Digital literacy literature review

Digital Futures in Teacher Education (DeFT) Project (November 2012)

DIGITAL LITERACY LITERATURE REVIEW

1: INTRODUCTION

The need for schools to engage and integrate digital technology into their curricula and
organisation is recognised by teachers, politicians and industry (BECTA 2010; Clarke 2012).
Several literature reviews have already explored this area (Torgenson and Zhu 2003; Hague and
Williamson 2009; Newman 2009; Burnett 2010). This review focuses on the emergence of
digital literacy within schools, how it is conceptualised and how teachers and students are
engaging withnew technologies.The review explores how the concept of digital literacy
emerged, how ithas been defined and the discourses that have contributed to its development in
the UK education system. The role of digital technology in the lives of young people is explored,
and this is followed by an overview of the perceptions of students and teachers of digital
literacy.

1.1 LITERACY AND LITERACIES

The meaning of literacy has been elaborated within education over the last forty years. Prior to
the 1970s it principally referred to how individuals learn to decode, encode and comprehend
printed alphabetic texts(Bawden 2008). Since then its meaning has become extendedto include
the social practices surrounding reading and writing. Lankshear and Knobel define literacies
(using the plural form) as ‘socially recognized ways in which people generate, communicate,
and negotiate meanings, as members of Discourses, through the medium of encoded
texts’(Lankshear and Knobel 2003: 33).

Contemporary educational debate reflects the broad background of the concept of literacy. For
example the major reforms enshrined in theNational Literacy Strategy focused on a technical
approach based upon the relative merits of specific teachingapproaches including a genre-based
model to text study and the direct teaching of phonics.This is what Street refers to as the
‘autonomous’ model which defines literacy in terms of ‘limited mental operations, giving no
attention to social structures within which the concepts and philosophies of specific cultures are
formed’(Street 1995: 85). On the opposite side of the spectrum is critical literacy which has
been defined as ‘an educational practice that emphasises the connections between language,
knowledge, power and subjectivities,originates in the work of Paulo Freire and connects literacy
to social justice’ (Practices 2012). Freire referred to teaching ‘readings of the world’ which
means understanding what words mean and how they are used to do things in society(Freire
and Macedo 1987). Although interpretations of critical literacy vary, all share a common theme
of the need to include a critical dimension in teaching and a focus on the social purposes of
Literacy. Thenarrowly instrumental view andthe more political, socially-situated viewof literacy
is a tension that has carried over into the realm of digital literacy.

1.2 THE PROLIFERATION OF LITERACIES

A review of recently published book titles on Amazon illustrates how popular the term ‘literacy’
has become in all fields in the last ten years. This includes emotional literacy (Bruce 2010),
sexual literacy (Vallin 2009), health literacy (Mayer and Villaire 2007), financial literacy
(Lusardi 2012), political literacy (Carr and Lund 2008) and environmental literacy (Scholz and

1


Binder 2011). These have been described by Barton (2007) as metaphorical uses of the word
literacy.Of course educational publications for teachers tend to use the term‘literacy’in a more
traditional sense. Nevertheless this appropriation of the term ‘literacy’ charts the tendency to
extend its use to includefar more than the basic ability to read and write. This is shown in
attempts to establishhistorical literacy (Nokes 2013), statistical literacy (Watson 2006) and
mathematical literacy (Solomon 2009).

The popularity of the term suggests that, despite its contentious nature, the word ‘literacy’
serves a useful purpose in common sense understandings of education. Most of these references
use literacy as shorthand for knowledge and competences that can be applied in the real world.
As a result the emphasisis on the outcome of an educative process (formal or informal). This is
reflected in a distinction that Buckingham makes between media education and media literacy:

Media education, then, is the process of teaching and learning about media; media
literacy is the outcome – the knowledge and skills learners acquire.
(Buckingham 2003: 4)

Sonia Livingstone makes the point that what was previously described in terms of a set of
knowledges, competences and skills has become bundled under the notion of
literacy(Livingstone 2005).

1.3 DEFINING DIGITAL LITERACY

Defining digital literacy (or literacies) is difficult given the contested and common sense
understanding of literacy described above and the host of competing terms in the arena of new
technology - these include information literacy, computer literacy, internet literacy and hyper-
literacy.In addition, the object of digital literacy is constantly moving; as Helsper comments,
definitions keep changing because the digital and cultural environment keeps changing (Helsper
2008). This means there will always be a degree of ambiguity in the use of the term, what Zac
and Diana refer to as the ‘inherent squishiness’ of digital literacy (Zac and Diana 2011).

The concept of digital literacy was introduced by Paul Gilster in his book of the same name
(Gilster 1997). Gilster took a broad approach to digital literacy defining it as ‘the ability to
understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources when it is
presented via computers’ (ibid: 1). He argued that literacy has always been more than simply
being able to read and acknowledged cultural aspects in all forms of literacies. Although the
narrow reference to‘computers’ now sounds a little dated, Glister’s definition is still useful,
given that it goes well beyond a skills - based understanding of digital literacy . However, this
definition pre-datedthe emergence of Web 2.0. technologies. Now, ‘many time-honoured
distinctions such as between producer and consumer, writer and reader blur or virtually
disappear as new syntheses emerge’ (Gillen and Barton 2010: 4). This technological change and
its social consequences are reflected in more recent definitions of digital literacy. Futurelab
reports on digital literacyhave mapped and contributed to this development (Grant 2009;
Williamson and Hague 2009; Hague and Payton 2010). Digital literacy,they suggest, means:

knowing how technology and media affect the ways in which we go about
finding things out, communicating with one another, and gaining knowledge and
understanding. And it also means understanding how technologies and media can
shape and influence the ways in which school subjects can be taught and learnt.
(Williamson and Hague 2009: 5)

2


JISC (the Joint Information Systems Committee) understands digital literacy as ‘those
capabilities which fit an individual for living, learning and working in a digital society’ (JISC
2011), whereas theEuropean Commission has preferredthe term ‘digital competence’ using it to
describe one of the eight key competences for Lifelong Learning in the European Union:

Digital Competence can be broadly defined as the confident, critical and creative use
of ICT to achieve goals related to work, employability, learning, leisure, inclusion
and/or participation in society.
(European Commission 2003)

Though definitions focus on ‘digital literacy’ in the singular there also seems to be a growing use
of the plural form of ‘digital literacies’ (Martin and Madigan 2006; Lankshear and Knobel 2008;
Burn 2009; Carrington and Robinson 2009; Belshaw 2012; Littlejohn, Beetham et al. 2012). The
plural form, popularised by the New Literacy Studies, emphasises the diversity of literacy
practices that constitute modern life (Lankshear and Knobel 2003; Marsh 2005). Lankshear and
Knobel explicitly support the plural form (Lankshear and Knobel 2008)in acknowledgement of
the variety of individual accounts of digital literacy and the usefulness of a perspective on
literaciesin social practice.

Lankshear and Knobel (2003) identify three dimensions common to digital literacies;
operational, cultural and critical. Operational includes competence with tools and
procedures;cultural refers to competence in understanding texts in relationship to cultural
context and critical is the awareness that literacies are socially constructed and selective -
including some values and excluding others.

