• No results found

Clearing the fog from the definition of Digital Literacy : A study investigating what it means to be digitally literate and if students at Jönköping University meet these requirements

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Clearing the fog from the definition of Digital Literacy : A study investigating what it means to be digitally literate and if students at Jönköping University meet these requirements"

Copied!
42
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)
(2)

This final thesis has been carried out at the School of Engineering at Jönköping University within [see main field on previous page]. The authors are responsible for the presented opinions, conclusions and results.

Examiner: Bruce Ferwerda Supervisor: Ida Serneberg

Scope: 15 hp (first-cycle education)

(3)

Abstract

The current COVID-19 pandemic accentuated knowledge and skill gaps in the digital education field, between both students and teachers. The purpose of this paper is to review old research articles and investigate to what extent these knowledge gaps of digital literacy reach between the students of Jönköping University specifically, as well as the development and evolution of Digital Literacy as a whole throughout the term's existence. To achieve answers to these questions, a literature review was employed to study the development of digital literacy throughout the already conducted research works by substantial names from the field and a semi-structured qualitative interview was created to measure the extent of knowledge that the students at Jönkoping University possessed in the fields of digital literacy, and their desire and dedication to further progress their possessed skill-sets. The results from the study accentuate the necessity and importance of further development of a true digital literacy definition and for it to be properly implemented into the educational curriculum, as the concept and educational frameworks are still in their infancy stages, as the possessed skill-sets, from digital literacy specifically, of the students are not fully developed and their desire to progress only reaches a limited field of interest. Keywords

Digital literacy, development, digital education, skill-set, definition, interviews, literature review

(4)

Table of content

Abstract

2

Keywords 2

Table of content

3

Introduction

5

1.1 Background 5 1.2 Problem statement 6

1.3 Purpose and research questions 7

1.4 Scope and limitations 7

1.5 DISPOSITION 8

Method and implementation

9

2.1 Literature review 9

2.2 Quantitative & Qualitative studies 9

2.3 Surveys and Interviews 10

2.4 Data collection 10

2.4.1 Literature review 10

2.4.2 Individual survey and Individual Interviews 10

2.5 Data analysis 12

2.5.1 Literature review 12

2.5.2 Survey data analysis 12

2.5.3 Interview transcript analysis 12

2.6 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY 13

CONSIDERATIONS 13

Theoretical framework 14

3.1 Traditional Literacy 14

3.2 Digital Literacy 14

3.3 Dimensions Of Digital Literacy 15

3.4 Convergence Theory 16

Results

17

4.1 Literature Review 17

4.1.1 Definitions and Criticisms 17

(5)

4.1.3 Education 20 4.2 Thematic Analysis 21 4.2.1 Uncertainty 21 4.2.2 Knowledge 21 4.2.3 Personal Preferences 23 Discussion 25 5.1 RESULT DISCUSSION 25

5.1.1 Literature Review Discussion 25

Definitions and Criticisms 25

Education 26

5.1.2 Interview Discussion 27

5.2 Method discussion 28

Conclusions and further research

29

6.1 CONCLUSIONS 29 6.1.1 Practical implications 29 6.1.2 Scientific implication 29 6.2 FURTHER RESEARCH 30

References

31

Appendixes

34

FIGURES 34 7.1 Survey Questions 35 7.2 Interview Questions 41

(6)

1

Introduction

1.1 Background

In an experiment conducted in 2017 following the 2016 Presidential Election, a group of researchers collected 7,804 responses to tasks that required students to evaluate online content, ranging from differing Facebook posts, to asking them to investigate who were behind biased websites (Breakstone et al., 2018). The researchers found that students of all ages struggled significantly. As Breakstone et al. (2018) state:

Middle school students mis-took advertisements for news stories. High schoolers were unable to verify social media accounts. College students blithely accepted a website’s description of itself (p. 28).

