thesis statement about digital literacy

• Open access
• Published: 08 June 2022

A systematic review on digital literacy

• Hasan Tinmaz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4310-0848 1 ,
• Yoo-Taek Lee   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1913-9059 2 ,
• Mina Fanea-Ivanovici   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2921-2990 3 &
• Hasnan Baber   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8951-3501 4  

Smart Learning Environments volume  9 , Article number:  21 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

49k Accesses

38 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

The purpose of this study is to discover the main themes and categories of the research studies regarding digital literacy. To serve this purpose, the databases of WoS/Clarivate Analytics, Proquest Central, Emerald Management Journals, Jstor Business College Collections and Scopus/Elsevier were searched with four keyword-combinations and final forty-three articles were included in the dataset. The researchers applied a systematic literature review method to the dataset. The preliminary findings demonstrated that there is a growing prevalence of digital literacy articles starting from the year 2013. The dominant research methodology of the reviewed articles is qualitative. The four major themes revealed from the qualitative content analysis are: digital literacy, digital competencies, digital skills and digital thinking. Under each theme, the categories and their frequencies are analysed. Recommendations for further research and for real life implementations are generated.

Introduction

The extant literature on digital literacy, skills and competencies is rich in definitions and classifications, but there is still no consensus on the larger themes and subsumed themes categories. (Heitin, 2016 ). To exemplify, existing inventories of Internet skills suffer from ‘incompleteness and over-simplification, conceptual ambiguity’ (van Deursen et al., 2015 ), and Internet skills are only a part of digital skills. While there is already a plethora of research in this field, this research paper hereby aims to provide a general framework of digital areas and themes that can best describe digital (cap)abilities in the novel context of Industry 4.0 and the accelerated pandemic-triggered digitalisation. The areas and themes can represent the starting point for drafting a contemporary digital literacy framework.

Sousa and Rocha ( 2019 ) explained that there is a stake of digital skills for disruptive digital business, and they connect it to the latest developments, such as the Internet of Things (IoT), cloud technology, big data, artificial intelligence, and robotics. The topic is even more important given the large disparities in digital literacy across regions (Tinmaz et al., 2022 ). More precisely, digital inequalities encompass skills, along with access, usage and self-perceptions. These inequalities need to be addressed, as they are credited with a ‘potential to shape life chances in multiple ways’ (Robinson et al., 2015 ), e.g., academic performance, labour market competitiveness, health, civic and political participation. Steps have been successfully taken to address physical access gaps, but skills gaps are still looming (Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2010a ). Moreover, digital inequalities have grown larger due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and they influenced the very state of health of the most vulnerable categories of population or their employability in a time when digital skills are required (Baber et al., 2022 ; Beaunoyer, Dupéré & Guitton, 2020 ).

The systematic review the researchers propose is a useful updated instrument of classification and inventory for digital literacy. Considering the latest developments in the economy and in line with current digitalisation needs, digitally literate population may assist policymakers in various fields, e.g., education, administration, healthcare system, and managers of companies and other concerned organisations that need to stay competitive and to employ competitive workforce. Therefore, it is indispensably vital to comprehend the big picture of digital literacy related research.

Literature review

Since the advent of Digital Literacy, scholars have been concerned with identifying and classifying the various (cap)abilities related to its operation. Using the most cited academic papers in this stream of research, several classifications of digital-related literacies, competencies, and skills emerged.

Digital literacies

Digital literacy, which is one of the challenges of integration of technology in academic courses (Blau, Shamir-Inbal & Avdiel, 2020 ), has been defined in the current literature as the competencies and skills required for navigating a fragmented and complex information ecosystem (Eshet, 2004 ). A ‘Digital Literacy Framework’ was designed by Eshet-Alkalai ( 2012 ), comprising six categories: (a) photo-visual thinking (understanding and using visual information); (b) real-time thinking (simultaneously processing a variety of stimuli); (c) information thinking (evaluating and combining information from multiple digital sources); (d) branching thinking (navigating in non-linear hyper-media environments); (e) reproduction thinking (creating outcomes using technological tools by designing new content or remixing existing digital content); (f) social-emotional thinking (understanding and applying cyberspace rules). According to Heitin ( 2016 ), digital literacy groups the following clusters: (a) finding and consuming digital content; (b) creating digital content; (c) communicating or sharing digital content. Hence, the literature describes the digital literacy in many ways by associating a set of various technical and non-technical elements.

• Digital competencies

The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp 2.1.), the most recent framework proposed by the European Union, which is currently under review and undergoing an updating process, contains five competency areas: (a) information and data literacy, (b) communication and collaboration, (c) digital content creation, (d) safety, and (e) problem solving (Carretero, Vuorikari & Punie, 2017 ). Digital competency had previously been described in a technical fashion by Ferrari ( 2012 ) as a set comprising information skills, communication skills, content creation skills, safety skills, and problem-solving skills, which later outlined the areas of competence in DigComp 2.1, too.

• Digital skills

Ng ( 2012 ) pointed out the following three categories of digital skills: (a) technological (using technological tools); (b) cognitive (thinking critically when managing information); (c) social (communicating and socialising). A set of Internet skill was suggested by Van Deursen and Van Dijk ( 2009 , 2010b ), which contains: (a) operational skills (basic skills in using internet technology), (b) formal Internet skills (navigation and orientation skills); (c) information Internet skills (fulfilling information needs), and (d) strategic Internet skills (using the internet to reach goals). In 2014, the same authors added communication and content creation skills to the initial framework (van Dijk & van Deursen). Similarly, Helsper and Eynon ( 2013 ) put forward a set of four digital skills: technical, social, critical, and creative skills. Furthermore, van Deursen et al. ( 2015 ) built a set of items and factors to measure Internet skills: operational, information navigation, social, creative, mobile. More recent literature (vaan Laar et al., 2017 ) divides digital skills into seven core categories: technical, information management, communication, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving.

It is worth mentioning that the various methodologies used to classify digital literacy are overlapping or non-exhaustive, which confirms the conceptual ambiguity mentioned by van Deursen et al. ( 2015 ).

• Digital thinking

Thinking skills (along with digital skills) have been acknowledged to be a significant element of digital literacy in the educational process context (Ferrari, 2012 ). In fact, critical thinking, creativity, and innovation are at the very core of DigComp. Information and Communication Technology as a support for thinking is a learning objective in any school curriculum. In the same vein, analytical thinking and interdisciplinary thinking, which help solve problems, are yet other concerns of educators in the Industry 4.0 (Ozkan-Ozen & Kazancoglu, 2021 ).

However, we have recently witnessed a shift of focus from learning how to use information and communication technologies to using it while staying safe in the cyber-environment and being aware of alternative facts. Digital thinking would encompass identifying fake news, misinformation, and echo chambers (Sulzer, 2018 ). Not least important, concern about cybersecurity has grown especially in times of political, social or economic turmoil, such as the elections or the Covid-19 crisis (Sulzer, 2018 ; Puig, Blanco-Anaya & Perez-Maceira, 2021 ).

Ultimately, this systematic review paper focuses on the following major research questions as follows:

Research question 1: What is the yearly distribution of digital literacy related papers?

Research question 2: What are the research methods for digital literacy related papers?

Research question 3: What are the main themes in digital literacy related papers?

Research question 4: What are the concentrated categories (under revealed main themes) in digital literacy related papers?

This study employed the systematic review method where the authors scrutinized the existing literature around the major research question of digital literacy. As Uman ( 2011 ) pointed, in systematic literature review, the findings of the earlier research are examined for the identification of consistent and repetitive themes. The systematic review method differs from literature review with its well managed and highly organized qualitative scrutiny processes where researchers tend to cover less materials from fewer number of databases to write their literature review (Kowalczyk & Truluck, 2013 ; Robinson & Lowe, 2015 ).

Data collection

To address major research objectives, the following five important databases are selected due to their digital literacy focused research dominance: 1. WoS/Clarivate Analytics, 2. Proquest Central; 3. Emerald Management Journals; 4. Jstor Business College Collections; 5. Scopus/Elsevier.

The search was made in the second half of June 2021, in abstract and key words written in English language. We only kept research articles and book chapters (herein referred to as papers). Our purpose was to identify a set of digital literacy areas, or an inventory of such areas and topics. To serve that purpose, systematic review was utilized with the following synonym key words for the search: ‘digital literacy’, ‘digital skills’, ‘digital competence’ and ‘digital fluency’, to find the mainstream literature dealing with the topic. These key words were unfolded as a result of the consultation with the subject matter experts (two board members from Korean Digital Literacy Association and two professors from technology studies department). Below are the four key word combinations used in the search: “Digital literacy AND systematic review”, “Digital skills AND systematic review”, “Digital competence AND systematic review”, and “Digital fluency AND systematic review”.

A sequential systematic search was made in the five databases mentioned above. Thus, from one database to another, duplicate papers were manually excluded in a cascade manner to extract only unique results and to make the research smoother to conduct. At this stage, we kept 47 papers. Further exclusion criteria were applied. Thus, only full-text items written in English were selected, and in doing so, three papers were excluded (no full text available), and one other paper was excluded because it was not written in English, but in Spanish. Therefore, we investigated a total number of 43 papers, as shown in Table 1 . “ Appendix A ” shows the list of these papers with full references.

Data analysis

The 43 papers selected after the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, respectively, were reviewed the materials independently by two researchers who were from two different countries. The researchers identified all topics pertaining to digital literacy, as they appeared in the papers. Next, a third researcher independently analysed these findings by excluded duplicates A qualitative content analysis was manually performed by calculating the frequency of major themes in all papers, where the raw data was compared and contrasted (Fraenkel et al., 2012 ). All three reviewers independently list the words and how the context in which they appeared and then the three reviewers collectively decided for how it should be categorized. Lastly, it is vital to remind that literature review of this article was written after the identification of the themes appeared as a result of our qualitative analyses. Therefore, the authors decided to shape the literature review structure based on the themes.

As an answer to the first research question (the yearly distribution of digital literacy related papers), Fig.  1 demonstrates the yearly distribution of digital literacy related papers. It is seen that there is an increasing trend about the digital literacy papers.

Yearly distribution of digital literacy related papers

Research question number two (The research methods for digital literacy related papers) concentrates on what research methods are employed for these digital literacy related papers. As Fig.  2 shows, most of the papers were using the qualitative method. Not stated refers to book chapters.

Research methods used in the reviewed articles

When forty-three articles were analysed for the main themes as in research question number three (The main themes in digital literacy related papers), the overall findings were categorized around four major themes: (i) literacies, (ii) competencies, (iii) skills, and (iv) thinking. Under every major theme, the categories were listed and explained as in research question number four (The concentrated categories (under revealed main themes) in digital literacy related papers).

The authors utilized an overt categorization for the depiction of these major themes. For example, when the ‘creativity’ was labelled as a skill, the authors also categorized it under the ‘skills’ theme. Similarly, when ‘creativity’ was mentioned as a competency, the authors listed it under the ‘competencies’ theme. Therefore, it is possible to recognize the same finding under different major themes.

Major theme 1: literacies

Digital literacy being the major concern of this paper was observed to be blatantly mentioned in five papers out forty-three. One of these articles described digital literacy as the human proficiencies to live, learn and work in the current digital society. In addition to these five articles, two additional papers used the same term as ‘critical digital literacy’ by describing it as a person’s or a society’s accessibility and assessment level interaction with digital technologies to utilize and/or create information. Table 2 summarizes the major categories under ‘Literacies’ major theme.

Computer literacy, media literacy and cultural literacy were the second most common literacy (n = 5). One of the article branches computer literacy as tool (detailing with software and hardware uses) and resource (focusing on information processing capacity of a computer) literacies. Cultural literacy was emphasized as a vital element for functioning in an intercultural team on a digital project.

Disciplinary literacy (n = 4) was referring to utilizing different computer programs (n = 2) or technical gadgets (n = 2) with a specific emphasis on required cognitive, affective and psychomotor skills to be able to work in any digital context (n = 3), serving for the using (n = 2), creating and applying (n = 2) digital literacy in real life.

Data literacy, technology literacy and multiliteracy were the third frequent categories (n = 3). The ‘multiliteracy’ was referring to the innate nature of digital technologies, which have been infused into many aspects of human lives.

Last but not least, Internet literacy, mobile literacy, web literacy, new literacy, personal literacy and research literacy were discussed in forty-three article findings. Web literacy was focusing on being able to connect with people on the web (n = 2), discover the web content (especially the navigation on a hyper-textual platform), and learn web related skills through practical web experiences. Personal literacy was highlighting digital identity management. Research literacy was not only concentrating on conducting scientific research ability but also finding available scholarship online.

