet (Meneses and Mominó 2010). Lotherington and Ronda (2009) spoke about digital meta-literacies skills and defined them as skills which include navigating and ‘reading’ digital environments as well as developing an understanding of digitally-connected audience, and searching for information online.

666


The other terms found in the reviewed articles are more clearly connected to background domain and will be discussed in the following chapters. 5.2 The background domains of and synonyms for the term of digital competence From the analyses, four basic domains emerged which were somehow connected to the phenomenon of digital competence: literacy studies (35 articles), a societal approach (14), media studies (12), library studies (6), and technology studies (4). Backgrounds such as gender studies, philosophy, science education, or articles for which the background was undefined were classified into Others (6). Seven articles were classified into two background categories. (The distribution of terms and backgrounds is presented in Appendix 1). Many of the terms concerning digital competence are used in articles of several backgrounds, especially digital literacy, which is used in all background categories. 5.2.1 Literacy studies as a background domain In the searches, the majority of articles which had their background in literacy were influenced by “new literacies”, meaning the way in which technology changes reading and especially writing, and The New London Group (1996) was often mentioned as the main background for these articles. These articles did not focus specifically on technology but on the need to include some technology skills in writing competence. The most often used terms were new literacies (13) and multiliteracies, including multiple literacies (8). One way of defining the term was to broaden the traditional term of literacy and investigate what kind of new features digitalism brings to the content of literacy. Hague and Williamson (2009) referred to Bazalgette (2008), who suggested that literacy should be redefined for the requirements of the 21st−-century. Carrington (2005) regarded the change from printed text to digital “texts” as a profound change that also concerned people’s participation in an open and interactive literacy culture. Leu et al. (2004) suggested principles for the new literacies, and all these were additions to traditional literacy (e.g., the transactional relationship between literacy and technology); they also expanded literacy to education (e.g., learning is often socially constructed within new literacies). Information skills as well as communication skills were suggested as additions to literacy. Leu et al. (2004) argue that the new literacies of the Internet and other ICTs allow one to identify important questions, locate information, critically evaluate the usefulness of information, synthesize information to answer those questions, and then communicate the answers to others. Kitson (2011) described multiliteracies as drawing together two other areas of change: multimedia and technology and the range of semiotic systems, and, moreover, cultural and linguistic diversity. Walsh (2008) described multimodal texts as a combination of the traditional literacy strategies of reading and writing and the new technologies. Gomez et al. (2010) described the new literacy skills “as the ability to negotiate meaning across numerous texts or combine technologies to construct new meanings” (p. 21–22). Merchant (2007) emphasized the “written (symbolic) presentation at the heart of any definition of digital literacy” (p.121), which is then mediated by new technology. He


667

defended this approach with examples of new technologies which, although strongly visual, also incorporated a strong element of writing. Multimodality is an essential characteristic of digital literacy, as is the context within which it is created and used. Merchant continued by introducing the term critical digital literacy with which he emphasized the responsibility to provide the young with the tools and understanding to interpret the constructed nature of popular culture and to investigate it critically (see also Hague and Williamson 2009). Hague and Williamson (2009) presented a research-based but practically oriented definition which connects digital literacy to literacy but expands it to “the reading and writing of digital texts” (p.5). In this sense, digital literacy means the functional skills required to operate and communicate with technology and media. Several researchers emphasized that digital literacy should not be about replacing existing literacies: reading, writing and numeracy are crucial skills for full participation in a digital society (e.g., Burns 2008). Moran et al. (2008) investigated whether digital technologies can affect the acquisition of advanced reading skills. 5.2.2 Media studies as a background domain In the articles reviewed, media studies (and media education) were essential contents and backgrounds of digital competence. Some of the articles received by the searches were probably in between literacy and media, for example Erstad’s (2010) and Poore’s (2011) case studies describing students’ digital video production; Poore even mentioned the two overlapping backgrounds. The most often used term was media literacy/ literacies/+skills (5). Lee (2010) focused on the terms and contents of media literacy and defined the competences in the 21st -century for a media literate person: “1) To be aware of the influence of the media on individual’s life and on the society as a whole, 2) Understand the operation of the media and the techniques used by the media, 3) Media analytical skills, 4) Critical appreciation of the media, 5) Learn through the media, 6) Creative expression, 7) Monitor and influence the media, 8) Practice media ethics as responsible prosumer (People in the age of Web 2.0 are both media producers and consumers so they need to practice media ethics when they are engaged in media production), 9) Wisely and constructively apply what has been learned from the media to everyday life” (p. 3). Hug (2011) discussed the need for defining media and visual literacies and competences. He criticized “the language-theoretical roots” (p. 10) of media and literacy competences and regardedas important the “aspects of educability, orientation and the ability to act appropriately in a given situation” (p. 10). Studies with a media background have some specific interests, like visual literacy as one form of new content, but it was connected to traditional media education (Lin and Polaniecki 2008). Ryberg and Dirckinck-Holmfeld (2008) focused on conceptualising and analysing learning as a process of patchworking and they investigated the ways in which “Power Users” use digital media. Researchers concluded that the skills of highly ICT-literate young people in a learning context was not restricted only to media literacies but they also exhibited reflective and critical abilities, and they had complex competences in terms of work processes integrating the “form” to the “content or substance”.

