!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Literature Review: !
Digital Literacies in Practice!

!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!

Kristen Bynoe!
!
205347869!
Research Assignment!
EDUC 5470 3.0

K. Bynoe

Literature Review!
Introduction

21st century models of teaching and learning must move students towards digital literacy. As
Bawden (in Lankshear & Knobel 2008) states: It does not seem unreasonable to regard this
kind of literacy, expressed appropriately according to the context, as an essential requirement
for life in a digital age (p. 30). School boards must select models of technology integration that
are equitable, economical, sustainable and pedagogically appropriate.!

!
The aim of this review is to assess current research and understandings about digital literacy;
identify the desired academic outcomes that demonstrate this definition of digital literacy;
identify and assess current models of technology integration in public school systems; note
issues related to technology integration; and to identify best practices in regards to technology
integration in the context of creating digitally literate students. !

!
The first section of this review will look specifically at the concept of digital literacy and its
development over time. How digital literacy is defined is relevant to how the concept is
understood by school boards, administrators and teachers, and will influence their approach to
technology integration; the selection of standards and curriculum expectations to create digitally
literate students; and how they measure the success of their technology practices. Secondly,
current standards, curricular expectations and policies around digital literacy and technology
use will be assessed in relation to the goal of creating digitally literate graduates. Thirdly, current
practices of teaching and learning in the 21st century will be assessed through the lens of digital

K. Bynoe

literacy. Finally, some issues raised by our changing conceptions of literacy, digital literacy and
digital inclusion will be addressed.!

Digital Literacy

Any discussion of digital literacy must begin with Gilster's (1997) Digital Literacy. Throughout the
literature on digital literacy, his work is cited as being the foundation for modern conceptions of
digital literacy. Gilster defines digital literacy as the ability to access networked computer
resources and use them and the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats
for a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers (ibid., p. 1). The wording of
Gilsters definition belies the age in which it was written. Now, we would seldom think to specify
networked computer resources, as nearly every digital device is internet connected via wifi or
cellular service. Being connected has become standard. Gilster makes some very accurate
predictions about how the Internet would become so ubiquitous, and identifies several core
competencies of digital literacy (ibid., p. 2-3). Gilsters conceptual framework of digital literacy
includes: critical thinking, or the ability to discern between content and its presentation; the
ability to read non-linear hypertext and hypermedia; and search skills (ibid., p. 3). This definition
of digital literacy is not very different from what one might consider as the definition of literacy.
Skills such as critical thinking, reading with comprehension (linearly or non-linearly) and
research methods, are hardly unique to digital media; however, one must note that this book
was written in 1997 when the Internet was just becoming available to the masses and the
concept of digital literacy was in its infancy. Gilster argues that digital literacy differs from literacy
because, [t]he differences are inherent in the medium itself, and digital literacy involves
mastering them (ibid., p. 28-29). The differences in the media he identifies are the dynamic
nature of the content on the Internet and the fluidity of transmitting data from one format to
another (ibid., p. 29). Furthering the distinct nature of digital media, Gilster describes digital

K. Bynoe

literacy as being twin-edged in that the Internet both stores and creates content, giving users
the ability to access existing content and publish their own content (ibid., p. 34-35 & 41).
Gilsters definition of digital literacy becomes the jumping off point for many other writers in the
field, expanding and reworking it as the Internet has come of age. Digital Literacy illustrates the
gradual shift from the analogue concept of literacy to our modern conceptions of digital literacy
and the overlaps and divergences in their definitions.!

!
Another source frequently cited in the literature is Eshet-Alkalais Digital Literacy: A Conceptual
Framework for Survival Skills in the Digital Era (2004). In this article, there is an argument in
favour of viewing digital literacy holistically, combining other established literacies, photovisual literacy; reproduction literacy; branching literacy; information literacy; and socio-emotional
literacy under the umbrella of digital literacy (ibid., p. 93). Eshet-Alkalai defines each aspect of
digital literacy using this conceptual framework. Photo-visual literacy is defined as reading
visual representations and is likened to communication prior to the creation of the abstract
symbols of the alphabet (ibid., p. 94-95). An extension of this photo-visual literacy is synchronic
literacy, such as a multimedia storybook that combines text, audio and interactive video
elements (ibid., p. 95-96). This next form of literacy in Eshet-Alkalais framework of digital
literacy is reproduction, defined here as creative recycling of existing materials (ibid., p. 97). It
is noted that the increase in this kind of remixing has caused society to examine concepts of
ownership and originality (ibid., p. 97). The next form of literacy considered is branching, which
initially seems to derive from the non-linear form of many digital media, but in fact traces back to
the numbering of pages in books and the creation of indices and tables of contents (ibid., p. 99).
Information literacy is often what is misconstrued as being the sum total of digital literacy, the
ability to establish the veracity of information and to seek out reliable sources (ibid., p. 100-101).
The last part of Eshet-Alkalais conceptual framework of digital literacy is socio-emotional