Twenty-four other categories are unfolded from the results sections of forty-three articles. Table 3 presents the list of these other literacies where the authors sorted the categories in an ascending alphabetical order without any other sorting criterion. Primarily, search, tagging, filtering and attention literacies were mainly underlining their roles in information processing. Furthermore, social-structural literacy was indicated as the recognition of the social circumstances and generation of information. Another information-related literacy was pointed as publishing literacy, which is the ability to disseminate information via different digital channels.

While above listed personal literacy was referring to digital identity management, network literacy was explained as someone’s social networking ability to manage the digital relationship with other people. Additionally, participatory literacy was defined as the necessary abilities to join an online team working on online content production.

Emerging technology literacy was stipulated as an essential ability to recognize and appreciate the most recent and innovative technologies in along with smart choices related to these technologies. Additionally, the critical literacy was added as an ability to make smart judgements on the cost benefit analysis of these recent technologies.

Last of all, basic, intermediate, and advanced digital assessment literacies were specified for educational institutions that are planning to integrate various digital tools to conduct instructional assessments in their bodies.

Major theme 2: competencies

The second major theme was revealed as competencies. The authors directly categorized the findings that are specified with the word of competency. Table 4 summarizes the entire category set for the competencies major theme.

The most common category was the ‘digital competence’ (n = 14) where one of the articles points to that category as ‘generic digital competence’ referring to someone’s creativity for multimedia development (video editing was emphasized). Under this broad category, the following sub-categories were associated:

Problem solving (n = 10)

Safety (n = 7)

Information processing (n = 5)

Content creation (n = 5)

Communication (n = 2)

Digital rights (n = 1)

Digital emotional intelligence (n = 1)

Digital teamwork (n = 1)

Big data utilization (n = 1)

Artificial Intelligence utilization (n = 1)

Virtual leadership (n = 1)

Self-disruption (in along with the pace of digitalization) (n = 1)

Like ‘digital competency’, five additional articles especially coined the term as ‘digital competence as a life skill’. Deeper analysis demonstrated the following points: social competences (n = 4), communication in mother tongue (n = 3) and foreign language (n = 2), entrepreneurship (n = 3), civic competence (n = 2), fundamental science (n = 1), technology (n = 1) and mathematics (n = 1) competences, learning to learn (n = 1) and self-initiative (n = 1).

Moreover, competencies were linked to workplace digital competencies in three articles and highlighted as significant for employability (n = 3) and ‘economic engagement’ (n = 3). Digital competencies were also detailed for leisure (n = 2) and communication (n = 2). Furthermore, two articles pointed digital competencies as an inter-cultural competency and one as a cross-cultural competency. Lastly, the ‘digital nativity’ (n = 1) was clarified as someone’s innate competency of being able to feel contented and satisfied with digital technologies.

Major theme 3: skills

The third major observed theme was ‘skills’, which was dominantly gathered around information literacy skills (n = 19) and information and communication technologies skills (n = 18). Table 5 demonstrates the categories with more than one occurrence.

Table 6 summarizes the sub-categories of the two most frequent categories of ‘skills’ major theme. The information literacy skills noticeably concentrate on the steps of information processing; evaluation (n = 6), utilization (n = 4), finding (n = 3), locating (n = 2) information. Moreover, the importance of trial/error process, being a lifelong learner, feeling a need for information and so forth were evidently listed under this sub-category. On the other hand, ICT skills were grouped around cognitive and affective domains. For instance, while technical skills in general and use of social media, coding, multimedia, chat or emailing in specific were reported in cognitive domain, attitude, intention, and belief towards ICT were mentioned as the elements of affective domain.

Communication skills (n = 9) were multi-dimensional for different societies, cultures, and globalized contexts, requiring linguistic skills. Collaboration skills (n = 9) are also recurrently cited with an explicit emphasis for virtual platforms.

‘Ethics for digital environment’ encapsulated ethical use of information (n = 4) and different technologies (n = 2), knowing digital laws (n = 2) and responsibilities (n = 2) in along with digital rights and obligations (n = 1), having digital awareness (n = 1), following digital etiquettes (n = 1), treating other people with respect (n = 1) including no cyber-bullying (n = 1) and no stealing or damaging other people (n = 1).

‘Digital fluency’ involved digital access (n = 2) by using different software and hardware (n = 2) in online platforms (n = 1) or communication tools (n = 1) or within programming environments (n = 1). Digital fluency also underlined following recent technological advancements (n = 1) and knowledge (n = 1) including digital health and wellness (n = 1) dimension.

‘Social intelligence’ related to understanding digital culture (n = 1), the concept of digital exclusion (n = 1) and digital divide (n = 3). ‘Research skills’ were detailed with searching academic information (n = 3) on databases such as Web of Science and Scopus (n = 2) and their citation, summarization, and quotation (n = 2).

‘Digital teaching’ was described as a skill (n = 2) in Table 4 whereas it was also labelled as a competence (n = 1) as shown in Table 3 . Similarly, while learning to learn (n = 1) was coined under competencies in Table 3 , digital learning (n = 2, Table 4 ) and life-long learning (n = 1, Table 5 ) were stated as learning related skills. Moreover, learning was used with the following three terms: learning readiness (n = 1), self-paced learning (n = 1) and learning flexibility (n = 1).

Table 7 shows other categories listed below the ‘skills’ major theme. The list covers not only the software such as GIS, text mining, mapping, or bibliometric analysis programs but also the conceptual skills such as the fourth industrial revolution and information management.

Major theme 4: thinking

The last identified major theme was the different types of ‘thinking’. As Table 8 shows, ‘critical thinking’ was the most frequent thinking category (n = 4). Except computational thinking, the other categories were not detailed.

Computational thinking (n = 3) was associated with the general logic of how a computer works and sub-categorized into the following steps; construction of the problem (n = 3), abstraction (n = 1), disintegration of the problem (n = 2), data collection, (n = 2), data analysis (n = 2), algorithmic design (n = 2), parallelization & iteration (n = 1), automation (n = 1), generalization (n = 1), and evaluation (n = 2).

A transversal analysis of digital literacy categories reveals the following fields of digital literacy application:

Technological advancement (IT, ICT, Industry 4.0, IoT, text mining, GIS, bibliometric analysis, mapping data, technology, AI, big data)

Networking (Internet, web, connectivity, network, safety)

Information (media, news, communication)

Creative-cultural industries (culture, publishing, film, TV, leisure, content creation)

Academia (research, documentation, library)

Citizenship (participation, society, social intelligence, awareness, politics, rights, legal use, ethics)

Education (life skills, problem solving, teaching, learning, education, lifelong learning)

Professional life (work, teamwork, collaboration, economy, commerce, leadership, decision making)

Personal level (critical thinking, evaluation, analytical thinking, innovative thinking)

This systematic review on digital literacy concentrated on forty-three articles from the databases of WoS/Clarivate Analytics, Proquest Central, Emerald Management Journals, Jstor Business College Collections and Scopus/Elsevier. The initial results revealed that there is an increasing trend on digital literacy focused academic papers. Research work in digital literacy is critical in a context of disruptive digital business, and more recently, the pandemic-triggered accelerated digitalisation (Beaunoyer, Dupéré & Guitton, 2020 ; Sousa & Rocha 2019 ). Moreover, most of these papers were employing qualitative research methods. The raw data of these articles were analysed qualitatively using systematic literature review to reveal major themes and categories. Four major themes that appeared are: digital literacy, digital competencies, digital skills and thinking.

Whereas the mainstream literature describes digital literacy as a set of photo-visual, real-time, information, branching, reproduction and social-emotional thinking (Eshet-Alkalai, 2012 ) or as a set of precise specific operations, i.e., finding, consuming, creating, communicating and sharing digital content (Heitin, 2016 ), this study reveals that digital literacy revolves around and is in connection with the concepts of computer literacy, media literacy, cultural literacy or disciplinary literacy. In other words, the present systematic review indicates that digital literacy is far broader than specific tasks, englobing the entire sphere of computer operation and media use in a cultural context.

The digital competence yardstick, DigComp (Carretero, Vuorikari & Punie, 2017 ) suggests that the main digital competencies cover information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation, safety, and problem solving. Similarly, the findings of this research place digital competencies in relation to problem solving, safety, information processing, content creation and communication. Therefore, the findings of the systematic literature review are, to a large extent, in line with the existing framework used in the European Union.

The investigation of the main keywords associated with digital skills has revealed that information literacy, ICT, communication, collaboration, digital content creation, research and decision-making skill are the most representative. In a structured way, the existing literature groups these skills in technological, cognitive, and social (Ng, 2012 ) or, more extensively, into operational, formal, information Internet, strategic, communication and content creation (van Dijk & van Deursen, 2014 ). In time, the literature has become richer in frameworks, and prolific authors have improved their results. As such, more recent research (vaan Laar et al., 2017 ) use the following categories: technical, information management, communication, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving.

Whereas digital thinking was observed to be mostly related with critical thinking and computational thinking, DigComp connects it with critical thinking, creativity, and innovation, on the one hand, and researchers highlight fake news, misinformation, cybersecurity, and echo chambers as exponents of digital thinking, on the other hand (Sulzer, 2018 ; Puig, Blanco-Anaya & Perez-Maceira, 2021 ).

This systematic review research study looks ahead to offer an initial step and guideline for the development of a more contemporary digital literacy framework including digital literacy major themes and factors. The researchers provide the following recommendations for both researchers and practitioners.

Recommendations for prospective research

By considering the major qualitative research trend, it seems apparent that more quantitative research-oriented studies are needed. Although it requires more effort and time, mixed method studies will help understand digital literacy holistically.

As digital literacy is an umbrella term for many different technologies, specific case studies need be designed, such as digital literacy for artificial intelligence or digital literacy for drones’ usage.

Digital literacy affects different areas of human lives, such as education, business, health, governance, and so forth. Therefore, different case studies could be carried out for each of these unique dimensions of our lives. For instance, it is worth investigating the role of digital literacy on lifelong learning in particular, and on education in general, as well as the digital upskilling effects on the labour market flexibility.

Further experimental studies on digital literacy are necessary to realize how certain variables (for instance, age, gender, socioeconomic status, cognitive abilities, etc.) affect this concept overtly or covertly. Moreover, the digital divide issue needs to be analysed through the lens of its main determinants.

New bibliometric analysis method can be implemented on digital literacy documents to reveal more information on how these works are related or centred on what major topic. This visual approach will assist to realize the big picture within the digital literacy framework.

Recommendations for practitioners

The digital literacy stakeholders, policymakers in education and managers in private organizations, need to be aware that there are many dimensions and variables regarding the implementation of digital literacy. In that case, stakeholders must comprehend their beneficiaries or the participants more deeply to increase the effect of digital literacy related activities. For example, critical thinking and problem-solving skills and abilities are mentioned to affect digital literacy. Hence, stakeholders have to initially understand whether the participants have enough entry level critical thinking and problem solving.

Development of digital literacy for different groups of people requires more energy, since each group might require a different set of skills, abilities, or competencies. Hence, different subject matter experts, such as technologists, instructional designers, content experts, should join the team.

It is indispensably vital to develop different digital frameworks for different technologies (basic or advanced) or different contexts (different levels of schooling or various industries).

These frameworks should be updated regularly as digital fields are evolving rapidly. Every year, committees should gather around to understand new technological trends and decide whether they should address the changes into their frameworks.

Understanding digital literacy in a thorough manner can enable decision makers to correctly implement and apply policies addressing the digital divide that is reflected onto various aspects of life, e.g., health, employment, education, especially in turbulent times such as the COVID-19 pandemic is.

Lastly, it is also essential to state the study limitations. This study is limited to the analysis of a certain number of papers, obtained from using the selected keywords and databases. Therefore, an extension can be made by adding other keywords and searching other databases.

Availability of data and materials

The authors present the articles used for the study in “ Appendix A ”.

Baber, H., Fanea-Ivanovici, M., Lee, Y. T., & Tinmaz, H. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of digital literacy research and emerging themes pre-during COVID-19 pandemic. Information and Learning Sciences . https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-10-2021-0090 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Beaunoyer, E., Dupéré, S., & Guitton, M. J. (2020). COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts and mitigation strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 111 , 10642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106424

Blau, I., Shamir-Inbal, T., & Avdiel, O. (2020). How does the pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced collaborative academic course promote digital literacies, self-regulation, and perceived learning of students? The Internet and Higher Education, 45 , 100722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100722

Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use (No. JRC106281). Joint Research Centre, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC106281

Eshet, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia , 13 (1), 93–106, https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/4793/

Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2012). Thinking in the digital era: A revised model for digital literacy. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 9 (2), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.28945/1621

Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. JCR IPTS, Sevilla. https://ifap.ru/library/book522.pdf

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). Mc Graw Hill.