668


5.2.3 Library studies as a background domain The library study background and the literacy study background are difficult to separate; the authors of these background domains use the same terms and speak about the same phenomena (see Arnone and Reynolds 2009; Kiili, Laurinen, and Marttunen 2009). The common issue is to widen information skills (in library studies) towards (critical) literacy skills (in literacy studies), and vice versa. Adeyemon (2009) also connected information skills to digital competence. Terms related to library science have emphasized information skills, or more recently information and digital literacy skills (Arnone and Reynolds 2009). These skills have also become more popular among educators because of the complexity of information on the Internet (van Deursen and van Dijk 2009; Kiili, Laurinen, and Marttunen 2009). In addition, a good example of the analysis of this complexity is a study by Brand-Gruwel, Wopereis and Wermetten (2005), which analysed the Internet search procedures of experts and novices. The term Internet skills focuses on the use of various Internet functionalities: these skills have both a technical orientation and often also a knowledge orientation. As Kiili, Laurinen, and Marttunen (2009); they use Internet reading) state, it is not enough to have technical Internet skills, although the use of the Internet as a source of information is a basic skill. In their study, the focus was on finding, reading and evaluating information as well as planning one’s own performance based on relevant information in the Internet. 5.2.4 Technology studies as a background domain Technology-based and technology-oriented terms have their origin in computer science and/or technology education in general. The terms used in the articles were digital literacy, digital skills, ICT-skills, Internet skills and technological literacy. These terms were previously used widely among educators, researchers and practitioners as well as policy makers, but nowadays there is less interest in purely technical skills, and technology-based and technology-oriented terms describing general competences are diminishing in research papers. If such terms are used, authors at least refer to a wider context, like media or education. Technology literacy was used in a study for creating a test for measuring technology skills among students (Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt, and Barron 2010). The content of the test in the study was defined to focus on the following: (1) Software Use and File Manipulation, (2) Ethics, Safety and Acceptable Use, (3) Graphics, Presentation, and Video Editing, (4) Spreadsheets, (5) Browser Use and E-mail, and (6) Word Processing and Flowcharts. In research articles on other backgrounds, technology or computer-related terms were also used. Selwyn and Husen (2010) spoke about technology competence, and argued that the good use of information and communication technology (ICT) was an essential ‘life skill’ for individuals as they grow up in an ‘information society’. Delfino (2011) reported concrete computer skills as part of wider digital literacy/competence. Gansmø (2009) wrote about the general aim to provide all pupils with digital competence, and presented the results of concrete ICT skills and use. She referred to studies in 2004–2008, which obviously used the terms computer skills/ICT skills and focused mainly on technical skills.


669

5.2.5 Societal approach: Digital competence and 21st- century skills A wide variety of terms were used in the articles categorized in the Societal approach: several of these were connected to national policies or to societal issues in general, such as Greenhow et al. (2009), who investigated low-income students’ access, use, activities, and capacity for using the Internet, and Levy (2009), whose study was connected to the national curriculum work. The term 21st-century skills/competences is quite close to digital competence, and its background is similarly in societal (or policy) needs for defining, and improving, core competences in a rapidly changing knowledge society (Annetta et al. 2010). However, as Jenkins et al. (2006) suggested, its scope is wider and different than digital competence, and they defined them as skills that enable participation in the new communities emerging within a networked society.

