Digital Literacy
Nichols and Stornaiuolo (2019) provided an historical perspective on the complex intertwining of concepts surrounding media, information, and digital literacies and proposed a definition of digital literacy as an assemblage, a braiding together of concepts across lineages. This expanded as a model for digital literacy research and offered a map that was useful for this research – examining prescriptive and descriptive elements of technology, content, business models, ownership, governance, and users across socio-economic, socio-historical, and socio-technical domains. While some of these facets may be reflected within the lived experiences with MDL of the participants, it was the exploration of core components, first introduced in the early 1990s that is of interest:
For my research, this brought clarity to digital literacy practices in OEPr where users are the TEds and the TCs, technologies range across web and place-based resources, and content resides in open locations relevant to courses, research, and scholarship.Both then and now, digital literacy (and digital literacies) has remained centrally concerned with the ways users (e.g. individuals, groups, communities) leverage technologies (e.g. computers, software, mobile devices) to consume or produce content (e.g. textual, visual, multimedia, artifacts). (Nichols & Stornaiuolo, 2019, p. 19, emphasis in original.)
Ideologically, digital literacy is a “complex and socio-culturally sensitive issue” (Lemos & Nascimbeni, 2016, p. 2) that is grounded in issues of power and inequalities (Stornaiuolo & LeBlanc, 2016). Digital literacy shifted into social, collaborative, communication and sense-making actions and interactions using a variety of digital devices (Beetham et al., 2012; Belshaw, 2012; Lemos & Nascimbeni, 2016) and teaching strategies (Stornaiuolo & LeBlanc, 2016). Digital literacy was therefore further defined as a dynamic process wherein the “creative use of diverse digital devices to achieve goals related to work, employability, learning, leisure, inclusion and/or participation in society” (Lemos & Nascimbeni, 2016, p. 2) are integrated into everyday life (Belshaw, 2012). Digital behaviors, practices, identities and citizenship, as well as wellbeing, are incorporated into this definition (Belshaw, 2012; Hoechsmann & DeWaard, 2015; Lankshear & Knobel, 2007; Spante et al., 2018).
The term critical literacy while not specifically referred to the use of print and other media technologies to “analyze, critique and transform the norms, rule systems and practices governing the social fields of everyday life” (Luke, 2012, p. 5). Expanding on Luke's definition of critical literacies, Hinrichsen and Coombs (2013) examined components of critical digital literacies using the components of decoding, meaning making, using, analyzing, and persona. This framework further acknowledged power differentials, in order to strive for equitable access to diverse resources, and the reconstruction of transformative potentials (Spante et al., 2018). This definition required that those within a field of study examined how, why, and where norms, rules, ways of doing, ways of being in relationship to topics, processes, procedures, and each other, are critiqued with a social justice view (Bozkurt et al., 2023). Further, examining the spaces and places where those who are marginalized and disenfranchised can find intentionally equitable hospitality (Bali et al., 2019) was an essential element. Luke (2012) explored how literacy in education utilized “community study, and the analysis of social movements, service learning, and political activism, …. popular cultural texts including advertising, news, broadcast media, and the Internet” (p. 7). This connected to the concept of educommunication that was discussed in the media literacy section of this dissertation.
CDL and technological competencies are important considerations in FoE where TEds create course content and design learning experiences with an infusion of literacies into methods and core course requirements. Foulger et al., 2017 introduced the teacher educator technology competencies (TETCs) to support the transformation of teaching practices of TEds. While this framework hinted at MDL within a TEds overall skillset when using technology, there were other frameworks that better defined the literacies which my research may reveal. Falloon (2020) examined global competency and digital literacy frameworks with a focus on teacher education. Falloon's (2020) research moved beyond the concepts in the TETCs and incorporated facets from the Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) which is prominent in teacher education. Falloon (2020) shared a conceptual framework that incorporated personal ethical competencies and personal professional competencies which provided a helpful lens through which to examine the lived experiences shared by the participants in my research.
Martinéz-Bravo et al., (2022) examined eight international digital literacy frameworks, including well known frameworks such as the UNESCO Global Framework, the European Union (EU) DigComp framework, and the ISTE’s Teaching Standards. Some of these frameworks were also included in the Digital Quotient (DQ) Institute's Common Framework for Digital Literacy, Skills and Readiness which reflected a global picture of ideas and organizations linked around digital literacies and competencies (link to DQ global standards graphic). Martinéz-Bravo et al., (2022) analyzed these digital competency frameworks for common content, thus providing an integrated perspective. Six facets of digital literacy were found in each of the eight frameworks, which are outlined as critical, cognitive, operational, social, emotional, and projective dimensions (Martinéz-Bravo et al., 2022). The elements revealed essential concepts that informed and shaped my understanding of the digital literacy work by TEds in this research, and I wondered if the participants were aware of these facets in their teaching practice.
The overarching conception of digital citizenship subsumes all layers of skills, fluencies, competencies, literacies, and criticality when using, creating, and communicating with digital technologies and resources (Choi et al., 2018; Hoechsmann & DeWaard, 2015). Additionally, citizenship infers activism, engagement, and cosmopolitanism (Zaidi & Rowsell, 2017). Belshaw (2012) proposed a model with nine Cs of digital literacy identified as curation, confidence, creativity, criticality, civics, communication, construction, and cultural. These incorporated key citizenship elements. When focusing on digital citizenship and the responsible use of technology, Ribble (2017) proposed nine themes, including access, commerce, communication and collaboration, rights and responsibilities, health and wellness, fluency, security and privacy, etiquette, and law. These are further categorized under three principles of behaviour – safe, savvy, and social (Ribble, 2017). While citizenship was a worthy area of investigation and may have provided interesting facets to reflect MDL practices of TEds, this was recognized as an area for future attention, as I viewed this as beyond the scope of this research.
Definitions and practices of critical MDL were continually in flux, since contexts dictate the core and critical elements. In FoE, MDL was shaped by and adapted to the current cultural, social, political, and technological climates. This included the challenges brought on by the global COVID-19 pandemic, which had some impact on the stories of lived experiences that participants in this research shared.