Google Scholar  

Heitin, L. (2016). What is digital literacy? Education Week, https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/what-is-digital-literacy/2016/11

Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2013). Distinct skill pathways to digital engagement. European Journal of Communication, 28 (6), 696–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323113499113

Kowalczyk, N., & Truluck, C. (2013). Literature reviews and systematic reviews: What is the difference ? . Radiologic Technology, 85 (2), 219–222.

Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59 (3), 1065–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016

Ozkan-Ozen, Y. D., & Kazancoglu, Y. (2021). Analysing workforce development challenges in the Industry 4.0. International Journal of Manpower . https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-03-2021-0167

Puig, B., Blanco-Anaya, P., & Perez-Maceira, J. J. (2021). “Fake News” or Real Science? Critical thinking to assess information on COVID-19. Frontiers in Education, 6 , 646909. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.646909

Robinson, L., Cotten, S. R., Ono, H., Quan-Haase, A., Mesch, G., Chen, W., Schulz, J., Hale, T. M., & Stern, M. J. (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 18 (5), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532

Robinson, P., & Lowe, J. (2015). Literature reviews vs systematic reviews. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39 (2), 103. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12393

Sousa, M. J., & Rocha, A. (2019). Skills for disruptive digital business. Journal of Business Research, 94 , 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.051

Sulzer, A. (2018). (Re)conceptualizing digital literacies before and after the election of Trump. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 17 (2), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-06-2017-0098

Tinmaz, H., Fanea-Ivanovici, M., & Baber, H. (2022). A snapshot of digital literacy. Library Hi Tech News , (ahead-of-print).

Uman, L. S. (2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20 (1), 57–59.

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2015). Development and validation of the Internet Skills Scale (ISS). Information, Communication & Society, 19 (6), 804–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1078834

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2009). Using the internet: Skills related problems in users’ online behaviour. Interacting with Computers, 21 , 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2009.06.005

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2010a). Measuring internet skills. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26 (10), 891–916. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2010.496338

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2010b). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 13 (6), 893–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774

van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & Van Deursen, A. J. A. M. (2014). Digital skills, unlocking the information society . Palgrave MacMillan.

van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computer in Human Behavior, 72 , 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010

Download references

This research is funded by Woosong University Academic Research in 2022.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

AI & Big Data Department, Endicott College of International Studies, Woosong University, Daejeon, South Korea

Hasan Tinmaz

Endicott College of International Studies, Woosong University, Daejeon, South Korea

Yoo-Taek Lee

Department of Economics and Economic Policies, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania

Mina Fanea-Ivanovici

Abu Dhabi School of Management, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Hasnan Baber

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors worked together on the manuscript equally. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hasnan Baber .

Ethics declarations

Competing of interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Tinmaz, H., Lee, YT., Fanea-Ivanovici, M. et al. A systematic review on digital literacy. Smart Learn. Environ. 9 , 21 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00204-y

Download citation

Received : 23 February 2022

Accepted : 01 June 2022

Published : 08 June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00204-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digital literacy
• Systematic review
• Qualitative research

Advertisement

From digital literacy to digital competence: the teacher digital competency (TDC) framework

• Development Article
• Open access
• Published: 29 March 2020
• Volume 68 , pages 2449–2472, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Garry Falloon 1  

119k Accesses

271 Citations

64 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Over the years, a variety of frameworks, models and literacies have been developed to guide teacher educators in their efforts to build digital capabilities in their students, that will support them to use new and emerging technologies in their future classrooms. Generally, these focus on advancing students’ skills in using ‘educational’ applications and digitally-sourced information, or understanding effective blends of pedagogical, content and technological knowledge seen as supporting the integration of digital resources into teaching, to enhance subject learning outcomes. Within teacher education institutions courses developing these capabilities are commonly delivered as standalone entities, or there is an assumption that they will be generated by technology’s integration in other disciplines or through mandated assessment. However, significant research exists suggesting the current narrow focus on subject-related technical and information skills does not prepare students adequately with the breadth of knowledge and capabilities needed in today’s classrooms, and beyond. This article presents a conceptual framework introducing an expanded view of teacher digital competence (TDC). It moves beyond prevailing technical and literacies conceptualisations, arguing for more holistic and broader-based understandings that recognise the increasingly complex knowledge and skills young people need to function ethically, safely and productively in diverse, digitally-mediated environments. The implications of the framework are discussed, with specific reference to its interdisciplinary nature and the requirement of all faculty to engage purposefully and deliberately in delivering its objectives. Practical suggestions on how the framework might be used by faculty, are presented.

Similar content being viewed by others

Teachers’ AI digital competencies and twenty-first century skills in the post-pandemic world

Fresh evidence on the relationship between years of experience and teaching quality

Teaching with digital technology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The problem of better-preparing teacher education students to use digital technologies effectively and productively in schools is an enduring issue (Guzman and Nussbaum 2009 ; Otero et al. 2005 ; Sutton 2011 ). Traditionally, teacher education providers have opted for isolated ICT courses or units, often positioned early in the students’ qualification programme. These are delivered on the assumption that ‘front loading’ students with what are perceived as essential knowledge and skills, will support them to complete course assessment requirements—such as developing ‘technology integrated’ units of learning, for practicum work in schools, and by implication, helping them use digital technology effectively in their later teaching career (Kleiner et al. 2007 ; Polly et al. 2010 ). These courses generally focus on building students’ confidence and attitudes towards using digital resources in teaching and learning, and developing the requisite hardware and software skills to facilitate this (Foulger et al. 2012 ).

However, a growing body of research suggests this approach is ineffective for building broader and deeper understandings of the knowledge and capabilities needed by teachers educating students for future life, and it has been criticised for its narrow focus on contextually-devoid, isolated technical skills (e.g., Ferrari 2012 ; Janssen et al. 2013 ; Ottestad et al. 2014 ). While there is general agreement about the need to develop and implement alternative approaches to teacher preparation that reflect a more holistic and integrated approach that addresses students’ concerns of “a disconnect between their technology training and the rest of their teacher preparation program” (Sutton 2011 , p. 43), debate exists about exactly how this should be done, and what programmes of this nature should comprise.

Digital literacy or digital competence?

Traditional approaches to developing digital capabilities in teacher education have focused on promoting students’ ‘digital literacy’ (Borthwick and Hansen 2017 ). This term first emerged around 1997, when Paul Gilster introduced it in his book as:

…a set of skills to access the internet, find, manage and edit digital information; join in communications, and otherwise engage with an online information and communication network. Digital literacy is the ability to properly use and evaluate digital resources, tools and services, and apply it to lifelong learning processes ( 1997 , p. 220).

Since that time the concept has become increasingly contested as new technologies and new applications for technology have emerged, many of which have been spawned by progressively ubiquitous access to the internet, and the proliferation of personal, mobile digital devices. Terms such as ‘information literacy’ (Zurkowski 1974 ), ‘computer literacy’ (Tsai 2002 ), ‘internet literacy’ (Harrison 2017 ), ‘media literacy’ (Christ and Potter 1998 ) and recently, ‘multi-modal literacy’ (Heydon 2007 ) have all been associated with effective use of digital resources in teaching and learning, and have been promoted as components of an inclusive view of digital literacy (Grusczynska and Pountney 2013 ). As Helsper ( 2008 ) identifies, reaching a singular definition of digital literacy is challenging, due to constantly evolving technological, cultural and societal landscapes redefining what, when and how digital technologies are used in personal and professional activities.

In terms of teacher education, producing digitally-literate students has generally meant the prioritisation of technical skills in using digital tools and systems deemed appropriate to educational settings, and identifying how these can be used within particular units of learning (Admiraal et al. 2016 ). This approach assumes that doing this, “equips pre-service teachers with a set of basic competencies they can transfer to their future classroom practice” (Admiraal et al. 2016 , p. 106). However, these approaches have been criticised for their narrow skills focus, lack of authenticity, failure to take account of different socio-cultural contexts for technology use, and their ineffective, reductive design (Gruszczynska et al. 2013 ; Lim et al. 2011 ; Lund et al. 2014 ; Ottestad et al. 2014 ). Others have identified limitations in their overly technical approach that ignores wider considerations, including ethical, digital citizenship, health, wellbeing, safety and social/collaborative elements (Foulger et al. 2017 ; Hinrichsen and Coombs 2013 ). More recent studies have called for a reconceptualisation of the outcomes of teacher education programmes, suggesting the present skills-focused digital literacy emphasis be abandoned, in favour of broader digital competency models that recognise the more diverse knowledge, capabilities and dispositions needed by future teachers.

In considering the nature of general digital competence, Janssen et al. comment that:

…digital competency clearly involves more than knowing how to use devices and applications… which is intricately connected with skills to communicate with ICT, as well as information skills. Sensible and healthy use of ICT requires particular knowledge and attitudes regarding legal and ethical aspects, privacy and security, as well as understanding the role of ICT in society and a balanced attitude towards technology… (Janssen et al. 2013 , p. 480).

While this conceptualisation acknowledges the relevance and importance of technical knowledge and skills, it adopts a wider socio-cultural stance by signalling the need to understand and consider broader implications and effects of digital technologies on individuals and society. It also introduces dispositional and attitudinal elements—or what Janssen et al. ( 2013 ) terms developing a “mind-set” (p. 474) towards technological innovations, in an effort to better understand and critically appraise their role and influence in forming new practices. This represents a considerable challenge for teacher educators, who not only need to better support their students to more effectively utilise digital resources in their future classrooms, but must also help them understand and develop a concern for broader considerations around technology use, and its impacts. Additionally, the notion of competence implies a need for constant revision, reflecting changes to technological systems and uses that, “take into account the evolving nature of technologies” (Janssen et al. 2013 , p. 474). This requires teacher educators to constantly reflect on current capabilities and needs and where necessary access professional learning, responding to rapidly changing educational environments and opportunities afforded by emerging technology innovations.

Existing frameworks guiding teacher digital capability development

Supporting development of the teacher digital competency framework introduced in this article, a scoping review of literature was undertaken investigating the characteristics of some present frameworks commonly used in teacher education. The purpose of the review was not to develop a definitive summary encompassing all frameworks. Instead, it overviewed frameworks that had been developed specifically for teacher education, made reference to possible application in teacher education, or had been researched and reported on within teacher education contexts, to identify the extent to which they represented a holistic interpretation of digital competence as described by Janssen et al. ( 2013 ). To facilitate this, a multi-database search was completed using various combinations of the keywords: teacher, education, teaching, digital, literacy, skills, competencies, ICT, technology, capabilities, information. From the results, a selection of frequently occurring frameworks considered most aligned with teacher education were selected for analysis (i.e., ones conceptualised, implemented or researched in teacher education contexts). A summary of these is presented in “ Appendix ”. In interpreting the table, different sized black circles have been used to indicate the level of emphasis given in each framework to skills development (S), pedagogical (P) and curriculum (C) changes, dispositional/attitudinal factors (Disp.) and personal considerations (Pers.). These are further defined in the notes section at the bottom of the table.

As indicated in the table there is a solid emphasis in most frameworks on skills development, although only TPACK, the UNESCO framework and to a lesser extent the ISTE standards, explicitly linked these to associated changes in pedagogy and curriculum. Skills generally focused on technical/operational aspects of ICT and information skills—specifically how to use devices and software to access, work with and evaluate information for a range of curriculum and teaching purposes, and the type of thinking associated with this (e.g., analysis, evaluation, critical). The frameworks were also quite different in structure, with the ISTE standards, UNESCO competencies and ICTE-MM maturity model adopting universal ‘checklist’ formats, while the others were more conceptual (broader ideas informing bespoke development). Notably, no existing frameworks included more than a passing mention of personal dispositions/attitudes or understandings of wider issues or safety and wellbeing (etc.) considerations, as components of teacher education students’ digital competence.

Two conceptual frameworks were indicated in literature as frequently used for informing the design of teacher education digital capability programmes, and were well-supported by empirical research. They were Mishra and Koehler’s ( 2006 ) TPACK framework (e.g., Graziano et al. 2017 ; Kimmons and Hall 2018 ; Krause and Lynch 2016 ; Reyes et al. 2017 ; Tan et al. 2019 ; Voogt and McKenney 2017 ) and Puentedura’s ( 2006 ) SAMR model (e.g., Aldosemani 2019 ; Baz et al. 2018 ; Beisel 2017 ; Kihoza et al. 2016 ; Sardone 2019 ). The next section investigates these frameworks in more detail, evaluating each for their capacity to support teacher educators in their efforts to foster broadly-based digital competence in their students.