6 Discussion and conclusions In this study we investigated the emergence of the phenomenon digital competence. It is a relatively recent term, and has originated in a societal need for defining core competences for a knowledge society. The term was first used in policy-related papers, later it has also appeared in educational research publications, but only quite recently and only in a few research articles, often connected to policy aims and strategies. The vagueness in and the contradictions between the uses of the term in policy contexts was the impulse for choosing digital competence as the main term of this study. 6.1 The background of digital competence The four background disciplines all bring some elements to the term, which is not itself directly connected to any single discipline. The emergence of the concept occurs in the transaction between various thematic contexts but also between actors of various work cultures, which have different traditions and focuses. These four main backgrounds of competence bring digital competence close to 21st -century skills, which, however, also focus on skills and competences other than just digital ones. Figure 1. connects the four backgrounds and the basis for the phenomenon as well as the terms most frequently used in the reviewed articles. The exact place of each term is not the main concern. The most important point is how we interpret the position of digital competence in connection with the background disciplines. 6.2 Digital competence as a potential boundary concept Digital competence is a potential boundary concept (and a “boundary phenomenon”) in two ways: First, it has elements from different disciplines: literacy and library studies, media studies, and technology studies, which are complementary to its content. Second, as a concept it lives – and was introduced first – particularly in policy- and practice-related papers and discussions, and only later did it appear in research papers. It is seldom defined in an exact way, and various actors give a somewhat different meaning to it, but it is explicit enough to initiate general and collaborative discussions between various cultures, as Löwy (1992) argued about

670


TECHNOLOGY STUDIES

MEDIA STUDIES

ICT skills (2) Computer skills (2)

Media literacy (8)

ICT and e-learning literacy (2)

Multimodal literacies (3) Critical digital literacy (2)

DIGITAL COMPETENCE (7)

Technological literacy (5)

Digital literacy (31) Multiliteracies (8)

Information literacy (4)

New literacies (13)

LITERACY STUDIES

LIBRARY STUDIES

21st century literacies (4)

21st century skills (2)

SOCIETAL APPROACH

Fig. 1 Digital competence, background disciplines, related terms and the number of articles in which the term was used

boundary concepts: they must be imprecise and open enough to allow people from different traditions to join in their use. The term as such seems to be relevant because it widens the narrower terms used earlier and integrates essential elements into a new term better suited for current phenomena. It is expected that digital competence will continue to live in particular in policy-related papers, because important international actors have used it in their strategies. Other actors, like national policy-making organizations will probably apply the same term. Practice-related research will, plausibly, follow this trend: for example in the latest conference of the European Association for Research and Learning in 2013 there was a symposium titled Assessing Digital Competence in National and International Contexts (Mendelovits 2013). In the symposium, the presenters used various terms (e.g., information literacy, ICT literacy, digital competence) and all the presentations were closely connected to policy aims, reporting of policy-related results. In this sense, the term, even in a research context, is still closely connected to policy aims. The potential of digital competence to function as a boundary concept will strengthen in the future if it can facilitate collaboration and discussion between various cultures. 6.3 The content and definition of digital competence There will hardly be any final and single definition for digital competence because of the various points of view surrounding it and because of the rapid changes in the technologies and society. As an interpretation and summary for connecting the different approaches based on the articles reviewed, we suggest the following definition of digital competence: Digital competence consists of the skills and practices required to


671

use new technologies in a meaningful way and as a tool for learning, working and leisure time, understanding the essential phenomena of digital technologies in society as well as in one’s own life, and the motivation to participate in the digital world as an active and responsible actor. For the definition, we kept in mind Westera’s (2001, p. 13) note about competences: “the only determinants of human abilities are possessing (knowledge), feeling (attitudes), and doing (skills)”. According to our definition, digital competence consists of the following elements: 1. Technical skills and practices in using digital technologies, which is a central basis for digital competence. This first aspect is close to technology studies. 2. Abilities to use and apply digital technologies in a meaningful way and as an appropriate tool for working, studying and for various activities in everyday life in general. This second aspect integrates all the four disciplines, but goes beyond them to include various everyday activities and tasks. The emphasis is strongly on knowledge-related skills and competences, which integrate information and digital literacy competences. 3. Abilities to understand the phenomena of digital technologies. This aspect similarly integrates all the background disciplines. This means an understanding of the ethical issues, the limitations and challenges, and the critical use of the various technologies, but also the very recent interests in understanding computational thinking or the principles of robotics. 4. Motivation to participate and engage in the digital culture. This domain goes, again, beyond the background disciplines and has an orientation towards attitudes as well as social and cultural issues; it is based on the ideas of the previous three elements, which then also create the motivation to participate, and engage. This also has a societal aspect: digital culture as part of a democratic society, as Gansmø (2009) suggested.