An alternative three stage model of digital literacy has been proposed by the DigEuLit project,
funded by the EC eLearning Initiative(Martin and Grudziecki 2006). They refer to the following
three levels:

digital competenceis the skills, concepts approaches, attitudes, etc.
digital usage refers to the application of digital competence within a specific context
(such as school)
digital transformation which involves creativity and innovation in the digital domain

Against the trend of defining digital literacy/literacies are those who seek to avoid the term
altogether. Beetham et al. explicitly avoid the term ‘digital literacies’ to enable what they refer to
as ‘major continuities in what makes for effective learning’ from both digital and non-digital
practices in higher education (Beetham, McGill et al. 2009). Belshaw also makes the point that
the pre-occupation with digital literacy may be a generation issue. He points out that young
people simply refer to cameras, not ‘digital’ cameras. For them the ‘digital -’ prefix is
unnecessary (Belshaw 2010). In an age where books can be read on a Kindle or iPad, and
writing onscreen is common place it is difficult to restrict the term literacy to pen and paper and
so it could be argued that the ‘digital’ prefix is already unnecessary.

All of these definitions seek to provide an overarching definition of digital literacy.Gillen makes
the point that context often leads to the creation of unique ‘working definitions’ such as the
following for teachers in Norway:

Digital literacy for in-service teachers is the ability to use digital artefacts as an integrated
part of their pedagogical content knowledge and be aware of what implications this has
for teaching, learning strategies and Bildung aspects.
(Krumsvik, 2007 quoted in Newman 2009: 13)

3


Definitions, then, are developed in specific contexts and emerge from different historical
contexts. The following section looks at how digital literacy has impacted on the school
curriculum through different subject disciplines.

2: MAPPING DIGITAL LITERACY IN THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Digital literacy needsto be understood in the framework of the UK education system based on a
subject based curriculum. The term draws on discourses rooted in different subject areas; in
particular computer/ICT literacy, Information Literacy and Media Literacy. These are
represented in the diagram below and all contribute to how digital literacy is understood in UK
schools.

FIGURE 1: DIGITAL LITERACY DISCOURSES

2.1 COMPUTER ICT/LITERACY

Computer IT or ICT) literacy has been familiar in schools since the introduction of computers in
the 1980s. Martin and Grudzieki argue that this area has undergone three stages since its
inception in the 1960s (Martin and Grudziecki 2006). The first was mastery which lasted up
until the late 1980s when emphasis was placed on gaining specialist knowledge through basic
programming. With the introduction of simpler user interfaces in the late 80s began what
Martin and Grudzieki refer to as the application phase:

In this phase the computer is seen as a tool which can be applied in education, work,
leisure and the home. Use of applications software becomes the focus of literacy activity,
and definitions of computer or IT literacy focus on practical competences rather than
specialist knowledge.
(Ibid: 250)

At the third, reflective level, specific skills were superseded by meta-skills and the purposes of
ICT become central. The authors suggest that IT could facilitate student-centred pedagogy in a
similar way to the critical approaches to literacy described in the section above.

4


A recent report by the Royal Society described the current delivery of computing as highly
unsatisfactory and argued that pupils ‘gain nothing beyond basic digital literacy skills such as
how to use a word-processor or a database’ (The Royal Society 2012). The Report defines digital
literacy as the ‘general ability to use computers’ seen as a secondary skill. In a similar vein a
speech given by the Google chairman, Eric Schmidt last year he argued that:

The current incarnation of ICT taught in UK schools is creating a generation of
technology consumers; ‘digital literacy’ is important, but this is not computing.
You can use and innovate with technology more effectively if you understand
how it works
(Giordani 2011)

This adds fuel a growing sense of dissatisfaction with what the ICT curriculum is about and has
caused some to suggest that a greater emphasis on computer studies, programming and creative
production would lead to a more skilled workforce with the resultant economic benefits
(NESTA, 2011). This has recently resulted in the ‘disapplication’ of the ICT programmes of study
in the compulsory school sector.

2.2 INFORMATION LITERACY

Information literacy predates digital literacy and has its origins in the work of Zurkowski
(1974) who referred to the ‘information literate person’ rather than the specific concept of
information literacy. Zurkowski’s paper was written for the US National Commission on
Libraries and Information Science and reflects two significant aspects of information literacy;
firstly it was developed primarily in the sphere of library services, and secondly the US (and
Australia) have traditionally been ahead of the UK in achieving widespread recognition for
librarians as educators and raising the profile of information literacy (Secker 2004).

The structure of school library services in the UK has restricted the development of information
literacy(Streatfield, Markless et al. 2011). As Streatfield et al point out, despite the rhetoric of
successive governments concerning the importance of school libraries, UK schools are not
required to have libraries and there are no standards for library service delivery. This has
meant that it is up to individual schools and librarians to develop schemes. The traditional
subject based curriculum compounds the marginalization of library services because there is no
subject to ally it to. This has created obstacles to the absorption of library based information
literacy into the mainstream curriculum.

Despite the structural limitations of the library service, the older provenance of information
literacy means that models have been developed over time relevant to digital literacy. In
particular information literacy is not associated with any specific technology resulting in a
stress on the individual and social context. The term information literacy is used very broadly,
covering concepts such as digital literacy, information handling, information skills, data curation
and data management (Bent and Stubbings 2011). Its advocates describe it as a dispositional
habit:

Information literacy is a way of thinking rather than a set of skills. . . [I]nformation
literacy can become a dispositional habit . . . a ‘habit of mind’ that seeks ongoing
improvement and self-discipline in inquiry, research and integration of knowledge
from varied sources.
(Center for Intellectual Property in the Digital Environment 2005: viii-ix)

5


The emphasis on critical thinking connects to Friere’s agenda of critical literacyreferred to
above.

2.3 MEDIA LITERACY

Unlike information literacy, media literacy has traditionally had a home in the UK schools within
the English curriculum and, since 1986, as a separate subject (Media Studies). More recently
there has also been institutional recognition with the advent of schools gaining the Media Arts
College specialism. The Arts emphasis has shifted the centre of gravity of media education in
these schools away from its traditional home in English, towards other Arts subjects (Burn and
Durran 2007).

The rise of digital sources has presented significant challenges to media educators. The stability
of print sources and television has given away to an ever proliferating variety of media forms
making the traditional demarcations between verbal and visual media, or digital and print
increasing problematic(Buckingham 2003: 97). This places a fundamental challenge to the
boundaries of the traditional curriculum which creates a need for a cross-curricular approach to
media literacy rather than media studies.

A 2003 Report on media literacy stated that there is no clear and commonly agreed definition of
‘media literacy’ and concluded that levels of media literacy in UK schools are unpredictable,
inconsistent and ‘likely to be low’ (Kirwan, Learmonth et al. 2003).

In a paper about media literacy Sonia Livingstone starts with a skills based definition. Media
literacy ‘is the ability to access, analyse, evaluate and create messages in a variety of forms’.