SAMR (substitution, augmentation, modification, redefinition) is essentially a descriptive framework that maps different educational uses of technology hierarchically against levels or stages—progressing from Substitution (‘doing digitally’ what has traditionally been carried out using conventional resources) through to Redefinition (curriculum, pedagogy and practice reconceptualised through digital technologies). SAMR has been widely adopted by teacher educators and schools as a pragmatic guide for signposting ICT development progress, as they work towards what is seen as the utopian position of curriculum Redefinition through technology (Geer et al. 2017 ; Hilton 2016 ). According to Puentedura ( 2006 ), at the Redefinition stage, “technology allows for the creation of new tasks, previously inconceivable” (slide 3)—tasks, he claims, that align with the exercise of higher order thinking capabilities such as analysing, evaluating and creating. At the Substitution stage, “technology acts as a direct tool substitute with no functional change” (slide 3), which Puentedura ( 2006 ) aligns with lower order thinking capabilities, such as understanding and remembering. The Augmentation and Modification stages represent intermediate steps between Substitution and Redefinition, describing increasing complexity and sophistication in using technology to facilitate changes to learning design and pedagogy, progressively supporting greater levels of curriculum innovation (Fig. 1 ).

The SAMR model (from Puentedura 2006 )

While the SAMR framework may be useful for pre-service and practicing teachers by providing descriptive ‘aim points’ towards which to evolve their practice, it does not provide concrete illustrations of the sort of practices that might represent each stage, or ways of transitioning through the stages—nor does it explicitly account for supporting and necessary pedagogical, technological and learning design changes. Although appealing possibly because of its simplicity, SAMR focuses solely on describing levels of subject-based technology integration, reflecting a narrow interpretation of the understandings teacher education students need for the more holistic and comprehensive capability set required by an expanded view of digital competence.

A broader and more inclusive framework that goes some way towards addressing the shortcomings of SAMR, is Mishra and Koehler’s ( 2006 ) technological pedagogical content knowledge, or TPACK model. TPACK builds on the earlier work of Shulman ( 1986 ), “to explain how teachers’ understanding of educational technologies and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) interact with one another to produce effective teaching with technology” (Koehler et al. 2013 , p. 14). Unlike SAMR, TPACK does not represent a hierarchy or staged progression, but rather presents a holistic model that theorises the relationship between, and contribution of, technological, pedagogical and content knowledge to effective curriculum learning-focused technology use. TPACK merges each element into a central core that blends deep and robust discipline conceptual knowledge (CK) with an understanding of the potential of, and capacity to use technology (TCK) to enhance learning, through supportive pedagogies (TPK) that acknowledge students’ prior understandings and learning needs (Fig. 2 ).

The TPACK framework (from Mishra and Koehler 2006 )

The success of TPACK relies on the capabilities of teachers within each domain, and their capacity for flexibility, willingness to update, and readiness to explore how the domains interrelate to support effective technology use in a range of different situations (Harris et al. 2009 ). While TPACK acknowledges the integrative relationship between conceptual content knowledge and pedagogy and technology, within teacher education programmes this relationship is seldom reflected in course design and teaching practices (Ndongfack 2015 ). According to Ndongfack, fundamental structural issues exist in many teacher education programmes that work against building integrative TPACK knowledge. These include a tendency to, “focus on developing knowledge of pedagogy and content separately… and empowering them (students) with some basic computer skills, not how to integrate them into the teaching and learning process” (Ndongfack 2015 , p. 1707). This separation is also noted in some frameworks that list capabilities separately, rather than indicating how they work together in more effective, integrative approaches (e.g., ISTE 2017 ; UNESCO 2011 ). Despite the emergence of a few studies signalling discipline-related learning benefits from redeveloping courses using an integrative TPACK approach (e.g., Habowski and Mouza 2014 ), such innovations are presently not commonplace in teacher education programmes.

Although offering a more comprehensive framework that acknowledges the complexities of optimising digital technology’s contribution in the classroom, TPACK maintains the focus of other frameworks firmly on subject learning-related outcomes. That is, it theorises the relationship between, and blending of pedagogical, content and technological knowledge to enhance the learning performance of students in, and sometimes across, subject disciplines. While valuable for this purpose, TPACK in its original form is limited in its usefulness for building a broader-based conceptualisation of teacher digital competence.

Since TPACK’s publication in 2006, the educational and technological landscape has altered significantly, largely in response to new digital innovations and rapidly changing and often unstable social, political and economic environments. Given these changes, it could be argued that the knowledge school students will need and that their teachers will need to teach them, to safely, sustainably and productively engage with and leverage benefits from digital resources in challenging future environments, requires more than simple ‘technical’ exposure to ICT in traditional school subjects. Concerns that were not apparent even 10 years ago, have emerged as major players in our understanding of what it now means to be ‘digitally competent’. These include considerations such as cybersafety and managing personal data and online presence, digital citizenship, ethics and judgement, and building knowledge from, and collaborating in, online networks and virtual environments. A more holistic conceptual framework is needed that takes account of such factors, and teacher educators must widen their focus to ensure their students understand and are equipped to teach these, when they begin their careers.

Understanding digital competence

Janssen et al.’s ( 2013 ) Delphi study provides insights into what a more holistic digital competence framework might look like. Their survey of 95 experts comprising representatives from academic, education and training, government and policy and IT business sectors, revealed twelve elements considered essential to broadly-based digital competence. These are summarised in Table 1 .

Janssen et al. ( 2013 ) conceptualised each element as a ‘building block’ in establishing holistic digital competence. They organised these into a model that displayed how the elements worked together, resulting in, “seamless use demonstrating self-efficacy” (p. 478) (Fig.  3 ). Central to the model are ‘core’ competencies that include functional, integrative and specialised uses of digital technology, that are enhanced by improved capabilities in networking (technology-mediated communication and collaboration) and information management (accessing and using digital information). Running parallel to these are what they term ‘supportive’ competencies. These are indicated in Fig.  3 by the purple and grey vertical pillars. They represent competencies including understanding legal and ethical considerations, personal and societal impacts and effects, and dispositional elements such as maintaining a balanced and objective attitude towards technology innovation, and a willingness to explore the potential of emerging technologies for personal and professional benefit. As competence develops, personal reflection and increased levels of integration into all aspects of daily activity contribute to greater awareness of how appropriate digital technology use can be leveraged across the lifespan, leading to seamless personal and professionally-beneficial selection and use.

Janssen et al.’s ( 2013 ) elements of digital competence model

In their discussion of the model, Janssen et al. ( 2013 ) signal limitations to its direct application to specific contexts. They point to the balance that needs to be struck between choosing, “a common denominator that is broad enough to encompass nearly everything, (thereby) being over-inclusive or too vague, or a narrower common denominator (with the risk of) the conception being too restrictive” (p. 480). They further comment that, “digital competence should be understood as a pluralistic concept” (p. 480), emphasising that consideration must be given to the unique but interrelated and connected purposes and functions of digital technology, in different contexts. Janssen et al. ( 2013 ) highlight that the way in which digital competence is developed and displayed in one context will differ from others, and that it is important to view digital competence, “from a plurality of angles” (p. 480).

In relation to teacher education, Lund et al. ( 2014 ) comment on the unique challenges faced by teacher educators in developing a holistic view of digital competence in their students. They point out that teacher educators are required both to educate their students about using present and emerging digital resources in their own professional practice, but also about how to make their students, “capable of using technology in productive ways” (p. 286). Achieving this is particularly difficult, as it requires catering for more than the immediate capability needs of students, to build a transformative competence , that will enable them to interpret into specific instructive, learning design, classroom organisation and assessment practices, how to best use digital resources to support their own students’ learning (Lund et al. 2014 ).

Other studies highlight the need for teacher educators and their students to consider digital technologies as culturally-embedded artefacts, understanding how they shape and influence our knowledge construction, social interactions and development as people (e.g., Ludvigsen and Mørch 2010 ; Säljö 2010 ). Säljö ( 2010 ) suggests that in assessing the impact of digital technology on learning, we need to broaden our perspective to consider not only knowledge outcomes, but also how these outcomes were arrived at, through using digital artefacts. He terms this “performative action” (Säljö 2010 , p. 60), arguing that it is the basis for transforming our understanding of what learning is, what we should expect people to learn, and how this learning can occur. Building on Säljö’s work, Lund et al. ( 2014 ) argues the importance of performative competence in supporting teacher education students to identify transformative uses for technology in teaching. Noting their unique position as newcomers to school environments, Lund et al. suggest performative competence will enable beginning teachers to resist, “merely being socialised into existing practices, but being able to contribute to the development of new ones” ( 2014 , p. 287). While acknowledging difficulties achieving this in practice, Lund et al. view performative competence as essential to a broad understanding of teacher digital competence in a knowledge-based society.

The contested nature of teacher digital competence

To this point, reviewed literature has presented different perspectives on building teacher education students’ digital capability. Models such as TPACK and SAMR represent pragmatic approaches, suggesting capability comprises the capacity to effectively combine technological, pedagogical and content-knowledge to use digital resources to enhance subject knowledge outcomes. Other discussion signals a broader interpretation, including elements such as personal ‘digital dispositions’ and behaviours, and consideration of the impacts of digital technologies on people, society and environment (e.g., Janssen et al. 2013 ). Some suggest incompatibility exists between these two interpretations, “with tensions between understandings as a skill set and technical competence, and those that focus on socio-cultural and communicative practices” (Gruszczynska and Pountney 2013 , p. 29); while others point to their compatibility and complementary nature (e.g., Ottestad et al. 2014 ; Põldoja et al. 2011 ).

Official documents and frameworks tend to emphasise ICT skills or ‘information literacy’ perspectives, prioritising the acquisition of technical and procedural skills that can be planned for and assessed against professional standards (e.g., Australia’s National Professional Standards for Teachers; ISTE Standards for Educators; UNESCO ICT Competency Standards for Teachers). On the other hand, researchers and academics are calling for a broadening of the emphasis to encompass personal and socio-cultural factors, such as managing one’s personal information and online profile, safety and security, and exercising digital judgement (e.g., Foulger et al. 2017 ; Salas-Pilco 2013 ). From a policy standpoint, the reductive approach of standards frameworks holds considerable appeal, due to the relative simplicity of assessing capabilities through testing or checklist-like recording. However, developing and assessing non-technical personal competencies is far more difficult although arguably just as important, given the need to educate students about dangers such as cyberbullying and online predatory behaviours through social media, identity theft, and the misuse of digitally-harvested personal information (Palermiti et al. 2017 ; Richards et al. 2015 ).

It is apparent considerable debate exists in literature concerning the exact definition and nature of teacher digital ‘competence’, and how this can be best developed during initial teacher education. While prevailing framework emphases based on digital literacy notions of technical, pedagogical and content knowledge go some way towards informing the capabilities required by graduating teachers, it is argued that these are insufficient in present and future educational environments. School students need to know more than procedural and technical skills and benefit from digital technology’s use in curriculum subject learning. It could reasonably be expected that teacher education students should strive to extend their competence beyond didactic application of digital technologies, towards a more holistic view encompassing personal and societal considerations, such as those introduced earlier. While this is a challenging undertaking it is a vitally important one, if the students they teach are to be better-prepared to function productively and safely in increasingly digitally-mediated personal and professional environments.

Conceptual frameworks and digital competence

Antonenko ( 2014 ) describes conceptual frameworks as, “practical tools—a process and a product for organising and aligning all aspects of an inquiry” (p. 55). According to Antoneko, conceptual frameworks can take different forms for different purposes, but generally communicate, “the system of beliefs, assumptions, theories and concepts that support and inform (inquiry)” ( 2014 , p. 55). Ravitch and Riggan ( 2012 ) suggest conceptual frameworks define the ‘big ideas’ associated with a particular inquiry, and comprise a blend of personal beliefs, assumptions and experiential knowledge; topical research (knowledge relevant to the field of study), and theories generated from prior empirical work. While conceptual frameworks are important for defining the key ideas, relevance, rationale and foci for an inquiry or programme, they are not intended to act as a ‘formula’ or ‘prescription’ detailing, in this case, universally-applicable curricula with the goal of improving students’ digital capabilities. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to guide and inform curriculum and programme design and content which is tailored by expert professionals to the context in which it is to function, not specify precisely what it should comprise or how it should be delivered. The next section introduces a teacher digital competence (TDC) conceptual framework that builds on Janssen et al.’s ( 2013 ) work. It positions Janssen et al.’s general competencies within the context of teacher education, extending it by introducing ‘teaching specific’ competencies aligned with TPACK, and integrated, personal/ethical and personal/professional competencies.

The teacher digital competence (TDC) framework

As signalled by Lund et al. ( 2014 ), the transformative potential of teachers new to the classroom offering contemporary ideas and perspectives, needs to be realised before they become enculturated or socialised into existing school norms and practices. By encouraging them to consider an expanded view of teacher digital competence, that includes but moves beyond the present focus on didactic application and technically-oriented digital literacy-building before entering the classroom, there exists the possibility that they challenge existing thinking, possibly becoming ‘change agents’ towards a more inclusive and contemporary understanding of teacher digital competence. At a practical level, such understandings will also support them in their efforts to plan and structure learning programmes to foster relevant competencies in their own students. The following section introduces elements of a comprehensive framework that depicts the integration of curriculum-related and personal-ethical and personal-professional competencies, argued above as essential for establishing the broad capability set required of teachers currently entering the profession, and in the future.