6.4 Practical and scientific implications of the results One fundamental question is, of course, how to define digital competence. Our suggested definition includes an implicit approach for practical educational applications: digital technologies should be included in a ubiquitous way in all learning and teaching. Using technology is not a specific “content” to be learnt but a didactic approach to be applied in various school subjects. In many articles reviewed, it was emphasized that skills related to using technology should not be seen narrowly; therefore, the methods for learning these skills require practising them through complex, challenging and “authentic” activities. Digital competences develop in problemoriented, technology-rich and long-term settings where technology is used in a meaningful context, and various technological tools are used in integrated ways. The efforts to define measurable competences have led to serious problems, as Korthagen (2004) and Westera (2001) have pointed out. Referring to Westera (2001), it is highly questionable if strict definitions for measuring competences are useful at all, because competences are not measureable, for instance if we think of them as consisting of successful performance in novel, ill-defined situations and not only in some concrete tasks.

672


It is obvious that the concept of digital competence should not be defined in too narrow a way in order to capture the wideness of the influence of new technology in society. In addition, it should not be defined too strictly from the technology perspective because of the rapid changes in technology. Recent changes, such as mobile and cloud services change the ways in which technology is used, including its use in education. An implication of our results for research should be to clarify the definition of the concept, and figure out the best ways to learn digital competence in order to produce research-based evidence for educational practitioners. Acknowledgments The first version of this article wais based on work in the LINKED project (Leveraging Innovation for a Network of Knowledge on Education), co-ordinated by the European Schoolnet and funded by the European Commission. The first author had a scholarship from the Finnish Cultural Foundation for finalizing the article.

Appendices Appendix 1 Table 2 Terms found, the number of terms and their background Terms


21st-century literacies/-literate

1

21st-century skills

1

changing literacy practices

1

1

2

4 1

computer literacy

1

computer skills

2 1

1

1 1

2

1

2

critical digital literacy

1

critical literacies

1

1

digital age literacies

1

1

digital competence/-y/competencies digital fluency

2

1

3 1

digital literacy/litercies/+ skills

14

digital meta-literacies

1

2

3

7 1

1 1

ICT competence 1

information competence 1

2

1

1 2 0

1

3

4

1

1

1

1

Internet-skills media competence

1

1 1 1

information skills Internet reading

31 1

functional digital literacy

information literacy/literacies

1 5

1

digital skills

ICT skills

7 1

digital information literacy

ICT/and e-learning/literacy

1

1

1 1

1 1


673

Table 2 (continued) Terms


media literacy/literacies/+skills

5

multiliteracies/multiple literacies

6

multimodal literacy/literacies

3

new literacies+skills/practices

10

2

1

2

8 8 3

1

2

13

new literacy skills of the 21st century 1

1

new media writing

1

1

on-line literacy skills

1

technology competence technological literacy/-literate

2

1

1

1 1

1

1

5

Appendix 2 Table 3 Articles, terms used, background and type of article Article

Terms used

Backgrounds

Type of article

Adeyemon (2009).

Digital literacy, digital competency, 21st century litercies

Library

Empirical

Annetta et al. (2010)

21st century skills

Other: Science education

Empirical

Arnone and Reynolds (2009)

Multiple literacies, information literacies, digital literacy

Library

Empirical

Aviram and Eshet-Alkalai (2006)

Digital literacy skills

Literacy

Theoretical overview

Aznar and González (2010)

Digital competence, information competence

Media

Empirical

Baird and Henninger (2011)

Digital literacies

Literacy

Empirical

Benson (2008)

Technological literacy, multiliteracies

Literacy

Empirical

Beqiri (2010)

ICT and e-learning literacy, digital competence

Societal

Practical for administration Empirical

Braasch et al. (2009)

New literacy skills

Literacy

Brass (2008)

21st-century literacies

Literacy

Empirical

Bulfin and North (2007)

Changing literature practices

Literacy

Empirical

Burnett et al. (2006)

ICT skills, new literature practices

Literacy

Empirical

Burns (2008)

New literacy practices

Literacy


Capuano and Knoderer (2006)

Digital age literacies, twenty-first century skills, technological literacy, information literacy

Literacy

Empirical

Carrington (2005)

Digital literacies

Literacy

A comment

674


Table 3 (continued) Article

Terms used

Backgrounds

Type of article

Lin and Polaniecki (2008)

Media literacy skills

Media

Empirical

Coiro and Dobler (2007)

New literacies

Literacy

Empirical

Delfino (2011)

Digital competences, digital literacy, computer skills

Media

Empirical

van Deursen and van Dijk (2009)

Digital skills, Internet skills

Technology

Empirical

Domine (2011)

Media literacy

Media

An overview

Erstad (2006)

Digital literacy, digital competence

Societal

An overview

Erstad (2010)

Media literacy, digital literacy

Media, Literacy

An overview

Eshet-Alkali and Amichai-Hamburger (2004)

Digital literacy

Literacy

Empirical

Gansmø (2009)

Digital competence

Other: Gender studies

A polemic article

Glewa and Bogan (2007)

Digital fluency

Literacy

Empirical

Gomez et al. (2010)

New literacy practices

Literacy

Empirical

Graff and Labbo (2009)

New literacy skills of the 21st century,

Literacy, Societal

A comment

Greenhow et al. (2009)

Digital information literacy

Societal

An overview

Gudmundsdottir (2010)

ICT-competence.