All of these concepts have influenced how digital literacy is interpreted and ,depending on the
curriculum priorities and individual backgrounds of those responsible for digital literacy, will
continue to affect how it is seen.

3: YOUNG PEOPLE’S IDENTITY ENGAGEMENT WITH TECHNOLOGY

All young people in UK schools today were born after the advent of widespread dissemination of
digital technology. Several writers have explored the potential of technology to change
interpersonal dynamics.As Buckingham suggests, childhood is now saturated with modern
media, from the internet to mobile phones (Buckingham 2007). Furthermore, he argues that
this technology is now used in more individualised ways; for example the majority of children
have televisions in their bedrooms and many have exclusive use of computers and mobile
phones. Sonia Livingstone suggests that UK children’s increasingly ‘media-rich bedroom culture’
may partly compensate for the decline in independent mobility outside of the home
(Livingstone 2002). A recent UK study estimates that (in 2010) 99.6% of students have
unrestricted computer access, 97.8% own a mobile and have daily use of email and text
messaging (Chris, Ruslan et al. 2010).These technologies have introduced a new means of
creating and maintaining social networks. As Merchant argues, online social networking can be
seen as a newer way of enhancing or modifying pre-existing relations (Merchant 2011).
However, for young people they offer a particular opportunity of engaging in social
relationships which do not subjected to the same controls and conventions as face to face
interaction.Consequently the ‘more far reaching consequences of changes in communications
technologies are seen in their impact on children’ (Carrington 2005: 10) For example social
networking sites have opened up a new form of interaction. Sites such as Facebook, according to
Davies are ‘a vehicle through which individuals are able to perform a range of social acts
through social literacy practices’ (Davies 2012: 12).

6


3.1 LABELLING THE DIGITAL GENERATION

A variety of terms are used to refer to the generation who have been brought up with digital
technology including digital natives(Prensky 2001; Prensky 2001), millennials (Howe and
Strauss 2000), cyberkids (Holloway and Valentine 2003) and the Google generation(Rowlands,
Nicholas et al. 2008). Authors like Prensky have argued that this changing environment has led
to changes in the brain structure of young people. Prensky invokes neuroplasticity to suggest
that children develop ‘hypertext minds’ where they prefer to access information in a non-linear
way, process information very fast, prefer graphics over text, and prefer games to traditional
learning(Prensky 2001). As one critic summarises, ‘digital natives’ are claimed to have a:

natural aptitude to use networked technologies, possess new and exciting skills
such as the ability to multitask, and hold sophisticated knowledge and information
literacy because of the contemporary web culture in which they live. These unique
abilities are due to lifelong exposure to computers--the first generation to be born
into the Web.
(Harding 2010)

Further attributes have been developed by authors focusing on the consequences of this
generation leaving school and entering the marketplace. For example Tapscott and
Williams(2008) describe young people as self-organising and creating content themselves. The
Net Generation they argue:

are not content to be passive consumers, and increasingly satisfy their desire for
choice, convenience, customization, and control by designing, producing and
distributing products themselves.
(Tapscott and Williams 2008: 52)

It is not simply that too many positive attributes are given to young people. For example John
Mullen suggests that those brought up with the internet have a diminished ability to develop
empathy, interpersonal relations, and nonverbal communication skills. The author summarises
his research on a business blog in the following terms:

If you’re a digital native, you should be aware that the internet may have partially
rewired your brain in such a way that when you meet people face to face, you’re
less capable of figuring out what they’re thinking
(Mullen 2012)

However, Merchant points out that some of the most influential theorising has resulted in an
arbitrary construction of binaries, for example digital native/immigrant, those with access to
technology/those without (Merchant 2007). Despite the attractiveness of such binaries they
have consequences for how young people are seen and treated. The digital native debate is
particularly relevant in education because a proportion of teachers, particularly those in senior
roles, are what Prensky refers to as ‘digital immigrants’ who are characterised as not sharing
the supposed digital abilities of those born after 1980.

Characterisations of the net generation and related concepts infer broad characteristics that are
unquantifiable. For example the quotation above from Tapscott refers to the ‘choice,
convenience, customization, and control’ of young people suggesting they have a degree of
independence that older generations do not have. However there is no evidence provided that
the customisation that new technology allows is reflected in the dispositions of users. Similarly,
Oblinger and Oblinger also suggest that ‘most Net Gen learners prefer to learn by doing rather
by being told what to do’ (ibid: 2.6). It is difficult to envisage any group of learners that prefer

7


being told what to do rather than doing something themselves. Again, the possibilities that
technology enables does not automatically give the users those skills and aptitudes. On the
other hand ‘learning by doing’ has been enshrined in alternative schools since Rousseau (Forbes
2003) and is not a sudden innovation of digital learning.

The digital native concept has been criticized on a number of levels.In the UK, Selwyn presents
evidence to suggest that young people’s engagements with digital technologies are ‘varied and
often unspectacular’ (Selwyn 2009). He argues there is a need to go beyond assumptions of the
digital native to a stronger theoretically and empirically understanding. In particular, he points
out that the social, cultural and cognitive backgrounds of a seven year old are very different to
those of an eleven year old and a fifteen year old inhabits a different social, cultural and
cognitive background to that of an eleven year old. A study by Brumberger (2011) refutes the
statement by Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) that the ‘Net Gen are more visually literate than
previous generations’. Furthermore Bennett et al. suggest that the current debate about digital
natives is unhelpful and can be linked to an academic form of a ‘moral panic’ (Bennett, Maton et
al. 2008).

International empirical studies also indicate wide disparities in digital competence within this
generation. For example Yan and Ranieri (2010)suggest that Chinese teenagers do not score
particularly highly on digital competence tests and that performance is not significantly
influenced by access to technology within the home. They highlight the important role of
education in improving teenagers’ digital competence. Similarly, a Canadian study of the
intersection of age and ICT competency in pre-service teachers showed no difference between
the ‘native’ and ‘immigrant’ group (Guo, Dobson et al. 2008). These studies all draw attention to
the variation in levels of digital competence. For some, new technology clearly provides new
opportunities. For example, Merchant reports on an interactive writing project for nine and ten
year olds where the young writers use digital writing in new and sophisticated ways (Merchant
2005). However, such engagement is not simply dependent on the availability of, and familiarity
with digital tools.

Studies that look at specific aspects of digital skills such as students’ searching behaviours have
discovered a similar, relatively restricted, use of academic tools. Most of these studies are
looking at beginning university level students but are instructive at the school level since they
indicate what skills students are entering university with.

A study by Kennedy and Judd (2011)describes a surface approach to the learning engaged in by
students and refers to it as ‘satisficing’1an information-seeking behaviour which is not
appropriate in all academic contexts(Kennedy and Judd 2011).Students, they suggest,
‘knowingly preferenced less reliable tools and sources in their search for study-related
information in order to access and gather information quickly and easily’ (Ibid: 124). They point
to the tension between the need to provide students with user-friendly search interfaces and
the need to educate students in more sophisticating searching skills.