Understanding the framework

The TDC framework (Fig.  4 ) represents diagrammatically a broadly-based conceptualisation of teacher digital competence. While the framework could equally be used to inform the competency set of practicing teachers, the discussion that follows and suggestions for use, specifically focus on its applicability to teacher education.

Curriculum competencies

The TDC framework extends TPACK-aligned competencies that specifically focus on the skills and capabilities needed to integrate digital resources to support subject learning. The green horizontal bars depict the main elements of TPACK, with the vertical, dark blue side pillars indicating their integrated nature in forming the capabilities and skills needed to use digital technologies for subject-based learning. Technical competence refers to robust knowledge of the ‘mechanics’ of operating various digital technologies, such as mobile devices, apps, network services and so on. Technological competence focuses more on theoretical understandings related to the role and potential of digital technologies in teaching and learning, and knowledge of the rationale underpinning its inclusion in educational environments. In short, this competence emphasises understanding the hows (technical) and whys (technological) of digital technology in the classroom.

Discipline and content knowledge competence aligns closely with Mishra and Koehler’s ( 2006 ) definition, that is, knowledge of, “the actual subject matter to be learned and taught” (p. 1025). Although possibly self-evident, teacher education students need sound conceptual knowledge of subject content in order to teach it, with or without the assistance of technology. Put simply, they must ‘know their stuff’. The third bar, pedagogical and learning design competence, refers to the need for robust knowledge of how to plan and teach with , through and about digital technologies. Pedagogy has been described as, “the science and art of teaching” (Battro et al. 2013 , p. 177), suggesting a blending of technical and organisational capabilities with personal teaching creativity, flair and style. Competence in this element requires students to know how to best teach with, about and through digital technologies, focusing on effective and engaging teaching performance, strategies, resource, class management and organisational approaches, and appropriate learning designs. These might include knowledge of effective class group and resource access systems, critical review and selection of different technologies and applications as being ‘fit for purpose’, the compatibility of digital resources with subject and problem, project and inquiry-based learning designs, and so on. The three core competencies integrate to establish a solid foundation upon which teacher education students are able to make informed and beneficial decisions about digital resource use, improve their teaching effectiveness with them, and develop confident and seamless digitally-enhanced teaching practice (the yellow bars).

Personal-ethical competencies

Flanking the core competencies, the framework introduces two new sets of integrated competencies : personal-ethical and personal-professional. Personal-ethical competencies require teacher education students to understand, model and where relevant, include specific teaching content, to assist their students to access and use digital resources in a sustainable, safe and ethical way. Broadly, the first two pillars target what it means to be a good ‘digital citizen’, and aim to build knowledge of how to maintain personal safety and data security in a range of digitally-mediated environments (e.g., social networks), and ensure health and wellbeing while using devices. These respond to issues such as the increasing instances of identity theft, predatory online behaviours, cyberbullying, and harvesting and misuse of personal information; and also physical and psychological problems that have been associated with device overreliance and use, such as obesity, internet and game addiction, and social isolation. In practical terms, these two pillars serve the dual function of educating about the implications and effects of digital transactions and interactions on others, and also teaching students specific mitigation strategies, should they fall victim to negative digitally-mediated behaviours. The third pillar considers the impacts of digital technologies on people, society and environment. This has been included responding to increasing global concerns such as multinational company exploitation of workers in device production factories and at raw material source sites, the dumping of discarded devices in toxic waste pits in developing countries, and the intrusive effects digital devices can have on maintaining a sustainable and healthy work/life balance. The pillar encourages students to take a critical perspective on digital technologies, questioning who the winners and losers are from technological innovation, and adopting a proactive personal stance on societal issues related to the effects of technologies.

It should be noted that the order of the pillars does not represent their level of importance, and the red double-headed arrows indicate their interrelated nature. For example, it could be argued that the centre pillar, exercising ethical digital citizenship and judgement, broadly encompasses competencies included in the other two. While acknowledging this may be the case, to enhance the framework’s usefulness as a practical tool for informing teacher educators’ planning and practice, they have been detailed separately.

Personal-professional competencies

On the right flank of the core competencies, the lighter blue pillars depict three, integrated personal-professional competencies. The first of these encompasses capabilities aligned with earlier conceptualisations of information literacy. This includes skills such as recognising the need for information, sourcing relevant information using effective search strategies (digital and non-digital forms), evaluating and organising information, integrating information for practical application, and critical thinking and problem solving (Webber and Johnston 2000 ). This pillar effectively represents an operational competence, that will support students across all activities associated with the use of digital resources for information access, exchange and application.

The second pillar, strategic, productive engagement in professional networks, reflects the importance of understanding how best to leverage personal and professional benefit from strategic participation in an ever-expanding array of online networks and collaborative environments. However, competence in this element must focus on strategic engagement —that is, selection and collaborative participation likely to lead to professional benefit for the individual, and the online community as a whole. The web is abundant with teaching-related networks and communities, notwithstanding more generic professional networks such as LinkedIn or Xing. It is simply not possible, nor desirable, to engage in them all. Teacher education students must understand the importance of strategic engagement to ensure time and effort spent professional networking is beneficial and productive.

The first two personal-professional pillars are closely related. Well-developed information literacy capabilities are essential for assessing the value and worth of participating in online environments and communities, such as professional networks. They are important for evaluating the quality and accuracy of information communicated and shared within them, and for determining the usefulness of this information for furthering professional knowledge and practice. While information literacy integrates tightly with core curriculum-focused competencies, it also extends beyond these to personal-professional functions involving interaction and activity beyond the classroom.

The third pillar, commitment to continuous professional learning, is both a dispositional and a functional competency. It addresses the willingness of new teachers entering the profession to commit to a programme of ongoing professional learning, responding to new opportunities presented by emerging technology innovations. Dispositionally, this competency describes a positive mindset (Amirault 2015 ) that fosters an attitude that supports investigation and testing the potential of new technologies to enhance core and personal-professional competencies. At a functional level, this disposition motivates continuous engagement in professional learning to build the knowledge needed to realise the potential offered by the innovation. Maintaining competence in this pillar is ongoing and iterative in nature, reflecting understanding that technology innovation is not static, but that new possibilities for using digital resources in teaching and for other professional activities, are continually emerging. As for personal-ethical competence, personal-professional competencies work together rather than in isolation. Dispositions and capabilities aligned with one pillar, support development in the others. In Fig.  4 , this interaction is indicated by the double-headed arrows.

The integration of personal-ethical and personal-professional competencies

Figure  4 shows the weaving of personal-ethical and personal-professional competencies with the core TPACK-aligned competencies. This signals the importance of teacher education students understanding how to integrate into subject-related activities involving learning with, about and through digital technologies, understandings and capabilities aligned with personal-ethical and personal-professional competencies. This integration could occur at planning, pedagogical and practice levels. That is, students should be encouraged to identify where, across all subjects and the full array of school activity, opportunities might exist to build their students’ knowledge, skills and dispositions defined by the integrated pillars. These opportunities could reside in planned learning experiences where digital resources are directly used to support subject or discipline-specific knowledge outcomes—for example, using dissection simulations in biology before evaluating their advantages and disadvantages.

Equally, they might be embedded in experiences where the focus is on other learning—for example, planning and teaching a series of lessons investigating the physical and psychological impacts of game addiction on teenagers, as part of the health and wellbeing curriculum. At primary school level, opportunities might be present in literacy lessons, where reading content could introduce scenarios about western countries’ e-waste dumping, and the impact this has on the people and environment of destination African nations. Apart from deliberately planned experiences, opportunities might also be present at an incidental, pedagogical level. These could occur as ‘teachable moments’ within normal classroom programmes, and teacher education students should be encouraged to identify and capitalise upon them when they arise, as they hone their skills during school placements and practicums.

Using the framework

Ideally, building broadly-based digital competence within teacher education programmes requires the engagement of all faculty and an interdisciplinary approach. Opportunities to develop the competencies inherent in the pillars of the framework should not be viewed as the sole responsibility or within the skill set of only one or two teacher educators. Successful implementation requires the participation of all teaching faculty, who must have a consistent understanding of the breadth and definition of the competencies. In a perfect world faculty would adopt a coordinated, interdisciplinary approach to the delivery of teacher education programmes, rather than the siloed, discipline-based models that currently prevail. As noted by Habowski and Mouza ( 2014 ), interdisciplinary approaches to teacher education can significantly enhance student learning, and would provide a unified and coordinated foundation for delivering the framework’s goals.

However, the reality is that interdisciplinary approaches are not commonplace, and the rigid, subject-based structures of universities where most teacher education occurs, are exceedingly difficult to change. Notwithstanding this, the TDC framework could be used to map or audit the content and pedagogy of existing or new teacher education courses across discipline areas, to examine the extent to which they offer opportunities for students to build more holistic understandings and capabilities aligned with the framework. This does not necessarily mean adopting an interdisciplinary approach to planning and teaching, but could take the form of staff from separate departments working with the framework to identify which components of it could be delivered or incorporated into discipline coursework. For example, health education faculty may find opportunities to effectively integrate personal-ethical (wellbeing/safety) competencies in units by requiring students to research and report on latest studies on the physical and psychological effects of prolonged device use, while courses in science education might better align with personal-professional competencies such as access and productive use of information, through, amongst other means, engaging in scientific networks. Courses in special or inclusive education in units focused on educational equity, might include content to learn how and why digital technologies can and should be used to assist students with special learning needs. Similarly, social science education curricula may include components that focus on building personal-ethical competence (impacts on people, society, environment), through analysis of supply chain practices and processes used in the production and disposal of digital devices. However, to support such approaches, the TDC framework must be well understood and accepted by all faculty, who must be willing to apply it when planning and developing their programs. Ideally, the framework could form the focal point for education faculty or department professional development, with staff identifying and committing to implementing relevant elements, where opportunities exist.

Due to its comprehensive nature, it is important that a collaborative approach is taken to implementing the framework. At a qualification level, this may mean directors working with senior faculty to identify and integrate TDC elements across a degree (e.g., early childhood, elementary, secondary), or at a program level, convenors and teaching staff planning and implementing within specific disciplines (e.g., literacy, science, numeracy). Targeted TDC elements should be made explicit to students via course outlines, integrated into course content, and reflected or directly embedded in assessment tasks. Implementation must include faculty modelling the sort of pedagogy, learning content and attitudes and behaviours, inherent in the framework. This is particularly important, given the expectation that their students will also model these in their own classes, when they begin their careers. Whichever approach is adopted, it is vital that efforts are made to move beyond the current technical/procedural emphasis , thereby better-equipping graduating teachers with an understanding of the breadth of their responsibilities for educating their students to function safely, ethically and productively, in increasingly digital environments.

This article argues the need to expand teacher education students’ understanding of the sort of competencies required to function productively, safely and ethically in diverse and increasingly digitally-mediated environments. It highlights the importance of this in relation to their future classroom roles, educating young people to help them build capacity to leverage advantage from digital resources and information in safe, secure and sustainable ways. To facilitate this, a broadly-based teacher digital competence framework is introduced, which teacher educators have an important part to play in implementing through modelling and deliberate planning and teaching. It further suggests that implementing the framework is the responsibility of all faculty, who need to have consistent and well-developed knowledge of its intent, scope and content. It is hoped the TDC framework can provide a focal point for policy revision and faculty discussion, planning and action, that will lead to improvement in the preparation of graduating teachers for our future classrooms.

Admiraal, W., van Vuget, F., Kranenburg, F., Koster, B., Smit, B., Weijers, S., et al. (2016). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology into K-12 instruction: Evaluation of a technology-infused approach. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26 (1), 105–120.

Google Scholar  

Aldosemani, T. (2019). Inservice teachers’ perceptions of a professional development plan based on the SAMR model: A case study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 18 (3), 46–53.

Amirault, R. (2015). Technology transience and the challenges it poses to higher education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16 (2), 1–17.

Antonenko, P. (2014). The instrumental value of conceptual frameworks in educational technology research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63 , 53–71.

Battro, A., Calero, C., Goldin, A., Holper, L., Pezzatti, L., Shalóm, D., et al. (2013). The cognitive neuroscience of the teacher-student interaction. Mind, Brain and Education, 7 (3), 177–181.

Baz, E., Balçıkanlı, C., & Cephe, P. (2018). Introducing an innovative technology integration model: Echos from ELF pre-service teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 23 , 2179–2200.

Beisel, C. (2017). New or novice teacher integration of mobile learning instruction. Doctoral dissertation, Walden University. Retrieved July 19, 2019, from  https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/4349/ .

Borthwick, A., & Hansen, R. (2017). Digital literacy in teacher education. Are teacher educators competent? Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33 (2), 46–48.