This highlights the absolute gap of digital literacy between young students. David Buckingham (2015) conducted research about the need of digital literacy in education and the importance of developing critical approaches to digital media. The study proclaimed that there is both positive and negative implementation of media education, but primarily that there is a concerning shortage of teachers that educate media subjects (Buckingham, 2015).

As the COVID-19 pandemic swept over the world, educators, many of whom were not competent in the field of technology, were suddenly forced to shift school-based teaching to a digital space, which has made it necessary for people of all ages to use digital literacy practises to be able to connect (Oneyama et al., 2020). According to Buchholz et al. (2020): “Immediately, educators were confronted with a multitude of thorny teaching, learning, and technological issues that made problems of equity and access more apparent than ever” (p. 11). Ultimately, this implies that the necessity for digital literacy competence has been amplified by the current pandemic.

With passing years, a significant amount of research has been conducted and written concerning the integration of digital literacy to people’s daily lives, as some schools in the United States have directly inducted online education into their curriculum and made it a requirement to graduate (Osterman, 2013). Though not many researchers attempted to take and compare the already written studies, to measure how digital literacy has evolved in tandem with the technology it is related to, i.e. focus on how digital literacy affects us on a social and personal level. It is important to review how far the subject's evolution has come and provide a more accessible context for future studies.

(7)

1.2 Problem statement

Paul Gilster, the author of the book “Digital Literacy” spoke in an interview with C. Pool (1997), about how being digitally literate is both multidimensional and interactive. A simple picture for example, the user is able to view it, save it, use it in a personal hypertext creation, print it, or send it via email, as well as have the option to discuss the image via chats or forums (Pool, 1997).

There have, as well, been conflicting opinions revolving around the different branches of digital literacy, specifically information literacy. As Ottoman (2013) states, the definitions of information and digital literacy have become too skewed to be accurately differed. Ottoman (2013) argues that both literacies share the same skills and factors, such as posing a question, identifying appropriate sources, finding, evaluating, or synthesizing information, or using it in a product. Information literacy has a tendency to focus on such research skills, but due to the use of technology constantly changing and evolving, this research model needs to be expanded to a proper definition which includes more competencies and ultimately be re-defined as digital literacy (Ottoman, 2013).

In remarkable research work, Buckingham (2015) indicates that digital literacy is a lot more than having skills and understanding of how to use a personal computer or a mobile device, or how to effectively use a search engine. “While there is agreement that a new set of 21st-century skills involving technologies are needed for literacy, there is little consensus about precisely what knowledge and abilities are necessary for people to be digitally literate” (Ba, Tally, & Tsikalas, 2002). As Buckingham (2015) explains, the skills that children need in relation to digital media are not confined to those of information retrieval. Students need to be educated on how to critically evaluate and compare different sources of information from different mediums. Conducting deeper research to broaden their perspective on the subject itself or the producers of relevant information will help them carry the knowledge they collected into their professional or everyday lives (Buckingham, 2015).

When reviewing the presently available literature around digital literacy, we noticed that researchers generally write about and follow one definition of Digital Literacy and we found a lack of evaluation, analysation and comparison between the previously written research. Reviewing the already existing research could help fill in the gaps, and seek out answers of both, how the importance of digital literacy has increased and how it has evolved over the recent years.

(8)

1.3 Purpose and research questions

With this paper and our study, the purpose is to further investigate and expand on both the research that has been made concerning digital literacy and how it affects our current society. To help us understand the importance of digital literacy from a societal perspective we also measured people’s general knowledge within the field. RQ1

How sufficiently has digital literacy developed throughout the years, according to former research papers?

This research question primarily focuses on conducting a literature review and comparing previous research works and their progression, from its introduction to the present day. The literature review helps us find an answer to how significant the importance is and clarify the gaps in previous research.

RQ2

To what extent, does the knowledge of digital literacy reach between students in Jönköping University?

Research question two focuses on the level of skill and knowledge that students at Jönköping University possess within the context of digital literacy and how much it differs depending on various factors.

RQ3

How significant is the motivation to further develop their digital literacy, according to students at Jönköping University?