K. Bynoe

literacy, which could be summarized as cyber-safety or cyber-security (ibid., p. 101-102). Taken

together, these five aspects of digital literacy can be defined as survival skill in the digital
era (ibid., p. 102).!

!
Rivoltella (2008) begins this compilation of essays in Digital Literacy: Tools and Methodologies
for Information Society by likening the emergence of digital media to that of the written word,
and the philosophical handwringing that accompanies such drastic cultural and conceptual shifts
(p. vi). The essays which follow are grouped into four sections: The Information Society: A
Conceptual Framework; The Information Society: Educative Researches; Digital Literacy:
Definition and Perspectives; and Digital Literacy: Educational Outlines (ibid., p. iii-v). For the
purposes of this review the third section of this text was assessed. The opening essay in this
section, Investigating Information in the Multiscreen Society: An Ecologic Perspective, Pinto (in
Rivoltella 2008), parallels the development of television with the emergence of the Internet and
digital culture, in particular how the technologies embody the trilogy of information-cultureentertainment (ibid., p. 210). Pinto proposes ecological approach to digital culture, which
echoes elements of Eshet-Alkalais conceptual framework of digital literacy in that the digital
environment is a combination of communication not only in its informative and transmissive
level, but also its relational, dialogical and connecting meaning (ibid., p. 213). !

!
From Media Education to Digital Literacy: A Paradigm Change? is the next chapter in Rivoltella
(2008) that is of significance to the definition and understanding of digital literacy. Rivoltella
notes an important shift in our thinking about what constitutes reality and what counts as real
communication, as opposed to virtual communication (ibid., p. 220). This then leads into a
discussion of digital citizenship, as then we can talk about this multiscreen society as a new for
of public space where the idea and the forms of citizenship need to be redefined (ibid., p. 224).

K. Bynoe

Rivoltella concludes with and argument for education that is focused with the lens of media
literacy (ibid., p. 226): Media education, in the multiscreen society, becomes digital literacy and
this, in an Informational Society, probably is simply education!!

!
From here we move to Lankshear & Knobel (2008), Digital Literacies. The most salient point in
this book is that there are a multitude of definitions and conceptualizations of digital literacy
(ibid., p. 2). The definitions can be separated into two main categories, conceptual and
standardized operational (ibid.). The conceptual end of the spectrum views digital literacy as
an extension of literacy; digital media is to be read and created as one would be expected to
read and create any other form of media; whereas, a standardized operational definition of
digital literacy focuses on specific skills to be mastered (ibid., p. 4-5). Lankshear & Knobel seem
to take a more conceptual view of digital literacy and liken the learning of accepted practices in
digital media to acquiring literacy in other aspects of a language, through apprenticeship,
mimicry, and enculturation (ibid., p. 7). They further promote the conceptual definition of digital
literacy by noting how a focus on standardized operational skills in other areas of literacy, such
as encoding and decoding text, can prevent learners from accessing other aspects of
comprehension, and lead to students falling behind academically (ibid., p. 10). Access and
mentoring of how to use different forms of media is essential to building digital literacy, which is
where digital divides can be created by poverty and digital exclusion (ibid., p. 13-14).!

Standards of Digital Literacy

In 2006, the Ontario Ministry of Education revised its Language Curriculum for grades 1-8. One
of the major changes to the document was the addition of a fourth strand, media literacy, in
addition to the existing reading, writing and oral communication strands. The addition of this
strand signalled a shift in thinking about what constitutes literacy. It is not sufficient that students

K. Bynoe

are able to read, write and speak with fluency and understanding; they must also be able to
read and communicate in a variety of media, including the digital. The Ministry differentiates
media literacy from traditional literacy by stating: !
!
!
!
!

Whereas traditional literacy may be seen to focus primarily on the understanding of the !
word, media literacy focuses on the construction of meaning through the combination of !
several media languages images, sounds, graphics, and words.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(Ontario Ministry of Education 2006, p. 13).!