Christ, W., & Potter, W. (1998). Media literacy, media education, and the academy. Journal of Communication, 48 (1), 5–15.

Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks . Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Fisher, T., Denning, T., Higgins, C., & Loveless, A. (2012). Teachers knowing how to use technology: Exploring a conceptual framework for purposeful learning activity. Curriculum Journal, 23 (3), 307–325.

Foulger, T., Buss, R., Wetzel, K., & Lindsey, L. (2012). Preservice teacher education: Benchmarking a standalone EdTech course in preparation for change. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29 (2), 48–58.

Foulger, T., Graziano, K., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Slykhuis, D. (2017). Teacher educator digital competencies. Journal of Technology in Teacher Education, 25 (4), 413–448.

Geer, R., White, B., Zeegers, Y., Wing, A., & Barnes, A. (2017). Emerging pedagogies for the use of iPads in schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48 (2), 490–498.

Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy . New York: Wiley.

Graziano, K., Herring, M., Carpenter, J., Smaldino, S., & Finsness, E. (2017). A TPACK diagnostic tool for teacher education leaders. TechTrends, 61 , 372–379.

Gruszczynska, A., & Pountney, R. (2013). Developing the concept of digital literacy in the context of schools and teacher education. Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences, 5 (1), 25–36.

Gruszczynska, A., Merchant, G., & Pountney, R. (2013). Digital futures in teacher education: Exploring open approaches towards digital literacy. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 11 (3), 193–206.

Guzman, A., & Nussbaum, M. (2009). Teaching competencies for technology integration in the classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25 (5), 453–469.

Habowski, T., & Mouza, C. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in the context of a secondary science teacher education program. Journal of Technology in Teacher Education, 22 (4), 471–495.

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41 (4), 393–416.

Harrison, C. (2017). Critical internet literacy: What is it, and how should we teach it? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61 (4), 461–464.

Helsper, E. (2008). Digital inclusion: An analysis of social disadvantage and the information society . London: Department for Communities and Local Government.

Heydon, R. (2007). Making meaning together: Multi-modal literacy learning opportunities in an inter-generational art programme. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39 (1), 35–62.

Hilton, T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology integration into two social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 107 (2), 68–73.

Hinrichsen, J., & Coombs, A. (2013). The five resources of critical digital literacy: A framework for curriculum integration. Research in Learning Technology, 21 , 1–16.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). ISTE standards for educators . Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.

Janssen, J., Stoyanov, S., Ferrari, A., Punie, Y., Pannekeet, K., & Sloep, P. (2013). Experts’ views on digital competence: Commonalities and differences. Computers & Education, 68 , 473–481.

Kihoza, P., Zlotnikova, I., Bada, J., & Kalegele, K. (2016). Classroom ICT integration in Tanzania: Opportunities and challenges from the perspectives of TPACK and SAMR models. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 12 (1), 107–128.

Kimmons, R., & Hall, C. (2018). How useful are our models? Pre-service and practicing teacher evaluations of technology integration models. TechTrends, 62 , 29–36.

Kleiner, B., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2007). Educational technology in teacher education programs for initial licensure . Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Klebansky, A., & Fraser, S. (2013). A strategic approach to curriculum design for information literacy in teacher education: Implementing an information literacy conceptual framework. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38 (11), 103–125.

Koehler, M., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Education, 193 (3), 13–19.

Krause, J., & Lynch, B. (2016). Preparing 21 st century educators: TPACK in physical education teacher education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 87 (2), 131–132.

Lim, C., Chai, C., & Churchill, D. (2011). A framework for developing pre-service teachers’ competencies in using technologies to enhance teaching and learning. Educational Media International, 48 (2), 69–83.

Ludvigsen, S., & Mørch, A. (2010). Computer-supported collaborative learning: Basic concepts, multiple perspectives, and emerging trends. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 290–296). Oxford: Elsevier.

Lund, A., Furberg, A., Bakken, J., & Engelien, K. (2014). What does professional digital competence mean in teacher education? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 9 (4), 281–299.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 6 , 1017–1054.

Ndongfack, M. (2015). TPACK constructs: A sustainable pathway for teachers’ professional development on technology adoption. Creative Education, 6 , 1697–1709.

Otero, V., Peressini, D., Meymaris, K., Ford, P., Garvin, T., Harlow, D., et al. (2005). Integrating technology into teacher education: A critical framework for implementing reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 56 (1), 8–23.

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Kimmons, R. (2018). The K-12 educational technology handbook (1st ed.). Provo, UT: EdTech Books.

Ottestad, G., Kelentrić, M., & Guðmundsdóttir, G. (2014). Professional digital competence in teacher education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 9 (4), 243–249.

Palermiti, A., Servidio, R., Bartolo, M., & Costabile, A. (2017). Cyberbullying and self-esteem: An Italian study. Computers in Human Behaviour, 69 , 136–141.

Põldoja, H., Väljataga, T., Tammets, K., & Laanpere, M. (2011). Web-based self and peer-assessment of teachers’ educational technology competencies. Lecture Notes on Computer Science, 7048 , 122–131.

Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 26 (4), 863–870.

Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology and education: A model for technology and transformation. Retrieved August 22, 2019 from  http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/puentedura_tte.pdf .

Ravitch, S., & Riggan, M. (2012). Reason and rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reyes, V., Reading, C., Doyle, H., & Gregory, S. (2017). Integrating ICT into teacher education programs from a TPACK perspective: Exploring perceptions of university lecturers. Computers & Education, 115 , 1–19.

Richards, D., Caldwell, P., & Go, H. (2015). Impact of social media on the health of children and young people. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 51 (12), 1152–1157.

Salas-Pilco, S. (2013). Evolution of the framework for 21 st century competencies. Knowledge Management and e-Learning, 5 (1), 10–24.

Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (1), 53–64.

Sardone, N. (2019). Developing and engaging learning experience in preservice education. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 92 (6), 235–245.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 1–22.

Solar, M., Sabattin, J., & Parada, V. (2013). A maturity model for assessing the use of ICT in school education. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 16 (1), 206–218.

Sutton, S. (2011). The preservice technology training experiences of novice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28 (1), 39–47.

Tan, L., Chai, C., Deng, F., Zheng, C., & Drajati, N. (2019). Examining pre-service teachers’ knowledge of teaching multimodal literacies: A validation of the TPACK survey. Educational Media International, 56 (4), 285–299.

Tsai, M. (2002). Do male and female students often perform better than female students when learning computers? A study of Taiwanese eight graders’ computer education through strategic and cooperative learning. Journal of Educational and Computing Research, 26 (1), 67–85.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (2011). ICT competency standards for teachers (version 2) . Paris: UNESCO.

Voogt, J., & McKenney, S. (2017). TPACK in teacher education: Are we preparing teachers to use technology for early literacy? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26 (1), 69–83.

Webber, S., & Johnston, B. (2000). Conceptions of information literacy: New perspectives and implications. Journal of Information Science, 26 (6), 381–397.

Zurkowski, P. (1974). The information service environment relationships and priorities. Related paper no. 5. Washington, DC: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.

Download references

No funding was received supporting this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Macquarie School of Education, The Faculty of Arts, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Garry Falloon

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Garry Falloon .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author certifies he has no conflict of interest influencing this study.

Ethical approval

Ethical clearance was not a requirement of this study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Summary of existing frameworks for digital capability development in teacher education

• Minor emphasis S = skills; moderate emphasis P = pedagogy; major emphasis C = curriculum. Disp. = dispositions/attitudes (e.g., professional learning, critical inquiry, evaluating digital tools and resources), Pers. = personal (e.g., digital citizenship, ethical, safety, networking, health and wellbeing)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Falloon, G. From digital literacy to digital competence: the teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Education Tech Research Dev 68 , 2449–2472 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4

Download citation

Published : 29 March 2020

Issue Date : October 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digital competence
• Digital literacy
• Integration
• Teacher education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

11 Literacy in the Digital Age: From traditional to Digital to Mobile Digital Literacies

Tutaleni I. Asino; Kushal Jha; and Oluwafikayo Adewumi

Oklahoma State University

Introduction

Literacy is an enigma. While it is easy to agree that everyone should be literate, the conversation around what being literate looks like, and what the term itself is even means depends much on who is leading the conversation and who has a stake in the conversation. The term itself has historically been defined as “possession of the complementary mental technologies of reading and writing, literacy is not only difficult to define in individuals and delimit within societies, but it is also charged with emotional and political meaning” (pg. 12). This perceived simplicity has at times led to many including news reporters and various academic scholars to refer “to whole societies as “illiterate and uncivilized” as a single referent, and “illiterate” is still a term which carries a negative connotation” (Wagner (1991, pg. 12). Of course, such characterization, although still rampant, they are at least being questioned. At last literacy is being considered much more widely, and being recognised as integral to a culture where it is embedded with functions and meanings.

Literacy can be challenging to define. When narrowly defined crucial elements are left off and when stated too broadly it can be a catch-all term. This chapter does not purport to present a definition of literacy, for such a task has been undertaken and explained by many (Buckingham 1993; Knobel & Healy, 1998; Burniske, 2000 Cope and Kalantzis, 2000; & Semali 2002) who are much better versed in the subject. The goal in this chapter is to look at the understanding of digital literacy and whether or not it is (it broad enough to include the features of) inclusive enough to account for the affordance of mobile devices. Affordance in this context, can mean providing an opportunity that allows an individual to learn or perform a specific action or ability by using a mobile device. Features like portability and individuality are playing a significant role in enhancing mobile digital literacies. These features give any individual the flexibility to learn whenever they want and wherever they want (Sunga et. al, 2015). Inclusiveness is used as a reference to considering a wide range of diverse human factors, i.e., every user is entitled to participation, content creation, and giving a response, which extends beyond reading, writing or any barrier (Kirisci et. al, 2012).

Evolution of Literacy

The term literacy itself has undergone numerous evolutions. Figure 1 below illustrates the different components that made up the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), definitions from 1958 – 2005.

Figure 1: UNESCO literacy keyword

UNESCO works continuously to promote inclusive education practices that eliminate the obstacles limiting the participation and success of all learners, respect the needs of people from different backgrounds and help to eliminate all kinds of discrimination in the learning environment. To illustrate the transformation of literacy Ahmed (2011), collected definitions that depict how UNESCO has changed their understanding over time. As cited by Ahmed (2011), over the decades, UNESCO has provided the following definition at different times between 1958 and 2005:

• A person is literate who can, with understanding, both read and write a short simple statement on his or her everyday life (UNESCO 1958);
• A person is functionally literate who can engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective functioning of his or her group and community and also for enabling him or her to continue to use reading, writing and calculation for his or her own and the community’s development (UNESCO 1978);
• Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve his or her goals, develop his or her knowledge and potential, and participate fully in community and wider society (UNESCO 2005). (pg. 181)

The countries that have membership in UNESCO have also adopted similar stances on defining literacy and as such have had to adjust their definitions accordingly. The table below presents a random sample of countries and their definition of literacy. UNESCO has the information below available on their website from 1975 to 2010. The data was combined in an excel file and each item given a random ID which was used to create the table below. As evident, the definition of literacy has changed over time, and in alignment with the definitions provided by UNESCO.

Table 1: National literacy definitions by year

Source: UNESCO ( http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/GMR/pdf/gmr2009/EFA_Literacy_metadata_2009.pdf

The three definitions from UNESCO and the definitions by the countries above, show that literacy has undergone various transformations. They’ve ranged primarily from the reading and writing paradigm to now the inclusion of electronic media and communication. Smyth (2011) opined that literacy has evolved, it has gone beyond the mastery of the ability to read and write a language but now the comprehension and how to use technology as a medium and not the mastery of technical language.

The move to include technology into the definition of literacy is undoubtedly due to the integration of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) into everyday life. This integration and usage has brought about the information age, which is characterized by “the widespread proliferation of emerging information and communication technologies and the capabilities that those technologies provide and will provide humankind to overcome the barriers imposed on communications by time, distance, and location and the limits and constraints inherent in human capacities to process information and make decisions. Advocates of the concept of the Information Age maintain that we have embarked on a journey in which information and communications will become the dominant forces in defining and shaping human actions, interactions, activities, and institutions” (Alberts 7 Papp, 1997, pg. 2).

The information age has brought with it a new literacy referred to as digital literacy. In staying loyal to the trunk from which it sprouts, the term digital literacy has proven to be as elusive in its definition. Most definitions closely resemble that put forth by the United States, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which argues that “. . . digital literacy generally refers to a variety of skills associated with using ICT (information and communication technologies) to find, evaluate, create and communicate information. It is the sum of the technical skills and cognitive skills people employ to use computers to retrieve information, interpret what they find and judge the quality of that information. It also includes the ability to communicate and collaborate using the Internet—through blogs, self-published documents and presentations and collaborative social networking platforms” (as cited by Clark & Visser, 2011, pg. 38).