A further challenge to the generational interpretation of digital natives has come from a recent
study by JISC and the British Library which sought to identify how researchers of the future will
access and interact with digital resources(Rowlands, Nicholas et al. 2008). As with other
studies, the authors argue that the impact of ICTs on the young has been overestimated. Despite
the confidence young people have in their searching abilities, they ‘rely heavily on search
engines, view rather than read and do not possess the critical and analytical skills to assess the
information that they find on the web’. However, the more unusual claim the authors make, is
that such characteristics are not limited to the young but characterise adults’ search behaviour.

1 ‘satisficing’ is a portmanteau word combining ‘satisfy’ with ‘suffice’

8


The authors conclude ‘we are all the Google generation, the young and the old, the professor and
the student and the teacher and the child’ (ibid: 308).

All these critiques share a similar conclusion: that the native/immigrant divide is misleading
and may distract researchers and teachers from more careful consideration of the variety of
digital experience young people and teachers have.

3.2 REPRESENTATIONS

As well as being misleading, the characterisations referred to above affect how childhood is
defined in the modern era, oras Stainton Rogers suggest, ‘What practices our stories make
credible and what they make incredible’(Stainton Rogers and Stainton Rogers 1992). The
appeal to ‘neuroplasicity’ relates to ana-social neuro-scientific model of identityin which digital
competence is naturalised as an inevitable aspect of young people’s identity. This has profound
consequences in an educational context since if young people are assumed to have ‘natural’ or
automatically acquired digital abilities then there is no need to teach them. The widespread
belief in the digital competence of young people creates a set of assumptions taken on by adults
and children alike that becomes part of self-identity. As suggested above, however, the high
levels of confidence young people have in their digital skills is not reflected in their actual skills
levels (Helsper and Eynon 2010).

Representations of the ‘digital native’ conflict with an alternative representation of childhood
that is particularly relevant to younger children. Seiter (1999) describes two alternative
representations of childhood, one where children and seen as active meaning makers, the other
as passive victims. The digital native representation presents an active view of childhood as
meaning makers. At the other extreme, arguments seeking to restrict young children’s access to
television or computer games reflect a passive view of childhood where they are seen as in need
of protection.

The challenges that teachers face in integrating digital literacy into the curriculum are complex.
For example, despite the difficulties with levels of computer knowledge amongst students and
teachers alike alluded to above in UK schools, it cannot be assumed that those with high levels
of computer knowledge necessarily use these skills effectively in other lessons. For example, a
study of inquiry based learning indicated that students with greater familiarity with computers
acquired significantly less knowledge (Wecker, Kohnle et al. 2007). Furthermore, such labelling
affects those to whom the label is applied. Helsper found evidence that the younger generation
is less likely to seek help with digital technology, referring to it as the ‘ostrich tactic’(Helsper
2008).

3.3 HOME-SCHOOL EXPERIENCE

Researching young people’s out of school experience is difficult, what Wellington refers to as the
‘secret garden’ of the learner at home (Wellington 2001). Furthermore, Marsh points to the lack
of research at the early years level of children’s digital technology (Marsh 2004). Part of this
neglect, she suggests, may be due to the negative views held by some early years educators
towards digital technology in early childhood.

Marsh explored the environment that young children engage in literacy practices (Marsh 2004).
She argues that the use of the term ‘emergent literacies’ which refers to the way in which
children’s engagement in print literacies from birth contributes to their literacy development,
does not pay sufficient attention to wider definitions of literacy, particularly those associated
with the use technology. Following Lankshear (1997) Marsh prefers the term ‘emergent techno-

9


literacy’. She illustrates how technological practices such as text messaging are absorbed by
children well before they own mobile phones, citing the traditional ‘loveheart’ sweets that used
to contain short messages and now have text speech:

Toys have always played a vital role in inducting children into socio-cultural practices and
values of a society and many children own artefacts such as toy computers, laptops, DVD
players and mobile phones from an early age.
(Marsh 2004: 61)

Her study of Sure Start pre-schoolers found that 36 out of the 44 children survey owned a toy
mobile phone from an average age of 12 months.

Stephen et al. (2008) explored the experiences of pre-schoolers with technology in the home
through a case study approach that including engaging directly with the children as well as
parents and asking about their preferences. The researchers found a general interest in
technology activities inside the home and physical activity outdoors. However, the detailed
conversations revealed a more complex picture with children communicating a significant level
of negative or ambivalent emotional responses to technology. As the authors comment:

Parents were sometimes surprised at the children’s negative comments about ICT.
Particular incidents or activities featured much more highly in children’s evaluations that
they did with parents’ who were inclined to assume a generalized interest in and
competency with new technologies on the part of their child, while underestimating the
degree of adult or sibling support that children need to achieve this apparent competency.
(Stephen, McPake et al. 2008: 108)

Facer et al. looked at four groups of children in England and Wales to determine how computers
were used at home (Facer, Furlong et al. 2003). They found significant differences in the use of
computers in the home. They also found significant gender differences with boys owning
computers and playing games more than girls. The data for this study was carried out between
1998 and 2000, before the advent of social networking; since then computer ownership has
gone up within families and access to the internet has diversified with 47% of UK teenagers
below the age of 16 now owning a smartphone (OFCOM 2011).

Digital practices have become the subject of more research with concerns about the potential
risks the internet may face young people as well as opportunities. For example, The EU Kids
Online surveyed over 25,000 children aged nine to sixteen across Europe. This found that 93%
go online at least weekly and 85% use the internet for school work (Livingstone, Haddon et al.
2011). The Report looked at children’s exposure to risk such as sexual content but makes a
distinction between risk and harm. It concluded that exposure to sexual content is not generally
upsetting to children, although online bullying, though relatively rare, is experienced as much
more upsetting.

Davies demonstrates the variety of experiences that characterise parental/child interactions
with technology which ‘is by no means simply a field of conflict between progressive youth and
reactionary adults’(Davies 2011: 333). He characterises two distinct attitudes towards
technology, one ‘pro’ and one ‘more reserved’. The former seems associated with strong ties in
social networks and home support. The more ambivalent attitude is associated with acceptance
of parental concerns over the quality of knowledge online (compared to written knowledge in
textbooks) and a distancing from contemporary dominant modes of peer group online
behaviour.

10


The focus on home culture challenges the home-school mismatch hypothesis advocated by
authors such as Buckingham (Buckingham and Willett 2006) who contrasts students’ positive
experiences with digital technology compared to a negative school experience. Bulfin et al also
challenge the clearly demarcated boundary between the digital literacy practices of children in
and out of school (Bulfin and North 2007; Bulfin and Koutsogiannis 2012). They argue that
there is a complex interaction between home and school experiences and influences extend in
both directions.

3.4 STUDENT PERCEPTIONS

Research by Selwyn (2006) identifies a level of frustration expressed by students at the
restrictions placed on internet use at school. However, Selwyn also suggests that most students
in his study displayed a ‘pragmatic acceptance rather than the outright alienation from school
that some commentators would suggest’ (Selwyn 2006: 2). Selwyn goes onto argue that ‘net
savvy’ students are also ‘school-savvy’ in accepting the rules and regulations of school life; he
points to the danger of romanticising the internet as the single feature of schooling which does
not resemble students’ ‘real lives’ outside school walls.