The final question focuses on providing an analysis of how students in Jönköping University value their existing digital literacy skills and motivation to develop their skills further.

1.4 Scope and limitations

Our scope consisted of selective work that has been substantial in the field. We limited our research to articles that were relevant to our research questions. Recent research within the field was prioritized but we also pointed attention to older studies which defined the field in the beginning, to get a broader picture of the importance. For the second part of this study, we limited ourselves with participants that are studying at Jönköping University. We considered their educational level and cultural background, but not took into account other socioeconomic aspects.

The chosen target groups primarily consisted of participants who use digital devices throughout their daily lives. The competence differences were not a matter of issue, as it was the main interest of this study, to measure the knowledge of novices and more

(9)

experienced participants. We began the research with a quantitative study, where we aimed to gather as much information about the participants as possible using a close-ended question survey. The gathered quantitative research information was analysed to locate a more determined target group. The target group being self proclaimed novices and intermediate users. Following the findings of a more specific target group, the participants were exposed to qualitative research to further expand the analysis. The aim was not to critique the participants' individual performances but rather to measure and compare between participants, to disclose their digital literacy level.

1.5 Disposition

In this paper, the Introduction is firstly presented, the Introduction includes information about the background as well as the discussion of the problem statement, which continues to the purpose and the research questions. In the second chapter that is called Method and Implementation the chosen methods that are used to collect statistics are described and discussed, furthermore it is discussed why these methods are relevant to this study. The third chapter includes previous relevant research and information that helped clarify the topic. In chapter four the collected data from the study was analysed and conferred. In the next chapter, number five, the outcome of the study was discussed as well as how it related to previous studies within the research field. To sum things up, chapter six includes conclusions and suggestions for further research.

(10)

2

Method and implementation

2.1 Literature review

Firstly, in our study, we carried out a literature review that had the main objective of answering how significant the importance of digital literacy is and how it has evolved according to former research paper perspectives.

The main objective with having a literature review was to take the research that has already been written into consideration and discussion, allowing us to identify and analyze relevant theories as well as gaps in the existing research. According to McCombes (2019) there are five key steps when doing a literature review; Look up relevant literature, evaluate and choose the most relevant research, organize and connect the different sources as well as the possible research gaps, shape the structure of the review and finally write the literature review.

We conducted this review, by searching for key articles and books revolving around digital literacy, dating back to the “founding father” articles which provided the foundation of this new type of literacy. Furthermore, we proceeded to find more recent research works and analysed the changing context of digital literacy throughout the years, following with direct comparisons of theories used in said works. The patterns and trends were thoroughly analysed, as well as any possible gaps. A thematic and chronological analysis of articles allowed us to organise and present a clear and direct development path of digital literacy.

2.2 Quantitative & Qualitative studies

When deciding what research method to use for the second part of the study, the research questions and the decided target group were taken into consideration to form the best study possible. To detect the best possible research method it was important to first examine the different option types; quantitative and qualitative methods. Timo Savela (2018) researched the advantages and disadvantages with the use of quantitative methods in a school environment, in his research he claimed how quantitative methods are able to reduce personal bias. Quantitative methods can also bring more in-depth information and understanding about the specific units investigated due to the reduction of classification (Savela, T. 2018). These advantages of quantitative studies assisted us to acquire general and numerical data that was analysed and further used in a qualitative study.

As Fernando Almeida et al. states, qualitative research is not concerned with numerical representativity, but with the deepening of understanding an existing problem. The primary objective of qualitative research was to provide in-depth information in order to understand and analyse the various amounts of sources of data (Fernando Almeida et al., 2017). Qualitative research methodology therefore concerns itself with what cannot be quantified, the method's main focus is to analyse and

(11)

explain the personal understandings of social relations. According to Joseph Maxwell (2013), qualitative methodology encompasses the fields of meanings, motives, aspirations, beliefs, values and attitudes, which translate to a deeper understanding of personal experiences that cannot be reduced to variables. The previously mentioned factors of qualitative studies generated irreplaceable individual results from the participants of the study, which were necessary for us to display the rooted values and motivations of the participants.