Societal

Empirical

Hagood et al. (2008)

New literacies, multiliteracies

Literacy

Empirical

Hague (2009)

Digital literacy

Societal

A research-based project report

Hamilton (2009)

Information literacy, multiple literacies

Library

A comment

Haras (2011).

Information skills

Library

Empirical

Hohlfeld et al. (2010)

Technology literacy

Technology

Empirical

Hug (2011)

Media Competence, Media Literacy

Media

Theoretical

Hutchison and Henry (2010)

Online literacy skills, New literacies

Societal

Empirical

Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan (2008)

Digital literacy

Library

Theoretical

Kiili et al. (2009)

Internet reading

Literacy

Empirical

Kitson (2011)

Multiliteracies

Literacy

Empirical

Krumsvik (2008)

Digital literacy

Societal

Theoretical

Krumsvik (2009)

Computer literacy, media literacy, digital literacy, digital competence

Societal

Theoretical

Labbo (2006)

Digital literacy

Literacy

A comment

Lebens (2009)

ICT skills

Technology, Societal

Empirical


675

Table 3 (continued) Article

Terms used

Backgrounds

Type of article

Lee (2010)

Media literacy

Media

Theoretical

Leverenz (2008)

Multiliteracy; new media writing

Literacy

Theoretical

Leu et al. (2004)

New literacies

Literacy


Levy (2009)

Digital literacy, multiliteracies,

Literacy

Empirical

Loertscher (2008)

Information literacy

Library

An overview

Lotherington and Ronda (2009)

Digital literacies, digital meta-literacies skills

Literacy

Empirical

McLean (2010)

Digital literacy

Societal

Empirical

Meneses and Mominó (2010)

Digital literacy

Societal

Empirical

Merchant (2007)

Digital literacy, Critical digital literacy

Literacy

Theoretical

Moran et al. (2008)

Digital literacy, media literacy

Literacy

A meta-analysis

Mullen and Wedwick (2008)

21st century literate, technologically literate

Societal

A comment

Nat Turner (2011).

ICT-literacies, critical literacies, new literacies

Literacy, Media

Empirical

O’Brien and Scharber (2008)

Digital literacies

Literacy

Empirical

O’Brien et al. (2007).

New literacy practices, digital literacies

Literacy

Empirical

Papadopoulou and Ioannis (2010).

Digital literacy

Literacy

Empirical

Pfannenstiel (2010)

Digital literacy

Other: undefined

Theoretical

Poore (2011)

Digital literacy, technological literacy, functional and critical digital literacy

Other: Philosophy

Theoretical

Ranker (2008)

New literacies, media literacy

Media, Literacy

Empirical

Ryberg and DirckinckHolmfeld (2008)

Media literacies

Media

Empirical

Sefton-Green et al. (2009)

Digital literacy

Literacy, Media

Theoretical

Selwyn and Husen (2010)

Technology competence

Other

Empirical

Steinkuehler (2010)

Digital literacy

Media

A comment

Taranto et al. (2011)

Digital literacy

Literacy

A research-based practical article

Tierney et al. (2006)

Digital literacies, multimodal literacies

Literacy

A research-based practical article

Vasudevan (2006)

Multimodal literacy

Literacy

A comment

Walsh (2008)

New literacies, multiliteracies, multimodal literacy

Literacy

Empirical

Weeks et al. (2009)