An Israeli study (Kolikant 2010) of secondary school age students explores the internet as a
mediator of learning practices and values. The research found that the majority of students
believe that the internet over-simplifies schoolwork which diminishes their ability to learn. The
authors suggest students inhabit two value systems; outside of school where sharing and
innovation are encouraged and in school where ‘person-solo’ learning operates under the
assumption that knowing means ‘ having knowledge in one’s head’ (ibid: 6). The examination
system still focuses on the performance of the individual student, sometimes with reference to
closed books but not the internet.

The Kolikant study raises a number of important issues that are of relevance to the British
educational system. On the surface it might be seen as recapitulation of the home-school
mismatch. However the values described by students are similar to the reserved attitude
towards technology described by Davies above (Davies 2011).This study raises the possibility
that, despite the confidence of young people in using technology, there is still a concern that it is
not ‘serious learning’ (Harris and Rudduck 1993). This reflects an issue in a study of university
teachers attitudes towards digital literacy where participants identified students as being
resistant to technology because it did not follow the traditional forms of learning they expect
(Brent, Gibbs et al. 2012). The BECTA survey (Rudd, Teeman et al. 2009) of university students
found a similar conservative attitudes amongst students towards the use of technology.

3.5 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

Exploring children’s engagement with digital literacy beyond the classroom requires a
consideration of complex issues surrounding the home environment and the home-school
interface.This emphasis has enabled researchers to draw on a wider range of theoretical
perspectives, and such work has enriched recent debate in digital literacies. Because so much
research in this area is small-scale in nature,studies that draw on theoretical perspectives are
able to situate their findings in a broader conceptual frame. This provides a necessary antidote
to the theoretical vacuum much research into digital literacy is carried out within. Popular
theorists that are cited include Bourdieu, Goffman and Vygotsky.

11


Bulfin et al. (Bulfin and North 2007; Bulfin and Koutsogiannis 2012) use Bourdieu’s notion of
habitus2 to challenge the binary opposition imposed by some researchers between home and
school to suggest that meanings and practices do not wholly emerge from one social and
physical domain. They suggest a complex interaction between home and school with parental
attitudes playing an important part.Hollingworth et al. (2009) use the same Bourdieuian
perspective to look at variations in parental attitudes towards technology and learning in the
home. They identify universal concerns of harm and risk together with nostalgia for childhood
in a pre-digital age. However, the habitus of parents affects their response to risk. In particular,
middle class parents with higher degrees of media literacy (derived from lengthier educational
careers and professional employment) are able to relate to technology and construct
educational experiences for their children beyond restricting access. This forms part of what
Annette Lareau refers to as ‘cultivated enrichment’ that is characteristic of middle class
parenting where leisure is structured on the basis of educational values (Lareau 2000).

The work of Vygotsky is popular in many areas of educational research. Exploring multimodal
literacies (literacy practices that involve more than one semiotic mode, e.g. combinations of text
and photo), Mills (2010) uses Vygotsky’s notion of scaffolding to describe a situated practice
that teachers can provide to develop digital literacy.

Providing expert guidance by teachers, books, or technologies is one of the key
responsibilities of schooling, and it is unreasonable to expect students to reinvent pivotal
literacy practices of adults in social, recreational, and civic engagement by themselves.

Marsh (Marsh 2004; Marsh 2005)also uses Vygotsky in her t account of children’s development
of digital literacy practices at home, particularly through play which children ‘make sense of the
narratives they encounter in a range of modes and relate these narratives to their lived
experiences’ (Marsh 2004: 56). In this context, the toy phones and ‘loveheart’ sweets described
in the previous section by Marsh can be seen as part of the enculturation of a new sign system
through play.

After a hiatus of twenty years, Erving Goffman has become more popular as a means
ofilluminating digital social practices. Goffman’s work predates the digital age; he was
interested in identity and impression management(Goffman 1971; Goffman 1982). Researchers
writing about online identity have drawn on Goffman’s concepts, for example Marsh (2011)uses
Goffman’s later work on frame analysis (Goffman 1974)to describe children’s engagement with
the ‘online interaction order’. Goffman’s work is particularly helpful in providing a reference to
understand the micro-analysis of online behaviour and contextualise it within a broader
perspective.

There are many other theoretical approaches that could be cited in relation to digital literacy.
The three above are frequently cited and they are influential in the wider field of educational
research . Each provides a means of situating what are often small scale studies in a broader
context and each focuses on a different aspect of social relations; for example, Bourdieu is
particularly relevant for questions involving the home-school interface whereas Vygotsky is
often used to explore issues of the cultural context and process of learning and teaching.

2The habitus is ‘embodied history, internalized as a second nature and so forgotten as history – is the
active presence of the whole past of which it is the (Bourdieu 1990, p. 56) It mediates the individual’s
personal consciousness with the power structures of society.

12


4: TEACHERS’ ENGAGEMENT WITH DIGITAL LITERACY

4.1 TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF DIGITAL LITERACY

Research on teachers’ attitudes towards the use of digital literacy is patchy and tends to focus
on pre-service rather than experienced teachers.Most existing studies use teachers engaged in
teacher training (e.g. Kafai and Nixon 2007; Guo, Dobson et al. 2008; Burnett 2011)and are often
small scale.Furthermore some were conducted in different contexts; caution should be
exercised in applyingthe findings of these studies to the UK context. Student teachers are easier
to access as research subjects; however their age sometimes puts them in the same category as
their students in terms of growing up with technology. Very few studies take into account age
differences in teacher attitudes which is curious given the age emphasis in the ‘digital natives’
debate.

A small scale study of teacher perceptions for the Canadian Centre for Digital and Media
Literacy (MediaSmarts 2012) found a general caution amongst teachers in using technology
because of the disruption itmay cause. In exploring this, it also challenges the digital
native/immigrant binary byarguingthat older teachers actually have an advantage over younger
teachers because they may have stronger classroom management skills which will enable them
to use technology with less disruption.In another study, O’Brien and Scharber note that those in
senior roles may resist some technologies on the basis of an ethic of conserving resources based
on an outdated view of digital scarcity (O'Brien and Scharber 2010). Pountney (2003) finds
teachers’ dispositions towards training in ICT to be shaped by complex models of compliance
and autonomous activity.

A Spanish study found general support amongst secondary school teachers for the use of the
internet in the classroom with no reported differences between men and women. (Ramírez-
Orellana, Cañedo-Hernández et al. 2012). However, they did find some differences in support
according to years of experience, with teachers with fewer years of experience reporting more
positive attitudes than those with over fifteen years of experience. The study also found subject
differences with a more sceptical attitude reported in science and technology subjects.

Student teachers constitute the largest group studied with regard to their attitudes towards
technology. Studies show a positive attitudes towards the use of technology which increases
when technology is covered in their training that relates to their subject (Friedman and Kajdar
2006). Research indicates that a single course on technology is not enough successfully effect
the practice of student teachers (Vannatta and Reinhart 2000).