This definition although seemingly a catchall and somewhat nebulous, still does not mention or reference the growth of mobile devices and the role that they are playing in society. Mobile devices evolved from what only the learned operated to a user-friendly device; it is not surprising that its price is beginning to decrease in emerging markets, pr items from being expensive luxuries (GMCA, 2017). The definition seems to also ignore the role mobile devices have in globalization which is not to be underestimated especially since such devices have grown beyond simple miniature computers that enable the transmission of the human voice to being content creation, delivery and consumption systems (Collins, 2005).

The definition of mobile digital literacy has grown over time due to technological advancement. An individual has become more reliant on mobile phones as compared to someone who was using it ten years back. In 1973, when a mobile phone was introduced, it was solely used for communication, mobile literacy meant being able to use the feature limited to the capability of dialing phone numbers to call someone. Today, that definition of mobile literacy can be seen in a new light with the incessant upgrades in the features. It can now be defined as the capability of using and exercising the wide array of features and applications in a personalized manner.

The growth of mobile devices to seemingly ubiquitous levels is affecting communities around the world, altering the ways we communicate, educate, collaborate and engage with one another; altering what we know or think we know about our identity and the very sense we have of space and time (Traxler, 2008).  This development which in many ways is akin to Khuns’s (1962) paradigm shift theory of science necessitates an evaluation of the current models of literacies and more specifically digital literacies in which mobile devices seem to belong. As Clancy & Lowrie (2002), argued for new approaches and models to understand literacies brought about by the digital age, I am similarly arguing that the digital age has evolved beyond what it was at the turn of the century or even five years ago and as such the understanding of digital literacies need to be updated to address the new mobile digital era.

Why the update

There is an interaction between mobile devices & traditional understanding of literacy. Whereas traditional literacy was more concerned with reading and writing, mobile devices afford even those without the ability to read or write a chance to participate in the conversation. Some do this by the voice features of the technology others can do so by memorizing various patterns of the device they own, which thereby allow them to conduct business and communicate with others even though they cannot tell a difference between a 6 and a 9, yet they are able to dial it without a problem.

Mobile devices are changing how people are learning. According to Telecomlead, an online B2B publication dedicated to the telecom industry, as of Feb 2019, 89 percent of India’s population are active mobile users. However, the literacy rate of India is often cited to be at 71.20%. Even though more than 89 percent of the Indian population has a mobile phone, it does not mean that the percentage of mobile literate in India is limited to 89 percent who own a smartphone. In fact, the number of mobile literacy rates can be higher than the number of people who actually own a device. To elaborate further, let’s look at an experiment “Hole-in-the-wall” conducted by Dr. Sugata Mitra in 1999 in India to check the effectiveness of digital literacy. Dr. Mitra’s team carved a “hole in the wall to append the slum in Kalkaji, New Delhi to the NIIT premises. A free accessible computer was set up as a learning station for the people living in the slums, especially the children. The children, who now had access to the device, self-taught themselves the skill to operate the computer without prior knowledge or experience. This experiment establishes the point that one does not have to have only the ability to read or write to be considered literate. Nor does one need to go to a formal educational institution to be digitally literate, but to be able to read and write one often needs to go through some sort of formal schooling. Viewed in the context of this paper, similarly, one does not need to only be able to read or write to be considered mobile digital literate. In fact, a person without the ability to read or write can still use a mobile device to accomplish their tasks. a mobile device in order to qualify for Mobile Digital Literacy.

Figure 1. Stages of mobile digital literacies

Mobile Digital Literacies has four stages. These stages help to determine how literate an individual is in terms of using a mobile phone.

Basic: The basic digital mobile literacies mean a person can use their voice to communicate using mobile devices. For example, if a person is able to make a phone call to another they can be considered to have basic digital mobile literacy skills. One does not need to know how to read and write in this context, because since many mobile phones have the ability to store favourite numbers or speed dial, an individual can simply press one number and be able to communicate.

Technical: Mobile devices come with many features such as cameras and the ability to send multimedia messages. The ability to use mobile features such as sending the text, camera, calendar and calculator go beyond one’s ability to simply read and write. Such skills classify the user as a technical mobile digital literate.

Online Digital Literacy: Most mobile devices have the ability to connect to the internet. This connectivity aspect is what makes the devices so appealing to many. However, the presence of connectivity does not necessarily mean someone knows how to use the devices to complete tasks online. Hence, mobile online digital literates are those who can easily browse and search for content using different mobile applications and internet browsers.

Advance Online Literate: Lastly, advanced mobile online literates are capable enough to access, create, navigate and understand online content on a range of digital devices (GSMA, 2015). They not only have the abilities referenced in the previous stages but can also make use of the information for advance decision making.

Mobile Digital Literacies

We propose moving to adopt a new term, Mobile Digital Literacies (MDLS), which is concerned with the role mobile devices play in the world of digital literacy. Mobile Digital Literacies (MDLS) can be defined as an individual’s ability to identify, understand, interpret, create and communicate using the features and functionality of a mobile phone. It also serves an opportunity to create an identity and bring more people into the dialogue by allowing those often left out of the conversation a chance to create, recreate and reclaim their identities.

This re-imagining of digital literacy is more important because definitions, teachings and understandings of digital literacy have framed the conversation primarily “as the investigation of ways of dealing with the computer and the Internet” (Pietrass, 2007, pg. 8), which does not include new technologies.

This positioning of digital literacy or new literacies as something that someone else does that students have to examine critically does not go far enough to capture the effects of mobile devices on society and limits our ability, therefore, fall short at providing a framework to critically look at the phenomenon. The issue is no longer simply about the effect of available information but rather the effect of the information one creates.

Many people, especially those born in the 1990s to today have most of their life digitally recorded. They saw the evolution of many digital platforms firsthand, which includes mobile devices as well. They can easily adapt to the options and in turn, help the new age population to adapt to the options as well. In Born Digital, Palfrey & Gasser (2008) discuss ways to understand those born in the digital age and also cover the term Digital Dossier which they attribute to Daniel J. Solove, a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School (p. 301). The definition of digital dossiers is that, today even before a person is born today, their digital identity starts being constructed through things such as prenatal exams that a mother goes to, and ultrasound images from doctor visits. Even before a child is outside its mother’s womb, his or her picture has possibly already been on the Internet if the parents decided to share the picture of the ultrasound. This life cycle continues with doctor visits for various check-ups when a child is born, to tweets, blogs, websites and social networking sites that a person might engage in. Overtime the digital dossier accumulates a lot of material so that it is possible when a person born in 2000 reaches 30yrs of age there is no longer a need to go visit the parents to look at baby pictures, rather all that information would be available and accessible through some form of network, because it has been archived since before the person was born.

An examination of one’s digital dossier is not mentioned or alluded to in the current definition of digital literacy or the discussions of new literacies. Consequently, students in schools are taught how to critically examine what others produce and to question the validity of different perspectives presented in digital forms (a case can be made that even this is not being done well), however what is missing is a lesson on self-examination.

In 2011, world governments and leaders were overthrown because of injustices that they committed against their own people, which are brought to light by the use of mobile devices. The power of mobile devices has extended the nature by which humans are connected, a critical examination of the role the individual plays not only in critically examining what they’ve read or seen, but rather what they’ve created and posted is a necessary aspect of a new digital literacy or a creation of a new literacy all together.

Another motivation for the evaluation of the current understanding of digital literacy is the nature by which mobile devices have allowed those traditionally viewed as disenfranchised and marginalized to enter the conversation.

The argument against the investment in ICTs especially in Afrikan schools has often revolved around whether such an investment is worthy of consideration more so than other pressing needs such as addressing, HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, malaria, etc. (Slay & Dalvit, 2008). This ‘can’t chew and work/walk at the same time’ or ‘the one thing at a time approach’ is no longer the only option. Mobile devices have taken away the absence of communities in the “developing world” from the global conversation while they address “more pressing issues”. Mobile devices and the effect they’ve had have also allowed for different communities to be looked at from their perspectives because of what they contribute to the overall network. This has moved the conversation from the generic global village to recognising that even as technology there are still differences amongst cultures. This realisation has prompted Mills (2010) therefore conclude that “while giving acknowledgment to the significant advances in digital communication technologies, there is not a single global village—rather, there are groups with varied levels of participation in digital practices across local villages around the world” (p. 262).

As argued by Millis (2010), in her survey of the literature, new literacies have often been concerned with the digital divide and leave the impression that technology is leaving those in marginalised and low income communities at a disadvantage. Although there are constraints, those in marginalised communities are finding a way to enter into the dialogue and are not simply shut out.

Put simply, the conversation should no longer be solely about how the marginalized are left out of the conversation but rather how they are altering the conversation because they are taking part. Whether the various gatekeepers and those in privilege positions are recognising it, the fact remains that those that did not participate before are not only part of the conversation, but they are beginning their own conversations that have nothing to do with what has been designated as the topic du jour. Like water they are seeping through at all different crevices albeit slowly.

In this paper, we have argued that the current framing of digital literacy does not go enough to include the changes and affordance that are brought on by mobile devices. We are proposing for an expanded definition of digital literacy which takes into account the different “practices across multiple technologies, media, modes, text formats, and social contexts” (Mills, 2010, p 262).

In agreement with Kress (2010), we believe that the new definition of digital literacies (even if it does not result in the name we propose of Mobile Digital Literacy – MDL), it must have the following three components:

• the rapid evolution of digital technologies;
• a new more pervasive emphasis on multimodality in digital communications;
• a new approach to communication and interaction that is best characterised by an emphasis on design rather than a highly separable distinction between ‘writing’ and ‘reading’ (p5).

The choice is to either make room at the table by broadening the definition of digital literacy or to create a new table introducing a new category that includes mobile devices. The traditional way of defining literacy & digital literacies is coming up short – we need to include the different things that mobile devices contribute, and as such we must continue to reconfigure what we traditionally know as literacy.

Ahmed, M. (2011). Defining and measuring literacy: Facing the reality. International Review of Education. Volume 57, Numbers 1-2, 179-195, DOI: 10.1007/s11159-011-9188-x

Alberts, D. S. and Papp, D. S. (1997). Information Age: An Anthology on Its Impact and Consequences , National Defense University, Washington, DC, USA.

Buckingham, D. (1993) Children talking television. The Falmer Press: London.

Burniske, R. (2000) Literacy in the cyberage: Composing ourselves online. Skylight: Illinois

Clancy, S., & Lowrie, T. (2002). Researching multimodal texts: Applying a dynamic model . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane, Australia

Clark, L., & Visser, M. (2011). Chapter 6: Digital Literacy Takes Center Stage. Library Technology Reports , 47 (6), 38-42.

Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (Eds) (2000) Multiliteracies. Macmillan: South Yarra.

GSMA (2015). Accelerating digital literacy: Empowering women to use the mobile internet. Retrieved from https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/DigitalLiteracy_v6_WEB_Singles.pdf

GMCA. (2017, July). Accelerating Affordable Smartphone Ownership in Emerging Markets GMCA.com. Retrieved from https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/exec-summary-accelerating-affordable-smartphone-ownership-in-emerging-markets-2017.pdf

Kalantzis, M, Cope, B. and Fehring, H. (2002) Multiliteracies: Teaching and learning in the new communications environment. PEN 133, PETA: Marrickville.

Kirisci, P. T., Fennell, A., Klen, E., Gokmen, H., O’Connor, J., Thoben, K. D., … & Klein, P. (2012). Supporting inclusive design of mobile devices with a context model. INTECH Open Access Publisher.

Knobel, M., and Healy, A. (1998) Critical literacies in the primary classroom. PETA: Newtown, Australia.

Kress, G. (2010) The profound shift in digital literacies. In Gillen, J & Barton D., 2010. “Digital literacies: A research briefing by the technology enhanced learning phase of the teaching and learning research programme,” London: London Knowledge Lab, at http://www.tlrp.org/docs/DigitalLiteracies.pdf, accessed 18 November 2011.

Mills, K. A (2010). A Review of the “Digital Turn” in the New Literacy Studies. Review of Educational Research June 2010, Vol. 80, No. 2, pp. 246–271 DOI: 10.3102/0034654310364401

Mitra, S. (2012). The Hole in the Wall Project and the Power of Self-Organized Learning. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/self-organized-learning-sugata-mitra

Muspratt, S., Luke, A., and Freebody, P. (1997) (Eds) Constructing critical literacies. Allen and Unwin: St. Leonards, Australia.

Palfrey, J. & Gasser, U (2008). Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books.

Pietrass, M. (2007). Digital Literacy Research from an International and Comparative Point of View. Research in Comparative and International Education, Volume 2, Number 1, 2007

Semali, L. (2002) ‘Defining new literacies in curricular practice’. In Reading online: New literacies. http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/action/alvermann/index.html

Smyth, T. S. (2011). The New Literacy: Technology in the Classroom. Online Submission.