21st literacy, new literacies

Societal

Empirical

676


References Adeyemon, E. (2009). Integrating digital literacies into outreach services for underserved youth populations. Reference Librarian, 50(1), 85–98. Ala-Mutka, K. (2011). Mapping digital competence: Towards a conceptual understanding. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved September 30, 2012 from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/ JRC67075_TN.pdf. Ala-Mutka, K., Punie, Y., & Redecker, C. (2008). Digital competence for Lifelong Learning. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from http://ftp. jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC48708.TN.pdf. Annetta, L., Cheng, M., & Holmes, S. (2010). Assessing twenty-first century skills through a teacher created video game for high school biology students. Research in Science & Technological Education, 8(2), 101–114. Armitage, A., & Keeble-Ramsay, D. (2009). The rapid structured literature review as a research strategy. USChina Education Review, 6(4), 27–38. Arnone, M. & Reynolds, R. (2009). Empirical support for the integration of dispositions in action and multiple literacies into AASL’s standards for the 21st century learner. School Library Media Research. Retrieved November 15, 2013 from http://www.ala.org/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume12/ arnone_reynolds. Aviram, R., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2006). Towards a theory of digital literacy: Three scenarios for the next steps. European Journal of Open Distance E-Learning, 1. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from http://www.eurodl. org/?p=archives&year=2006&halfyear=1&article=223. Aznar, V., & González, J. (2010). Interactive resources in secondary education: Design and application. International Journal of Learning, 17(2), 181–194. Baird, C., & Henninger, M. (2011). Serious play, serious problems: Issues with eBook applications. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3(2), 1–17. Bazalgette C. (2008). A Stitch in Time: Skills for the New Literacacy. English in Education 34(1), 42–49. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2000.tb00569.x. Benson, S. (2008). A restart of what language arts is: Bringing multimodal assignments into secondary language arts. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(4), 634–674. Beqiri, E. (2010). ICT and E-learning literacy as an important component for the new competency-based curriculum framework in Kosovo. Journal of Research in Educational Sciences, 1(1), 7–21. Braasch, J. L. G., Lawless, K. A., Goldman, S. R., Manning, F. H., Gomez, K. W., & MacLeod, S. M. (2009). Evaluating search results: An empirical analysis of middle school students’ use of source attributes to select useful sources. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(1), 63–82. Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I. G. J. H., & Vermetten, Y. (2005). Information problem solving by experts and novices: Analysis of a complex cognitive skill. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 487–508. Brass, J. (2008). Local knowledge and digital movie composing in an after-school literacy program. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(6), 464–473. Bulfin, S., & North, S. (2007). Negotiating digital literacy practices across school and home: Case studies of young people in Australia. Language & Education: An International Journal, 21(3), 247–263. Burnett, C., Dickinson, P., Myers, J., & Merchant, G. (2006). Digital connections: Transforming literacy in the primary school. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(1), 11–29. Burns, L. D. (2008). Relevance, new literacies, & pragmatic research for middle grades education. Middle Grades Research Journal, 3(3), 1–28. Capuano, M., & Knoderer, T. (2006). Twenty-first century learning in school systems: The case of the metropolitan school district of Lawrence Township, Indianapolis, Indiana. New Directions for Youth Development, 2006(110), 113–125. Carrington, V. (2005). The uncanny, digital texts and literacy. Language and Education, 19, 467–482. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257. Delfino, M. (2011). Against BibliOblivion: How modernize scribes digitized an old book. Computers & Education, 57, 2145–2155. Domine, V. (2011). The Coming of Age of Media Literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 3(1) 8–10. EC (2010)=European Commission (2010). A Digital Agenda for Europe. Brussels: Author. Retrieved June 1, 2012 from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0245: FIN:EN: PDF. Engeström, Y., Pasanen, A., Toiviainen, H., & Haavisto, V. (2006). Expansive learning as collaborative concept formation at work. In K. Yamazumi, Y. Engeström, & H. Daniels (Eds.), New learning