2.3 Surveys and Interviews

A close-ended question survey was conducted, measuring participants' skill-set within digital literacy as well as the motivation to further progress. The main point of the survey was to find participants with a different level of skill-set for the interviews. After gathering information and participants from the survey, a detailed interview was organised and conducted with select participants. The primary goal of the interview was to collect qualitative information about the participants' digital literacy values, what current skill-level they possess and motivations to further progress their skill set.

2.4 Data collection 2.4.1 Literature review

When taking our first research question into consideration, we decided to conduct a literature review to be able to answer the research question properly. The literature review started off with finding and selecting the relevant papers i.e. papers discussing the different states of digital literacy throughout the years. These papers shaped the structure of our literature review and also helped us find potential research gaps. We were not the first to dive into the importance and development of digital literacy, but it is important to review past articles, as it is still a rapidly growing topic.

With a literature review we are able to reflect and compare the older research within the field. As Jeffrey W. Knopf (2006) states, a literature review can help you reveal what has already been done well, and not “reinvent the wheel”. He continues by mentioning how literature reviews can assist in determining where there are flaws and problems within the existing research.

2.4.2 Individual survey and Individual Interviews

Considering RQ2 and RQ3, it was decided to conduct a survey to collect broad knowledge from the participants about the topic of Digital Literacy. The broad knowledge data collection consisted of questions about the participants’ digital literacy skill-set, specifically the ability to use and produce content using digital tools (i.e. computers, phones, tablets, etc.), as well as finding and evaluating information as legitimate on the internet. The survey was produced by implementing carefully

(12)

constructed close-ended questions, as well as ranking options in a multiple-choice question setting (seeappendix 7.1).

As the survey asked the participant to self-evaluate their skillset, we could carefully choose participants with different skill levels to include in the interview. By conducting individual interviews we could in turn gather more intimate data from the participants and negate self evaluation bias.

We decided to conduct a series of interviews based on the survey questions. The interviews included an interactive test where the participants were meant to rank six different web-pages relating COVID-19, in the order of which they would be most likely to use. All of these websites are more or less trustworthy when it comes to having relevant and trustworthy information. The websites we took use of are:

1. WHO 2. CDC 3. CNN 4. BBC 5. Aftonbladet 6. Googling Corona

The test focused on how well the participants could find and evaluate information online, which partially helped us answer RQ2. The test was followed up with a few questions regarding how the participants find and evaluate information online (see

appendix 7.2). Following the questions about information online, the participants were asked how skilled they were with different software on the computer as well as in computer programming. The interview also contained some hypothetical scenarios and the participants were in turn asked what they would do to solve these scenarios (seeappendix 7.2).

To more accurately answer RQ3 the last part of the interview contained some questions asking the participants both, if they are pleased with their current skill-set and if they want to improve. Furthermore, they were asked if they ever required outside help and if they thought it was important to have an advanced skill-set to improve their competitiveness at a workplace.

The interviews gave us a deeper and more exact understanding regarding both the second and third research questions. Concerning the second research question, the interviews helped us understand how substantial the knowledge within different digital literacy aspects generally was for students at Jönköping University. The questions we asked during the interviews allowed us to visualize the importance that digital literacy posed for the participants, as well as their motivation for further development within the area of digital literacy, to help us answer the third research question more accurately.

(13)

2.5 Data analysis 2.5.1 Literature review

When conducting our literature review we strived to discover trends and common patterns between each selected paper, as well as possible gaps in the research. The primary targets were pivotal publications relating to digital literacy, as they hold the largest amount of influence to the field. The review was structured in a mix thematic and chronological orders, as we analysed research papers that have progressed over time, through which different conclusions might have been reached.

2.5.2 Survey data analysis

To be able to recruit participants for the interview that possessed different levels of skill-sets, the survey results had to be analyzed. By taking out a mean number both corresponding to the survey participants' skill-level/knowledge as well as for their motivation to further progress, it was possible to spot interview participants with different skill-sets.