The Ministry further justifies the inclusion of media literacy as a separate strand in the
curriculum by noting the ubiquitous nature of digital media and its influence on children, and the
importance of students being able to identify messages they convey, both overt and implied
and apply critical thinking as a it applies to media products (ibid.). Throughout the curriculum
for media literacy in grades 1-8, the overall curriculum expectations remain the same:!

1. demonstrate an understanding of a variety of media texts;!

2. identify some media forms and explain how the conventions and techniques associated
with them are used to create meaning;!
3. create a variety of media texts for different purposes and audiences, using appropriate
forms, conventions, and techniques;!
4. reflect on and identify their strengths as media interpreters and creators, areas for
improvement, and strategies they found most helpful in understanding and creating
media texts.!
!
(Ontario Ministry of Education 2006, p. 45, 59, 73, 89, 103, 117, 133 & 147)!

These expectations seem to reflect Lankshear & Knobels (2008) conceptual definition of
digital literacy, focusing on skills that are transferable from one form of media to another, rather
than being specific to a particular format. It is also reflective of Gilsters (1997) assertion that
digital literacy is an extension of literacy in general.!

!
The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has produced a set of standards
for students, teachers and administrators to promote digital literacy and the integration of
technology in education. The ISTE Standards for Students also reflect Lankshear & Knobels
(2008) conceptual definition of digital literacy, such as using critical thinking skills, but also

K. Bynoe

elements that could be classified as standardized operation skills, e.g., troubleshooting

systems and applications (ISTE 2007, p. 1-2). The ISTE Standards for Teachers are focused
primarily on the facilitation of student learning, creating circumstances that promote authentic
learning, modelling of 21st century skills, explicit teaching of digital citizenship and ongoing
professional development (ISTE 2008, p. 1-2). It is worth noting that these standards are
definitely rooted in Lankshear & Knobels (2008) conceptual definitions of digital literacy. In
both the student and teacher standards, there are no references to any specific form of
technology or digital media; but rather, a focus on overarching, transferable literacy skills and
lifelong learning.!

Technology Integration Policies

In researching school board policies on technology integration and 21st century practices of
teaching and learning, it was interesting to note the lack of formalized policies and the variation
from school to school, even within the same board. As an employee of the Peel District School
Board, I have witnessed a major shift in attitudes towards technology and privately-owned
devices over time. There was a time when cellular phones, either student- or teacher-owned,
were not permitted on campus; students needed special permission to bring their own laptops to
class; teachers were discouraged from participating in any form of social networking. Now,
attitudes have taken an extreme shift. Students and teachers are encouraged to bring their own
device (BYOD); wifi is available in every school within the Board; schools and teachers have
Twitter accounts, blogs and Facebook groups. This shift in philosophy and practice has primarily
been a result of the Board having a clear vision for technology and articulating that vision clearly
through official policy and communications.!

!
8

K. Bynoe

The Peel District School Boards Vision for Learning and Instructional Technology Plan outlines
the Boards plan for implementing technology in a meaningful way and promoting digital literacy.
The plan focuses on two overall themes: 21st century teaching and learning; and creating the
digital infrastructure required to support it. The Board also outlines key components that they
deem necessary for making their technology plan successful. These components include
professional learning for teachers; equitable access to technology; leveraging student owned
devices; providing access to digital resources and cloud storage; wifi access; and creating an
environment that promotes digital citizenship (PDSB 2012, p. 4). This plan also laid the
groundwork for the implementation of several board-wide initiatives, including Bring Your Own
Device (BYOD); a move to Office 365 for teacher-student communication, web-based
applications, and cloud storage; and more recently the implementation of Google Apps for
Education (GAFE). Another key component of the Boards plan was communication with parents
and the community about the move towards 21st century learning, digital citizenship and the
safety of the technology being used. This part of the plan is communicated through the Boards
website with links to the Boards Appropriate Use of Technology policy (PDSB 2013),
information about the safety of radio frequencies associated with wifi signals, brochures about
BYOD and a poster describing the Boards vision.!

!
York Region District School Board (YRDSB) is partnered with York University in a program
called Advanced Broadband Enabled Learning (ABEL). They describe their mandate as:!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

ABEL strives to improve results through its networks for knowledge sharing and ! !
collaboration and its professional learning programs. Through both public and private !
sector partnerships and a research-based approach, ABEL integrates new and existing !
technologies in teaching and learning. This combination of networks, partnerships, and a
focus on research drives innovative models for teaching, training and learning and !
creates opportunities for transformation.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(ABEL 2015)!