677

challenges: Going beyond the Industrial Age system of school and work (pp. 47–77). Osaka: Kansai University Press. Erstad, O. (2005). Digital kompetanse i skolen (Digital literacy in the school). Oslo: University Press. Erstad, O. (2006). A new direction? digital literacy, student participation and curriculum reform in Norway. Education & Information Technologies, 11, 415–429. Erstad, O. (2010). Educating the digital generation. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 1, 56–70. Eshet-Alkali, Y., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2004). Experiments in digital literacy. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(4), 421–429. Eurydice (2011). Key Data on Learning and Innovation through ICT at School in Europe 2011. European Commission. Retrived May 29, 2012 from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_ data_series/129EN.pdf. Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital Competence in Practice: An Analysis of Frameworks. JRC Technical Reports. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Fink, A. (2010). Conducting research literature reviews. from the Internet to paper. Sage: Los Angeles. Gansmø, H. (2009). Fun for all=digital competence for all? Learning Media and Technology, 34(4), 351–355. Glewa, M., & Bogan, M. B. (2007). Improving children’s literacy while promoting digital fluency through the use of blog’s in the classroom: Surviving the hurricane. Journal of Literacy & Technology, 8(1), 40–48. Gomez, M. L., Schieble, M., Curwood, J. S., & Hassett, D. (2010). Technology, learning and instruction: Distributed cognition in the secondary English classroom. Literacy, 44(1), 20–27. Graff, J. M., & Labbo, L. (2009). Globilization & immigration: Aligning education with shifting demographics. Journal of Reading Education, 35(1), 21–30. Gudmundsdottir, G.B. (2010). From digital divide to digital equity: Learners’ ICT competence in four primary schools in Cape Town, South Africa. International Journal of Education & Development using Information & Communication Technology, 6(2), 1–22. Greenhow, C., Walker, J. D., & Kim, S. (2009). Millennial learners and net-savvy teens? examining internet use among low-income students. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 63–68. Hagood, M. C., Provost, M. C., Skinner, E. N., & Egelson, P. E. (2008). Teachers’ & students’ literacy performance in & engagement with new literacies strategies in underperforming middle schools. Middle Grades Research Journal, 3(3), 57–95. Hague, C., & Williamson, B. (2009). Digital participation, digital literacy and school subjects. A review of the politicies, literature and evidence. Bristol: Futurelab. Retrieved January 11, 2012, from http://archive. futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/DigitalParticipation.pdf. Hamilton, B. J. (2009). Transforming information literacy for nowgen students. Knowledge Quest, 37(5), 48– 53. Haras, C. (2011). Information behaviors of Latinos attending high school in East Los Angeles. Library & Information Science Research, 33(1), 34–40. Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Barron, A. E. (2010). Development and validation of the student tool for technology literacy (ST2L). Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 361–389. Hug, T. (2011). Visual competence, media literacy and “new literacies” - conceptual considerations in a plural discursive landscape. Seminar Net: Media, Technology & Life-Long Learning, 7(1), 1–17. Hulleman, C., Schrager, S., Bodmann, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 422–449. Hutchison, A., & Henry, L. A. (2010). Internet use and online literacy among middle grade students at risk of dropping out of school. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5(2), 61–75. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, P., Robinson, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: The John D and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved January 11, 2012, from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/% 7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7 days/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER. PDF. Jones-Kavalier, B., & Flannigan, S. L. (2008). Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21st century. Teacher Librarian, 35(3), 13–16. Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., & Marttunen, M. (2009). Skillful Internet reader is metacognitively competent. In W. Leo Tan & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 Level: Issues and challenges (Vol. II, pp. 654–668). Singapore: Information Science Reference. Kitson, L. (2011). Tween here and there, transitioning from the early years to the middle years: Exploring continuities and discontinuities in a multiliterate environment. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 19(1), 9–17. Korthagen, F. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77–97.