2.5.3 Interview transcript analysis

To be able to analyze our qualitative data from the conducted interviews, we took help of the analysis method called thematic analysis, this analysis method is one of many that focuses on identifying patterns between the dataset and participants. Braun & Clarke (2006) introduced a six-phase process to be able to analyze and identify these patterns. This six-phase process indicates that when doing a thematic analysis you should firstly familiarize yourself with the data conducted meaning, reading through it and writing down initial ideas. After getting familiarized with the data, it is necessary to code the data, meaning highlighting different parts of the interview that are relevant to each other. Afterwards, it is required to generate and search for themes, based on the codes collected in the previous phase, a theme can contain one or multiple sets of codes. When generating themes, we may decide that some of our codes are not relevant enough. The fourth phase inflicts reviewing of the themes earlier generated, this includes perhaps combining them, discarding them or creating completely new ones. After reviewing the themes, it is time to generate clear definitions, refine the specifics and name the themes. Finally, it is time to write up the analysis of the data collected, where the themes are described as well as the conclusion on how well the analysis has answered our research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

This analysis method helped us understand the patterns between the factors of the participants in a thorough way. The thematic method is a really flexible method, and because of that it was important to be very clear and explicit about the things we did and the things we said (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

(14)

2.6 Validity and reliability

The Literature review was based on articles relevant to our topic and RQ1: “How sufficiently has digital literacy developed throughout the years, according to former research papers?”. To only use valid research papers, we used the five step model mentioned earlier. With this model we could both evaluate the sources and identify themes and gaps (McCombes, 2019). As this was secondary information, the study should result the same if replicated.

Our survey consisted of a few demographic questions, considering the participants age, in what year the participants are studying, origin, name and gender. These demographic questions were not displayed towards the public, which in turn results in more honest answers, and as a consequence contributes to a more valid survey. With the help of the demographic data we could potentially link certain data together with the other results of the survey. The integral point of the survey helped us understand people’s knowledge and skill-level within digital literacy as well as their values and thoughts about the importance and understanding of digital literacy. The generic questions about their skills could for some, perhaps be a bit personal but should either way be answered honestly since the questions can not be used to identify the participants in any outside context.

Our conducted interviews were based on the survey questions and answers, therefore they share validity. Answering questions in an interview could be more intimidating and pressuring than answering surveys, on that account the idea was to ask open-ended questions and bring a discussion as well as having a welcoming environment to get honest answers and avoid bias.

Considerations

Regarding our literature review research, we attempted to select the most referenced research papers written about digital literacy. The goal of this was to help us avoid any “niche” opinions and review the more prominent studies that influenced the progress of the subject.

Due to the pandemic, we were limited to the rules and regulations implemented by the Swedish government, in consequence we had to be mindful of the participants we decided to pick for our interviews and avoid any possible COVID infection threats. As our survey was held online, it had no effect on our data collection and analysis. At the time of writing this research paper, for the aforementioned interviews, participants were selected carefully to avoid any threat of infection for both researchers. We followed the regulations of social distancing, and to avoid any unnecessary contact the interviews were held over Zoom or Discord, depending on the participants’ preference. As the paper was primarily targeted for English readers, the interviews followed suit. Concerning the privacy and ethics of this study, the collected data was exclusively used for the research highlighted throughout this paper, and was not handled in any other way, to respect our participants’ privacy.

(15)

3

Theoretical framework

3.1 Traditional Literacy

The traditional meaning of literacy, defined by the Oxford Dictionary, states that it is “the ability to read and write”. This definition has spanned many different generations and is still being taught in educational facilities to this day. According to James Paul Gee (2012) a term that is important when trying to get a more precise definition of the word literacy is “discourse”. Discourse can be described as such:

A socially accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or “social network”.

When defining the word literacy he states that a more precise and useful definition of the word is that literacy is “control of secondary uses of language i.e., uses of language in secondary discourses.”