4.2 USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

As has been stated, a difficulty of literature reviews on technology is that conclusions may be
outdated very quickly; a study published in 2006 may draw on research carried out a year or so
earlier when many of the technologies common today were non-existent or at very early stages.
For example Underwood and Dillon cite research into involvement with video games that
suggested that the it is not age or sex, but membership of the teaching profession, that is the
defining characteristic of low involvement with video games (Sandford, Ulicsak et al. 2006).
However, just because teachers may not be enthusiastic games players does not mean that they
are ‘inherently low technology users’ (Underwood and Dillon 2011). Teachers may not be
devoted games players but social networking and technologies of relevance to their particular
professional interests may indicate high levels of technology use. There is evidence that

13


personal use of computers outside of school is a significant indicator of teacher use of
technology in the classroom (Wozney, Venkatest et al. 2006)

Before its closure BECTA reported a positive assessment of the state of technology in
schools(Rudd, Teeman et al. 2009). The Report argued that there has been good progress in the
provision of infrastructure and that teachers, school leaders and ICT co-ordinators are broadly
happy with the ICT resources that they have (ibid: 26).

However, as Underwood and Dillon(2011) comment, introducing new technologies into the
classroom does not automatically bring about new forms of teaching and learning. The type of
technology is also important to consider. As to Merchant argues, popular classroom
technologies such as the interactive whiteboard and PowerPoint tend to extend didactic
pedagogies, rather than transform classroom practice (Merchant 2005).

5: CONCLUSION

The difficulties encountered in conducting this review were similar to those reported in the
EPPI3 literature review of ICT and literacy learning in English (Torgenson and Zhu 2003) which
found a lack of large-scale studies and an emphasis on studies outside the UK. During the search
process, UK studies were emphasised and these are well represented. However, with the
notable exception of Marsh et al. (2005),these studies were often small scale and descriptive in
nature, covering a diversity of topics that did not cohere into discreet themes. This may reflect
the early stages of the research and practice covering digital literacy. The digital native debate
(and other characterisations of the so called ‘digital generation’) formed a convenient
organising theme. The claims made have been the focus of a great deal of research, most of
which refutes the notion that there is a distinct generation with ‘in-built’ digital skills. A
diversity of approaches and skills have been identified, some structured by gender and access to
technology, others by personal factors all of which make generalisation untenable. Furthermore,
the critical role of the teacher and the school has been identified and the need for well-
structured teaching in order that young people leave school with the skills and dispositions to
succeed in the digital world.

The binary characterisation of a home-school mismatch is also challenged by the literature. How
outside school experience and parental attitudes effect students’ approach to technology is
clearly important but is as yet under-researched. Bourdieu’s work provides a useful conceptual
basis for certain studies that address how home and school environments are mediated by one
another and avoid simple binaries of the technology haves and have-nots. Although some
authors have criticised the use of Bourdieu (and particularly habitus) by educational
researchers (Reay 2004), such perspectives introduce questions to the research that transcend
the merely technical. After a hiatus of twenty years, Erving Goffman has also been used to
illuminate digital social practices. These examples of conceptual lenses provide an antidote to
the theoretical vacuum much research into digital literacy is carried out within.

Further work is clearly required in this field, both empirically and conceptually. It is hoped that
as the field becomes more established, researchers and teachers will be able to locate their
work within a broader research tradition relevant to the concerns of teachers. For example,
though the importance of teacher attitudes in using technology is recognised, there is little
research on this topic and hardly any acknowledgement given to teachers’ age differences.Also,
the reservations expressed by students that digital learning is not ‘serious learning’ suggests

3The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre which is part of the Social
Science Research Unit at the Institute of Education, University of London

14


that schools and families continue to convey value judgements based on a set of understandings
about the nature of schooling that predate the digital era. However, again, very little is known.
Such research on teacher and student dispositions and the broader context in which digital
literacy is located will help future effective planning of digital provision.

6: IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The following are offered as indications of the need for further research in digital literacy for
education:

Although the diversity of digital literacy as a concept and practice is acknowledged,
some agreement about research goals and questions in the area would strengthen the
evidence base for educators
The home environment is extremely important in understanding how young people and
their parents approach digital literacy. This area would benefit from more qualitative
research that illuminates the variety and complexity of at-home digital use.
Despite the affordances that digital technology provides forcollecting the perspectives of
young people directly, there are relatively few studies that focus on their views in a way
that is unmediated by school context.
The digital native debate has obscured the need to consider age as a variable in relating
to digital literacy rather than generation. This is particularly the case with teachers who
are generally treated as a homogenous group. More research is required that looks at
teachers’ engagement with digital literacy and how this relates to their age, experience,
subject and other contextual factors.
The value placed by students and parents on digital learning compared to traditional
‘book learning’ should be explored further.
There is a need for larger-scale research studies

15


7: REFERENCES

Barton, D. (2007) Literacy: an introduction to the ecology of written language, Oxford: Blackwell,
2nd edition,

NESTA (20011) Next Gen.: Transforming the UK into the world’s leading talent hub for the video
games and visual effects industries A Review by Ian Livingstone and Alex Hope. Accessed
athttp://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/assets/features/next_gen (28/10/12)

Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and Concepts of Digital LIteracy. Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and
Practices. C. Lankshear and M. Knobel. New York, Peter Lang: 17-32.

BECTA (2010). Digital literacy: Teaching critical thinking for our digital world. London, BECTA.

Beetham, H., L. McGill, et al. (2009). Thriving in the 21st Century: Learning Literacies for the Digital
Age. LLiDA project, The Caledonian Academy, Glasgow Caledonian University.

Belshaw, D. (2009). 'Information literacy': its history and
problemshttp://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2009/12/13/information-literacy-its-history-and-
problems/#.UBrqtk1lS-w (Last accessed 1 December 2012)

Belshaw, D. (2010). Digital literacy: a function of poor
design?http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2010/06/03/digital-literacy-a-function-of-poor-
design/#.UEfBVI1lS-w (Last accessed 1 December 2012)

Belshaw, D. (2012). The Essential Elements of Digital Literacies (v0.3).

Bennett, S., K. Maton, et al. (2008). "The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence."
British Journal of Educational Technology39(5): 775-786.

Bent, M. and R. Stubbings (2011). "The SCONUL seven pillars model of information literacy: 2011
update " SCONUL Focus52: 48.

Brent, I., G. Gibbs, & Gruszczynska, A. (2012). "Obstacles to creating and finding Open Educational
Resources: the case of research methods in the social sciences." Journal of Interactive Media in
Education

Bruce, C. (2010). Emotional literacy in the early years. Los Angeles ; London, SAGE.

Brumberger, E. (2011). "Visual Literacy and the Digital Native: An Examination of the Millennial
Learner." Journal of Visual Literacy30(1): 19-46.

Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education: literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Cambridge,
Polity.

Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond technology : children's learning in the age of digital culture.
Cambridge, Polity.