678


Krumsvik, R. (2008). Situated learning and teachers’ digital competence. Education & Information Technologies, 13(4), 279–290. Krumsvik, R. (2009). Situated learning in the networked society and the digitised school. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32(2), 167–185. Labbo, L. D. (2006). Literacy pedagogy and computer technologies: Toward solving the puzzle of current and future classroom practices. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 29(3), 199–209. Lebens, M., Graff, M., & Mayer, P. (2009). Access, attitudes and the digital divide: Children’s attitudes towards computers in a technology-rich environment. Educational Media International, 46(3), 255–266. Lee, A. Y. L. (2010). Media education: Definitions, approaches and development around the globe. New Horizons in Education, 58(3), 1–13. Leu, D., Kinzer, C., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark: International Reading Association. Leverenz, C. (2008). Remediating writing program administration. WPA: Writing Program Administration – Journal of the Council of Writing Program Administrators, 32(1), 37–56. Levy, R. (2009). ‘You have to understand words … but not read them’: Young children becoming readers in a digital age. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(1), 75–91. Lin, C.-C., & Polaniecki, S. (2008). From media consumption to media production: Applications of YouTube in an eighth-grade video documentary project. Journal of Visual Literacy, 28(1), 92–107. Loertscher, D. (2008). Information literacy: 20 years later. Teacher Librarian, 35(5), 42–43. Lotherington, H., & Ronda, N. S. (2009). Gaming geography: Educational games and literacy development in the grade 4 classroom. Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology, 35(3), 4. Löwy, I. (1992). The strenght of loose concepts – boundary concepts. Federative experimental strategies and disciplinary growth. The case of immunology. History of Science, 30(4), 371–396. McLean, C. A. (2010). A space called home: An immigrant adolescent’s digital literacy practices. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1), 13–22. Mendelovits, J. (Chair) (2013, August). Assessing digital competence in national and international contexts. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Münich, Germany. Meneses, J., & Mominó, J. M. (2010). Putting digital literacy in practice: How schools contribute to digital inclusion in the network society. Information Society, 26(3), 197–208. Merchant, G. (2007). Writing the future in the digital age. Literacy, 41, 118–128. Miettinen, R. (2013). Innovation, human capabilities and democracy. Towards an enabling welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moran, J., Ferdig, R., Pearson, P., Wardrop, J., & Blomeyer, R. (2008). Technology and reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy and practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1), 6–58. Mullen, R., & Wedwick, L. (2008). Avoiding the digital abyss: Getting started in the classroom with YouTube, digital stories, and blogs. Clearing House, 82(2), 66–69. Nat Turner, K. C. (2011). “Rap universal”: Using multimodal media production to develop ICT literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(8), 613–623. National Board of Education (2011). Osaaminen ja sivistys 2020 – Opetushallituksen strategia. [Competence and education 2020 – Strategy for National Board of Education.] Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Retrieved January 3, 2012, from http://www.oph.fi/download/133481_osaaminen_ja_sivistys_2020.pdf. O’Brien, D., & Scharber, C. (2008). Digital literacies go to school: Potholes and possibilities. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 66–68. O’Brien, D., Beach, R., & Scharber, C. (2007). “Struggling” middle schoolers: Engagement and literate competence in a reading writing intervention class. Reading Psychology, 28(1), 51–73. Papadopoulou, S., & Ioannis, S. (2010). The emergence of digital storytelling and multimedia technology in improving Greek language teaching and learning: Challenges versus limitations. Sino-US English Teaching, 7(4), 1–14. Pfannenstiel, A. N. (2010). Digital literacies and academic integrity. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 6(2), 41–49. Poore, M. (2011). Digital literacy: Human flourishing and collective intelligence in a knowledge society. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 34(2), 20–26. Punie, Y. (2007). Learning spaces: an ICT-enabled model of future learning in the knowledge-based Society. European Journal of Education, 42, 185–199. Ranker, J. (2008). Making meaning on the screen: Digital video production about the Dominican republic. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(5), 410–422.


679

Ryberg, T., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2008). Power Users and patchworking - an analytical approach to critical studies of young people’s learning with digital media. Educational Media International, 45(3), 143–156. Schoen, L. T., & Teddlie, C. (2008). A new model of school culture: A response to a call for conceptual clarity. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(2), 129–153. Sefton-Green, J., Nixon, H., & Erstad, O. (2009). Reviewing approaches and perspectives on “Digital literacy”. Pedagogies, 4(2), 107–125. Selwyn, N., & Husen, O. (2010). The educational benefits of technological competence: an investigation of students’ perceptions. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(2), 137–141. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’, and Boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals on Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420. Steinkuehler, C. (2010). Digital literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1), 61–63. Taranto, G., Dalbon, M., & Gaetano, J. (2011). Academic social networking brings Web 2.0 technologies to the middle grades. Middle School Journal, 42(5), 12–19. Tchibozo, G. (2010). Emergence and outlook of competence-based education in European education systems: An overview. Education, Knowledge & Economy, 4(3), 193–205. The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies. Executive summary. The DeSeCo Project. (n.p.): Author. Retrieved January 11, 2011, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/61/35070367.pdf. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Are the New Millenium Learners Making the Grade? Technology use and educational performance in PISA. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Tierney, R., Bond, E., & Bresler, J. (2006). Examining literate lives as students engage with multiple literacies. Theory Into Practice, 45(4), 359–367. Union, E. (2010). 2010 joint progress report of the council and the commission on the implementation of the ‘education and training 2010 work programme’. Official Journal of the European Union, C, 117. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri = OJ:C:2010:117:0001:0007:EN: PDF. van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2009). Using the internet: Skill related problems in users’ online behavior. Interacting with Computers, 21(5), 393–402. Vasudevan, L. (2006). Looking for angels: Knowing adolescents by engaging with their multimodal literacy practices. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(4), 252–256. Walsh, M. (2008). Worlds have collided and modes have merged: Classroom evidence of changed literacy practices. Literacy, 42(2), 101–108. Weeks, P., Boxma, A., & Maxwell, N. (2009). Does a “Flat World” level the playing field? International Journal of Learning, 16(11), 557–567. Westera, W. (2001). Competences in education: A confusion of tongues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(1), 75–88.