K. Bynoe

In addition to YRDSB, ABEL is also partnered with a number of other school boards across
Ontario. Through the partnerships, ABEL and boards conduct action research to find best
practices for the implementation of education technology. The most recent project that ABEL
and YRDSB have partnered on involves the use of GAFE for student collaboration and
assessment practices and its affect on literacy and numeracy (ABEL 2015). York Region District
School Boards Board Procedure #194.1 Use of Non-Board Devices is interesting when taken
together with the innovative approach of their partnership with ABEL, and when compared to the
Peel Disctrict School Boards approach to student-owned devices. The policy states that the
implementation of BYOD is entirely up to the discretion individual principals at school sites
(YRDSB 2015). !

!
Digital Literacy in Practice

Knowing what curricular standards and desired outcomes are for digitally literate students,
combined with policies and practices of technology integration, leads to an examination of what
constitutes good pedagogical practice for digital literacy.!

!
Carrington & Robinson (2009) consists of a series of essays which address how technology has
changed our conceptions of literacy; student participation in digital media; and changing
pedagogical practices. The book is organized as a textbook, providing key points for each
chapter, as well as suggestions to implement concepts and reflect upon ones own teaching
practice. The introduction highlights some key philosophies about digital literacy. It notes that
while many students participate actively in the production and consumption of digital texts,
these devices and the texts produced with them are still perceived to be irrelevant, and even
dangerous, in relation to childrens learning and their development of powerful practices with

10

K. Bynoe

text (ibid., p. 2). The authors argue that while the textual landscape is expanding as a result of
digital media, traditional, print-based texts are in no way endangered, but that it now interacts
with digital technologies and multimodality to create new and more complex texts (ibid., p. 3).!

!
Kajder (2010) is focused primarily on the adolescent student in relation to digital literacy, and
pedagogical practices suited to this age group. The definition of digital literacy in this text covers
both the conceptual and standardized operational categories (Lankshear & Knobel 2008).
Conceptually, it situates digital literacy as a new literacy, one to be added to the traditional
language arts curriculum. It also focuses on elements of information literacy such as using
search tools and critical analysis of digital texts.!

!
Hutchison (2012) and Lotherington, Paige, & Holland-Spencer (2013) are part of a series of
research monographs, What Works? Research into Practice, published by the Ontario Ministry
of Education. These monographs present research-based ideas for teachers to implement in
their practices. Hutchison (2012) looks at student video production as a means of using 21st
century literacy skills. It starts by justifying the use of the technology. Technology is not used for
technologys sake. It then goes onto provide step-by-step instructions on how to successfully
plan and carry out a video production project with students. Lotherington, Paige, & HollandSpencer (2013) examines how teacher professional learning communities (PLC) can be used to
plan and create projects focused on multimodal and digital literacies. Like Hutchison, it outlines
specific steps for educators to create these kinds of PLCs.!

!
Galloway, John, & McTaggart (2015) provides a series of case studies that look specifically at
the use of mobile and handheld technology in education. It prefaces these scenarios by noting
that it is easy to be dazzled by flashy technology and the potential they have for teaching and

11

K. Bynoe

learning; however, before rolling out massive 1:1 iPad programs, there are many considerations
that must be made (ibid., p. 3). Not least of which is, what do we want the technology to do?
They also note that successful programs that make use of educational technology view it as
a literacy not an IT initiative (ibid., p. 4). The focus of teaching should not be on the specific
technology, but rather the outcome that you wish to achieve:!
!
!
!
!

Within a relatively short time projects had shifted from Lets try and do something !
interesting with this nice new device and see if theres any learning to be had, to We !
know the kind of learning we want to do and this is the best device to support it.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(ibid., p. 5)!

The text addresses several practical considerations about deploying digital devices in
educational settings, including funding such initiatives, maintenance, data storage and wifi (ibid.,
p. 16-20). Several popular platforms and products are also discussed, including Apples iPad,
Android devices, Windows 8 and Google Chromebooks. Pros and cons for each operating
system and device are laid out (ibid., p. 21-28). Suggestions and considerations for
implementing BYOD are also made (ibid., p. 28-29).!

Issues in Digital Literacy, Digital Inclusion & Educational Technology

!
!
!
!
!