Buckingham, D. and R. Willett (2006). Digital generations : children, young people, and new media.
Mahwah, N.J. ; London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bulfin, S. and D. Koutsogiannis (2012). "New literacies as multiply placed practices: expanding
perspectives on young people's literacies across home and school." Language and Education26(4):
331-346.

16


Bulfin, S. and S. North (2007). "Negotiating Digital Literacy Practices Across School and Home: Case
Studies of Young People in Australia." Language and Education21(3): 247-263.

Burn, A. (2009). Making new media: creative production and digital literacies. New York ; Oxford,
Peter Lang.

Burn, A. and J. Durran (2007). Media literacy in schools : practice, production and progression.
London, Paul Chapman Publishing.

Burnett, C. (2010). "Technology and literacy in early childhood educational settings: A review of
research." Journal of Early Childhood Literacy10(3): 247-270.

Burnett, C. (2011). "Pre-service teachers’ digital literacy practices: exploring contingency in identity
and digital literacy in and out of educational contexts." Language and Education25(5): 433-449.

Carr, P. R. and D. E. Lund (2008). Doing democracy : striving for political literacy and social justice.
New York ; Oxford, Peter Lang.

Carrington, V. (2005). New textual landscapes, information and early literacy. Popular Culture, New
Media and Digital Literacy in Early Childhood. J. Marsh. London, Routledge: 10-20.

Carrington, V. and M. Robinson (2009). Digital literacies: social learning and classroom practices.
London, SAGE.

Center for Intellectual Property in the Digital Environment (2005). Colleges, Code, And Copyright:
The Impact of Digital Networks and Technological Controls on Copyright and the Dissemination of
Information in Higher Education. Chicago, Association of College and Research Libraries.

Chris, J., R. Ruslan, et al. (2010). "Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation
entering university?" Computers & Education54(3): 722-732.

Clarke, D. (2012) Supporting the delivery of digital literacy. Education Business

Davies, C. (2011). "Digitally strategic: how young people respond to parental views about the use of
technology for learning in the home." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning27(27): 324-335.

Davies, J. (2012). "Facework on Facebook as a new literacy practice." Computers & Education59.

European Commission (2003). eLearning: Better eLearning for Europe. Luxembourg.

Facer, K., J. Furlong, et al. (2003). Screenplay : children and computing in the home. London,
RoutledgeFalmer.

Forbes, S. H. (2003). Holistic Education: An Analysis of Its Ideas and Nature, Foundation for
Educational Renewal Publishers.

Freire, P. and D. P. Macedo (1987). Literacy: reading the word & the world. London, Routledge &
Kegan Paul.

Friedman, A. and S. Kajdar (2006). "Perceptions of Beginning Teacher Education Students Regarding
Educational Technology." Journal of Computing in Teacher Education22(4): 147-151.

Gillen, J. and D. Barton (2010). Digital Literacies: A Research Briefing by the Technology Enhanced
Learning phase of the Learning and Teaching Research Programme. London, London Knowledge Lab.

Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York ; Chichester, John Wiley.

17


Giordani, A. (2011). "Computer literacy in the UK comes under heat." International Science Grid This
Week. Retrieved 9/10/2012, from http://www.isgtw.org/spotlight/computer-literacy-uk-comes-
under-heat.

Goffman, E. (1971). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth, Penguin.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. New York, Harper and Row.

Goffman, E. (1982). Interaction Ritual, Pantheon Books.

Gove, M. and N. Clegg (2012) Michael Gove and Nick Clegg: A new exam will get the best out of all
our children. London Evening Standard

Grant, L. (2009). Children's role in home-school relationships and the role of digital technologies,
Futurelab.

Guo, R., T. Dobson, et al. (2008). "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: An Analysis of Age and ICT
Competency in Teacher Education." Journal of Educational Computing Research38(3): 235-254.

Hague, C. and S. Payton (2010). Digital literacy across the Curriculum. Slough, Futurelab.

Hague, C. and B. Williamson (2009). Digital participation, digital literacy, and school subjects: A
review of the policies, literature and evidence, Futurelab.

Harding, T. (2010). Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants. ENHANCED: new media tools and
resources for enhancing education, Columbia University. 2012.

Harris, S. and J. Rudduck (1993). "Establishing the seriousness of learning in the early years of
secondary schooling." British Journal of Educational Psychology63: 322-336.

Helsper, E. (2008). Digital Literacy: Different Cultures Different Understandings. International
Conference on Digital Literacy, Brunel University.

Helsper, E. (2008). Digital natives and ostrich tactics?: the possible implications of labelling young
people as digital experts. Beyond Current Horizons, Futurelab.

Helsper, E. and R. Eynon (2010). "Digital natives: where is the evidence?" British Educational
Research Journal36(3): 503-520.

Hollingworth, S., K. Allen, et al. (2009). An exploration of parents' engagement with their children's
learning involving technologies and the impact of this in their family learning experiences, BECTA.

Holloway, S. L. and G. Valentine (2003). Cyberkids. London Routledge.

Howe, N. and W. Strauss (2000). Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. New York, Vintage.

JISC (2011). "ALT: Developing Digital Literacies." Retrieved 10/9/2012, from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning/developingdigitalliteracies/alt.aspx.

Kafai, Y. and A. S. Nixon (2007). "Digital Dilemmas: How Elementary Preservice Teachers Reason
about Students' Appropriate Computer and Internet Use." Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education15(3): 409-424.

Kennedy, G. and T. Judd (2011). Beyond Google and the "Satisficing" Searching of Digital Natives.
Deconstructing Digital Natives: Young People, Technology and M. Thomas. London, Routledge.

18


Kirwan, T., J. Learmonth, et al. (2003). Mapping Media Literacy: Media Education 11-16 Years in the
United Kingdom.

Kolikant, Y. B.-D. (2010). "Digital natives, better learners? Students’ beliefs about how the Internet
influenced their ability to learn." Computers in Human Behavior26.

Lankshear, C. (1997). Changing literacies. Buckingham, Open University Press.

Lankshear, C. and M. Knobel (2003). New literacies : changing knowledge and classroom learning.
Buckingham, Open University Press.

Lankshear, C. and M. Knobel (2008). Digital literacies: concepts, policies and practices. Digital
Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices. C. Lankshear and M. Knobel. London, Peter Lang: 1-16.

Lareau, A. (2000). Home Advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education.
Oxford, Rowman and Littlefield.

Littlejohn, A., H. Beetham, et al. (2012). "Learning at the digital frontier: a review of digital literacies
in theory and practice." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.

Livingstone, S. (2005). Media literacy - challenges ahead. Westminster Media Forum, Imprelemeting
Media Literacy: Empowerment, Particiaption and Responsibility. LSE, London.

Livingstone, S., L. Haddon, et al. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: the perspectives of
European children.

Livingstone, S. M. (2002). Young people and new media: childhood and the changing media
environment. London, SAGE.

Lusardi, A. (2012). Numeracy, financial literacy, and financial decision-making. Cambridge, Mass,
National Bureau of Economic Research.

Marsh, J. (2004). "The Techno-Literacy Practices of Young Children." Journal of Early Childhood
Research2(1): 51-66.