Literacy consists of five pillars; Phonemic awareness, Phonics, Comprehension, Fluency and Vocabulary. Phonemic awareness refers to the ability of being able to manipulate and focus on the smallest units of sound which makes up a spoken language, and the ability to associate written letters with corresponding sounds is called Phonics. The comprehension aspect has been identified as the essence of reading, and it includes to remember, understand and make meaning of the text that has been read. Fluency is the ability to read text quickly and accurately, it has also been defined as “freedom from word identification problems that might hinder comprehension”. The vocabulary pillar refers to the words that we can both use and understand. According to a study where these five pillars were measured in popularity, both in research and in practice, only comprehension and vocabulary have been more popular than earlier (Cassidy et al., 2011).

3.2 Digital Literacy

While traditional literacy education is still important, students in the 21st century need to learn and know more, and be able to do more than they did in the past. With technology that is constantly improving and the passing of the information age, or the age of New Media, being literate in the 21st century has a completely different meaning. In the current age, it is increasingly hard to lead a life without some kind of technological dependency, be it a mobile phone, a computer, a smart tv or a smart house security system. The person of today is always linked to some kind of form of technology. The latest technological advancements have brought a different kind of learning and teaching, one that is not dependent only on books or writing. As a result of this, different kinds of literacy have surfaced, each with their individual subjects and properties.

(16)

With the current pandemic still underway, students and teachers were forced to move to teach and learn on the digital scope. It introduced a whole new side of importance to possess 21st literacy skills, most specifically digital literacy. According to Western Sydney University; “Digital literacy means having the skills you need to live, learn, and work in a society where communication and access to information is increasingly through digital technologies like internet platforms, social media, and mobile devices.”

In “Origins and Concepts of Digital Literacy” by David Bawden, he provided, in his own words, four generally agreed components of digital literacy:

1. Underpinnings • literacy per se

• Computer / ICT literacy 2. Background Knowledge

• the world of information

• nature of information resources 3. Central Competencies

• reading and understanding digital and non-digital formats • creating and communicating digital information

• evaluation of information • knowledge assembly • information literacy • media literacy 4. Attitudes and Perspectives

• independent learning • moral / social literacy

The underpinnings reflected the necessary traditional skills. Background knowledge refers to the different mediums of accessible information. Central competencies were meant to be regarded skeptically, as the wide set can be possessed to various degrees in various countries of the world. The attitudes and perspectives present that it is not enough to only possess skills and competencies, a person must be grounded in some moral framework (Bawden, 2008).

3.3 Dimensions Of Digital Literacy

Ng (2012) wrote a study about how we can teach digital natives digital literacy, where he creates a framework that he bases his model on. The model contains three intersecting dimensions digital literacy results, that are; technical, cognitive and social-emotional. The relationships linking these dimensions together can be seen in Figure 1.

The technical dimension of being digitally literate broadly means to have both the technical and operational competence to use informational and communicational

(17)

technologies for learning in everyday activities. For example, an individual can be able to understand file structure and to know how to set up and use communication and social networking tools. The cognitive dimension of the digital literacy model is correlated with the ability to think critically when searching, evaluating and creating digital information. The social-emotional dimension of the model as well as the intersected areas between the cognitive and social-emotional dimensions involves being able to use appropriate language and words to avoid misinterpretation, being able to protect individual safety and privacy, i.e. protecting personal information, and to be able to recognize when being threatened and know how to deal with that threat (Ng,2012). The center of the three dimensions is what can be called being digital literate, which requires the key skills that are technical, cognitive and social emotional(Ng,2012).

3.4 Convergence Theory

Convergence culture is a theory, fathered in by Henry Jenkins with his book Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (2006), which acknowledges the constantly changing relationships and experiences with new media. The theory examines the constant flow of content across diverse intersections of media, industries and audiences, displaying a back and forth struggle between the distribution and control of content (Jenkins et al., 2008). Jenkins discusses the aforementioned intersections of three fundamental ideas in an increasingly interconnected world, them being:

1. Media Convergence - the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who would go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they wanted (Jenkins, 2006).