We do not notice the obvious. Ubiquity creates invisibility. McLuhan famously compared !
us to fish that fail to see our water. Under such circumstances, as Heidegger said, we !
are only likely to notice our technologies when they stop working as anticipated.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(Matthewman 2011, in Selwyn 2014, p. 3)!

!
!
!

those when tend to be most disadvantaged by educational technology are usually !

those who think least critically about it.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(Selwyn 2014, p. 3)!

!
!
!

Not all scholars are exuberant in their view of digital media and educational technology. Some
have raised important issues about equity of access to technology and digital inclusion, while
others are outright distrustful of educational technology on its face. Selwyn (2014) falls into the
latter category. In Distrusting Educational Technology argues that the education community is

12

K. Bynoe

asking the wrong questions of educational technology (ibid., p. 2). Selwyn criticizes the
communitys fascination with what technology can do, and its potential for education and
pedagogy, as these kinds of questions ignore the ideological and political values that are
associated with the technology (ibid.). Selwyn also takes issue with power imbalances and
inequality associated with educational technology. He states that education technology is a
hierarchy of actors and interests ranging from those who generally do educational technology
through to those who have generally have educational technology done to them (ibid., p. 3).
While Selwyn is not arguing for a return to the technological dark ages in education; he is
demanding that we look at technology as something that has latent ideological content (ibid.,
p. 4).!

!
Thompson et al. (2014) looks specifically at the role of public libraries in relation to digital
literacy and digital inclusion. Here, they define digital literacy as the ability to use the Internet to
meet information needs, and digital inclusion as access to the Internet in order to apply the
skills of digital literacy (ibid., p. 1). Digital inclusion is further defined in terms of accessibility
(e.g., physical access), literacy (e.g., intellectual access), and cultural factors (e.g., social
access) (ibid., p. 36). While Thompson et al. focus primarily on the role of public policy and
public libraries in creating hubs of digital inclusion and digital literacy, it is not a stretch to see
how this could apply in the context of schools. The implementation of 21st century teaching and
learning practices and the importance of digital literacy become increasingly important for
students who do not have regular access to the Internet outside of school. School boards must
plan their technology integration with equity of access and digital inclusion in mind, while also
implementing sustainable practices that will not become obsolete as technology continues to
change.!

!
13

K. Bynoe

Works Cited!

Carrington, V. & Robinson, M. (2009). Digital literacies: Social learning and classroom practices.
!
London: Sage Publications Inc.!

Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital !
!
era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 13(1), 93-106!

Galloway, J., John, M., & McTaggart, M. (2015). Learning with mobile and handheld !
!
technologies. New York: Routledge.!

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

Hutchison, D. (March 2012). The student filmmaker. What works? Research into practice. !
!
Research Monograph #39. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/! !
!
!
literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_StudentFilmakers.pdf!

!
ISTE. (2007). ISTE Standards for Students. International Society for Technology in Education.!
!
ISTE. (2008). ISTE Standards for Teachers. International Society for Technology in Education.!
!

Kajder, S. (2010). Adolescents and digital literacies: Learning alongside our students. Urbana, !
!
Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.!

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2008). Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices. New !
!
York: Peter Lang.!

!Lotherington, H., Paige, C. & Holland-Spencer, M. (Februrary 2013). Using a professional

learning community to support multimodal literacies. What works? Research into

practice. Research Monograph #46. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/
literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_Professional_Learning.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education (2006). The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8: Language, 2006 !
!
(revised). Toronto: Queens Printer for Ontario.!

Peel District School Board (March 2012). Vision for learning and instructional technology plan. !
!
Mississauga, Ont.: Peel District School Board.!

Peel District School Board (2013). Policy 78: Digital Citizenship. Mississauga, Ont.: Peel District
!
School Board.!

Rivoltella, P. C. (2008). Digital literacy: Tools and methodologies for information society. New !
!
York: IGI Publishing.!

Selwyn, N. (2014). Distrusting educational technology: Critical questions for changing times. !
!
New York: Routledge.!

Thompson, K. M. et al. (2014). Digital literacy and digital inclusion: Information policy and the !
!
public library. London: Rowman & Littlefield.!

14

K. Bynoe

!
Welcome to ABELearn. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2015, from http://abelearn.ca!
!

York Region District School Board (2015). Working document: Procedure #194.1, Use of Non-!
!
Board Devices. Aurora, Ont.: York Region District School Board.

15