Marsh, J. (2005). Popular culture, new media and digital literacy in early childhood. London,
RoutledgeFalmer.

Marsh, J. (2011). "Young Children's Literacy Practices in a Virtual World." Reading Research
Quarterly46(2): 101-118.

Marsh, J., Brooks, G., Hughes, J., Ritchie, L., & Roberts, S. (2005). Digital beginnings: Young children’s
use of popular culture, media and new technologies. Sheffield, U.K.: University of Sheffield. Retrieved
from http://www.digitalbeginings.shef.ac.uk/

Martin, A. and J. Grudziecki (2006). "DigEuLit: concepts and tools for digital literacy development."
ITALICS5(4): 249-267.

Martin, A. and D. Madigan (2006). Digital literacies for learning. London, Facet.

Mayer, G. G. and M. Villaire (2007). Health literacy in primary care : a clinician's guide. New York ;
London, Springer.

MediaSmarts (2012). Young Canadians in a Wired Teachers: Phase III - Teachers Perspectives,
Canada's Centre for Digital and Media Literacy.

19


Merchant, G. (2005). "Digikids: cool dudes and the new writing." E-Learning2(1): 50-60.

Merchant, G. (2007). "Writing the future in the digital age." Literacy41(3): 118-128.

Merchant, G. (2011). "Unravelling the social network: theory and research." Learning, Media and
Technology37(1): 4-19.

Mills, K. (2010). "Shrek meets Vygotsky." Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy54(1): 35-45.

Mullen, J. (2012). Digital natives are slow to pick up nonverbal cues. Harvard Business Review Blog
Network. 2012.

Newman, T. (2009). A Review of Digital Literacy in 3-16 year olds, Timmus Ltd.

Nokes, J. (2013). Building Students' Historical Literacies: Learning to Read and Reason with Historical
Texts and Evidence. London, Routledge.

O'Brien, D. and C. Scharber (2010). "Teaching Old Dogs New Tricks: The Luxury of Digital
Abundance." Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy53(7).

Oblinger, D. and J. Oblinger (2005). Educating the Net Generation: an Educause e-book publication,
Educause.

OFCOM (2011). The Communications Market Report: United Kingdom, OFCOM (Independent
regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries).

Pountney, R. (2003). Ready and willing? Factors impacting on engagement with professional
development in ICT in primary schools. Paper presented at the ITTE (The Association for Information
Technology in Teacher Education) 2003 conference, Leeds, July 2003. Retrieved 28/10/12 from
http://bit.ly/RCJwdL

Practices, C. L. T. a. (2012). "Home page." Retrieved 3/9/2012, from
http://criticalliteracy.freehostia.com/index.php?journal=criticalliteracy.

Prensky, M. (2001). "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1." On the Horizon9(5): 1 - 6.

Prensky, M. (2001). "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2: Do They Really Think Differently?" On
the Horizon9(6): 1-6.

Ramírez-Orellana, E., I. Cañedo-Hernández, et al. (2012). "Attitudes and Beliefs of Secondary
Teachers about Internet Use in their Classrooms." Comunicar19.

Reay, D. (2004). "‘It's all becoming a habitus’: beyond the habitual use of habitus in educational
research." British Journal of Sociology of Education25(4): 431-444.

Rowlands, I., D. Nicholas, et al. (2008). "The Google generation: the information behaviour of the
researcher of the future." Aslib ….

Rudd, P., D. Teeman, et al. (2009). Harnessing Technology Schools Survey 2009 Analysis Report,
BECTA.

Sandford, R., M. Ulicsak, et al. (2006). Teaching with Games: Using commercial off-the-shelf
computer games in formal education, Futurelab.

Scholz, R. W. and C. R. Binder (2011). Environmental literacy in science and society : from knowledge
to decisions. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

20


Secker, J. (2004). E-learning and information literacy. Electronic resources in the virtual learning
environment: a guide for librarians. J. Secker. Oxford, Charnos Publishing: 53-74.

Seiter, E. (1999). Power Rangers at Preschool: Negotiating Media in Child Care Setting. Kids' Media
Culture. M. Kinder. Durham, NJ, Duke University Press: 239-262.

Selwyn, N. (2006). "Exploring the ‘digital disconnect’ between net‐savvy students and their schools."
Learning, Media and Technology31.

Selwyn, N. (2009). "The digital native – myth and reality." Aslib Proceedings61(4).

Solomon, Y. (2009). Mathematical literacy : developing identities of inclusion. New York ; London,
Routledge.

Stainton Rogers, R. and W. Stainton Rogers (1992). Stories of Childhood: Shifting Agendas of Child
Concern. London, Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Stephen, C., J. McPake, et al. (2008). "Learning from the Children: Exploring Preschool Children's
Encounters with ICT at Home." Journal of Early Childhood Research6(2): 99-117.

Streatfield, D., S. Markless, et al. (2011). "Information literacy in UK schools." Journal of Information
Literacy5(2): 5-25.

Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and
education. New York, Longman.

Tapscott, D. and A. D. Williams (2008). Wikinomics : how mass collaboration changes everything.
London, Atlantic.

The Royal Society (2012). Shut down or restart: the way forward for computing in UK schools.
London, The Royal Society.

Torgenson, C. and D. Zhu (2003) A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of ICT on
literacy learning in English 5-16. Research Evidence in Education Library

Underwood, J. and G. Dillon (2011). "Chasing dreams and recognising realities: teachers’ responses
to ICT." Technology, Pedagogy and Education20(3): 317-330.

Vallin, L. (2009). Thoughts and Perceptions Surrounding Sexual Literacy: a cross cultural study
looking at Swedish and American youth and their perspectives and experiences of sex education.
Berlin, VDM Verlag.

Vannatta, R. and P. Reinhart (2000). "Integrating, infusing, modeling: Preparting technology using
educators." Journal of Computing in Teacher Education16(2): 6-14.

Watson, J. (2006). Statistical literacy at school : growth and goals. Mahwah, N.J. ; London, L. Erlbaum
Associates.

Wecker, C., C. Kohnle, et al. (2007). "Computer literacy and inquiry learning: when geeks learn less."
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning23.

Wellington, J. (2001). "Exploring the Secret Garden: the growing importance of ICT in the home."
British Journal of Educational Technology32(2): 233-244.

Williamson, B. and C. Hague (2009). "Digital participation, digital literacy, and school subjects: A
review of the policies, literature and evidence." Futurelab.

21


Wozney, L., V. Venkatest, et al. (2006). "Implementing computer technologies: teachers' perceptions
and practices." Journal of Technology and Teacher Education14(1): 173-207.

Yan, L. and M. Ranieri (2010). "Are ‘digital natives’ really digitally competent?-A study on Chinese
teenagers." British Journal of Educational Technology41(6): 1029-1042.

Zac, C. and L. Diana (2011). "Embracing the Squishiness of Digital Literacy." Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy54(7): 535-537.

Zurkowski, P. (1974). The Information Services Environment: Relationships and Priorities.
Washington, DC, National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

22

Digital literacy literature review

More Related Content

Digital literacy literature review