Sunga, T., Chang, K., & Liua, T. (2015). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131515300804

Telecomlead (2019). India’s active mobile users reached 1,026.37 mn: TRAI. Retrieved from https://www.telecomlead.com/telecom-statistics/indias-active-mobile-users-reached-1026-37-mn-trai-89104

The New London Group, (2000) ‘A pedagogy of Multiliteracies designing social futures’, in Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (Eds) Multiliteracies. Macmillan: South Yarra.

Weinberger, A., Clark, D.B., Häkkinen, P. Tamura, Y., Fischer, F. (2007). Argumentative Knowledge Construction in Online Learning Environments in and across Different Cultures: a collaboration script perspective. Research in Comparative and International Education, Volume 2, Number 1, 2007

Wagner, D. A. (1991). Literacy as culture: Emic and etic perspectives. In E. M. Jennings & A. C. Purves (Eds.), Literate systems and individual lives: Perspectives in literacy and schooling (pp. 11-22). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Learning in the Digital Age Copyright © 2020 by Tutaleni I. Asino; Kushal Jha; and Oluwafikayo Adewumi is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Connect NY Termination

Throughout this past year, RIT Libraries have regularly informed the RIT Community that the Connect NY consortium will cease to exist at the end of this fiscal year, with the service being discontinued as of June 14th, 2024.

Despite this, IDS Express  (Interlibrary Loan) will continue to operate as RIT’s resource-sharing request platform, ensuring the same level of reliability and access to resources. Items currently borrowed through Connect NY will not be disrupted or recalled, and no fines will be accrued.

Renewals on these items will not be permitted after June 14th. A seamless transition process is in place for those requiring longer use of items borrowed through Connect NY, allowing for easy transfer to IDS Express. For any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us .

Blog Information

Blog Archive

• May 2024 (2)
• April 2024 (5)
• March 2024 (4)
• February 2024 (4)
• January 2024 (6)
• October 2023 (1)
• September 2023 (5)
• August 2023 (1)
• June 2023 (1)
• May 2023 (2)
• April 2023 (2)
• March 2023 (4)
• February 2023 (4)
• September 2022 (5)
• June 2022 (2)
• May 2022 (3)
• April 2022 (7)
• March 2022 (11)
• February 2022 (1)
• October 2021 (24)

Add new comment

Chat with a Librarian

RIT Libraries

Is there anything we can help you find today?

A live human is ready to help…

• < Previous

Home > School of Health and Natural Sciences > Nursing > Senior Theses > 147

Nursing | Senior Theses

Incorporation of nutrition education with medication injection to sustain weight loss.

Julia Calvelo , Dominican University of California Follow

Graduation Year

Document type.

Senior Thesis

Bachelor of Science in Nursing

Primary Major

Thesis advisor.

Deborah Meshel, BSN, MSN

Background: Obesity is a widespread occurrence linked to comorbidities. Weight loss and maintenance is crucial to sustain existing health conditions and reduce risk of chronic diseases.

Lack of maintained weight loss is associated with poor education on nutrition, diet, and physical activity literacy. Objective: The purpose of this quantitative experimental study is to determine the efficacy of nutrition education among medication injection to sustain weight loss throughout treatment. It aims to promote comprehension of the aspects of nutrition, dietary habits, and physical education to not only sustain weight loss, but to understand the significance of how these elements contribute to everyday well-being. Method: A quantitative, randomized control study will be conducted over a 12 month period with a sample size of 100 participants. The study will enroll women aged 18 to 25 diagnosed with type 2 diabetes who are undergoing treatment with Ozempic. The convenience sample will comprise females aged 18-25 diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, currently under Ozempic treatment, and attending an Endocrine and Diabetes Care clinic. Participants will be randomly assigned to the control or experimental group. The experimental group will receive the physical and nutrition intervention, while the control group will continue their standard treatment without the intervention. Information on both cohorts will be organized, encompassing data such as weight, height, and BMI retrieved from their medical records to measure before and after the intervention. The efficacy of the nutrition and physical intervention will be determined by the absence of weight rebound shown through the medical data of BMI, weight, and height. The study anticipates that the experimental group will achieve sustained weight loss.

Included in

Health and Physical Education Commons , Human and Clinical Nutrition Commons , Nursing Commons , Public Health Commons

https://doi.org/10.33015/dominican.edu/2024.NURS.ST.35

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines
• Expert Gallery

Author Corner

• Thesis Style Guides
• Submission Guidelines
• Deposit Your Research
• School of Health and Natural Sciences at Dominican University of California
• Dominican Scholar Feedback

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

• Arnold School of Public Health
• Location Location
• Contact Contact
• Colleges and Schools
• 2024 News Archive

May graduate preps for career in psychiatric epidemiology

May 21, 2024  | Erin Bluvas,  [email protected]

Born in Oklahoma, Paige Jones moved around before finding her home in Columbia – by far the largest of the seven places she had lived previously. She chose it to be closer to family, who had relocated here while she was an undergrad at the University of Mississippi, but she soon found it was where she wanted to stay for graduate school.

“I have really enjoyed living in Columbia,” she says. “There’s lots to do without being overwhelmingly large, and the student culture has been really great. It has been easy to make friends and connections within the Arnold School, which was something I was a bit worried about moving to a new city, particularly with the effects of COVID.”

Jones originally thought she’d become a therapist but found herself more interested in the research side of her bachelor’s program in psychology. After moving to Columbia, she worked in a USC research lab where an Arnold School alum introduced her to the field of public health as a career.

She enrolled in the M.S. in Epidemiology program, combining her two areas of interest into psychiatric epidemiology as her focus. Jones built on her research experience as a graduate assistant for epidemiology assistant professor Matthew Lohman and clinical associate professor of neuropsychiatry and behavioral science Eve Fields. She gained additional experience as a statistics and research analyst for the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control – exploring the intersection of mental health with maternal and child health.

Jones believes that her coursework and work experiences have prepared her for positions in a research lab, health department or hospital settings. She is also open to pursuing a doctoral degree.

“I think my degree prepared me well for any of these roles,” she says. “I feel very confident in my SAS and overall data analysis skills, which has greatly helped me in my current job with DHEC. I think the opportunity to complete a thesis has further benefitted me in leading a research project and really applying all the data and scientific writing skills from my coursework.”

Every professor I have had or worked with has been great, and they truly want you to do well and provide you the knowledge to do that.

Her Arnold School mentors played a big role in her program, and she found Lohman as well as biostatistics clinical assistant professor Andrew Ortaglia to be particularly impactful.

“Every professor I have had or worked with has been great, and they truly want you to do well and provide you the knowledge to do that,” Jones says. “I am really grateful for all of Dr. Lohman’s guidance and patience during my thesis, as well being a very effective and kind teacher of complicated epidemiologic methods in class. I am also very grateful for Dr. Ortaglia’s biostatistics courses, and his commitment to teaching good statistics while challenging us to really consider the why behind what methods we use. Both have influenced the way I think about things in work and my commitment to doing meaningful research in any area of epidemiology.”

As she prepares to graduate next month, Jones has advice for future students.

“It’s important to get involved as much as possible – taking opportunities to learn new skills and make connections.”

Find Out More

Epidemiologists design and conduct investigations aimed at improving the health of groups of people by combining knowledge from the social sciences, medicine, biology, the environment, and statistics.

Meet Our Class of 2024

The Arnold School is proud of our 2024 graduates, who will go on to change the world locally and globally. Learn about some of the other outstanding individuals who completed one of our 34 programs this year.

Challenge the conventional. Create the exceptional. No Limits.

MFA Thesis Exhibit Offers Deeper Understanding of Queer, Neurodivergent Experience

• Post published: May 20, 2024

Emily Burkhead is an intermedia artist and filmmaker from Memphis, Tennessee, who graduated from Michigan State University in Spring 2024 with an MFA from the Department of Art, Art History, and Design . She is exhibiting her thesis project, Trigger/Glimmer/Something Else , as part of the 2024 Master of Fine Arts Exhibition , which runs through Sunday, May 26, at the  MSU Broad Art Museum . The Trigger/Glimmer/Something Else installation is comprised of a wall of mixed media made of faux fur, 3D filament, clear marine vinyl, and found objects. In front of the mixed media wall, there is a multichannel video installation with two text videos and one short skit video. The text videos are parts of a manifesto that describes how Burkhead’s social experiences as a queer, neurodivergent child manifest into larger institutional systems and how she came to embrace her “otherness” from a young age. The middle channel is a socio-surrealist film that uses humor and satire to examine the neurodivergent experience.  

“Through this composition, I explore my sensory ‘triggers’ and ‘glimmers,’” Burkhead said. “I take on the role of ‘Mrs. Bubblegum,’ a children’s show host whose story she reads to the audience that takes a strange turn.”

Burkhead was selected as this year’s recipient of the Master of Fine Arts Prize, which was presented during the MFA Exhibition reception on April 6. She earned the MFA Prize for her thesis project. Presenting her with the award was guest juror, Teréz Iacovino, Assistant Curator of the Katherine E. Nash Gallery at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities.

“Winning the award has been a tremendous honor,” Burkhead said. “It was a shock to say the least. I’m very grateful to everyone who helped support me on my MFA journey including my primary advisor, Lara Shipley .”

Burkhead’s journey into the world of art was unconventional. Initially driven by a deep-rooted interest in film, she tried to abandon this passion in college and pursued a bachelor’s degree in Urban Studies from Rhodes College, graduating from the program in 2020. However, her passion for art reignited during her junior year when she began taking digital art classes, leading her to work on experimental film and video. The absence of a traditional film production program at Rhodes College prompted Burkhead to seek interdisciplinary film and studio art programs, which led her to MSU’s MFA program.

Without a traditional MFA background, Burkhead spent the early part of the program honing her studio practice. During this period of hard work, she found a balance between intuitive creation and guided practice.

“I went into art and film because it helps me answer complex personal questions, but I want to make those questions accessible to others. Otherwise, how else do I learn if I’m just making things in an echo chamber?”

“I begin by following my gut, then examining the work, getting feedback, figuring out what it means, and lastly setting goals for more production, if necessary,” she said. “I went into art and film because it helps me answer complex personal questions, but I want to make those questions accessible to others. Otherwise, how else do I learn if I’m just making things in an echo chamber?” Burkhead’s work encompasses various mediums, including video art, experimental textiles, found objects, collage, and 3D printing, as she navigates existential questions and seeks a deeper understanding of herself and the surrounding social landscape within a broader cultural context.

“I follow intuitive inquiry that seeks a deeper understanding of myself within a broader cultural context,” she said. “Why am I so apprehensive to be overly or inadequately feminine? Why do I feel othered? Why am I attracted to this garish material while being afraid to wear it? Since making the shift from creating films that are structured with a beginning, middle, and end to fostering a fluid studio practice, I have found freedom following my investigation of the material wherever it leads guided by my introspective exploration.” Burkhead’s approach to translating complex emotions into visual form is rooted in vulnerability and experimentation. Embracing risk-taking in her craft, she explores new avenues of expression, allowing her work to evolve organically. She was first influenced by experimental filmmakers such as Maya Deren and Cecelia Condit. She continues to draw inspiration from their exploration of the feminine psyche and the broader artistic tradition of feminist film and art. Some of the more recently discovered artists she looks up to include Mika Rottenberg, Bonnie Lucas, Hito Steyerl, and Diana Cooper.

“In my current body of work, I’ve drawn a lot of inspiration from the queer, trans, disabled, and neurodivergent communities online,” Burkhead said. “Platforms like Instagram and TikTok have so much content that allows people like me to embrace their inner child regardless of what they may have lost while coming of age.”

MSU’s MFA program has shaped Burkhead’s artistic practice, providing opportunities for growth and interdisciplinary exploration. Looking ahead, she envisions expanding her practice to encompass mixed media, textiles, and performance art while integrating surrealist video. She aims to create art that resonates with neurodivergent, queer, trans, nonbinary, and disabled individuals, challenging societal perceptions and fostering understanding beyond social media platforms. In Trigger/Glimmer/Something Else , Burkhead hopes to reveal the complexity of neurodivergent minds and queer childhood experiences while subverting typical expectations. Through her detailed and multifaceted work, she invites viewers to contemplate the intricacies of identity and existence, sparking conversations about inclusivity and acceptance in contemporary society. For more information on the MFA Exhibition, see the  2024 MFA Exhibition web page .

You Might Also Like

Registration Still Open for 9th Annual Global Digital Humanities Symposium

Afrofuturism & Quilting Exhibition: Exploring Connections Within Teaching, Learning, and Quilt Praxis

FILMETRY Festival Will Celebrate ‘Poetics of Cinema’ APRIL 19