2. Participatory Culture - a concept where the general public are not only consumers of media, but creators and contributors as well. The active participation of the consumer is one of the primary driving forces in the spread and propagation of media across international boundaries and media systems. Although, not all participants are created equal. Corporations - and even individuals within corporate media - still exert greater power than any individual consumer or even the aggregate of consumers. And some consumers have greater abilities to participate in this emerging culture than others (Jenkins, 2006).

3. Collective Intelligence - with there being more information on any given topic than one person can store, collective intelligence refers to a shared group of intelligence and collaboration between a collective of individuals.

“None of us can know everything; each of us knows something; and we can put the pieces together if we pool our resources and combine our skills” (Jenkins, 2006).

(18)

4

Results

4.1 Literature Review

The primary problem, highlighted at the beginning of this research paper, was that researchers generally write about and follow one definition of Digital Literacy and we found a lack of evaluation, analysation and comparison between the previously written research about digital literacy. As a result of this, we formed our RQ1 “How sufficiently has digital literacy developed throughout the years, according to former research papers?”

The literature review helped us find an answer to our research question and clarify the gaps in previous research. When reviewing ten different research works from the years 1997-2020, we noticed different obvious themes that recurred, them being: “Definitions and Criticisms”, “Frameworks and Competencies” and “Education”. 4.1.1 Definitions and Criticisms

According to the different literatures included in the review, many definitions and characteristics of digital literacy have been written. Paul Gilster, the author of Digital Literacy and Web Navigator (Pool, 1997) had become a well known name in the field ever since he popularized the term of Digital Literacy with his controversial definition, which was criticised by many researchers for being too broad. According to Gilster (Pool, 1997) digital literacy is the ability to understand information and even more importantly, in his opinion it is critical to evaluate and integrate information in multiple formats on a computer. From then on, varied definitions have been proposed by different researchers such as Bawden (2001), Bawden and Robinson (2002), and more notably Eshet (2004). Yoram Eshet-Alkalai criticised the indecisiveness and confusion regarding the understanding of the term Digital Literacy. In his words, digital literacy involves more than the ability and skills to operate software or digital tools, it encompasses a large variety of complex cognitive, motor, sociological, and emotional skills, which users were required to possess in order to function successfully in a digital environment (Eshet, 2004). Eshet’s main criticism was that the unclear use of the term caused ambiguity, and led to misunderstandings and poor communication among researchers and developers who were involved in the development process of educational digital environments (Eshet, 2004).

In 2008, a book was published called “Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices” by Lankshear & Knobel, which included a collection of study articles written by different researchers to emphasise the plurality of Digital Literacy and, hopefully, clear the prominent confusion around the terminology (Lankshear & Knobel, 2008). In one of the more notable publications in this book, “Origins and Concepts of Digital Literacy” by David Bawden, he seemingly agreed with a portion of Gilster's definition of digital literacy. As he explains it, the way Gilster defined

(19)

digital literacy was intentional to accommodate the progress of time, change and improvement of technology (Bawden, 2008). As the term was used at the time of writing, he criticised the unclear and confused terminology of Digital Literacy, arguing that the term encompasses more than the possessed skills of operating software and hardware to navigate digital information sources, as principles outlast the systems and technologies. In his words, this categorising of the topic is too restrictive and arguably too much influenced by the technology of its times, to be of as much lasting value as Gilster’s broader conception (Bawden, 2008). Throughout the research work, Bawden argued that digital literacy had to find its place among information literacy, computer literacy (ICT literacy), e-literacy, network literacy, and media literacy, but not become the “unifying” term for the literacies mentioned. As he puts it, digital literacy subsumes a number of the mentioned literacies and requires constant updating to accommodate new understanding and circumstances.

In an article written by Sefton-Green et al., the researchers continued to criticise the oversimplification of the term digital literacy. Claiming that the notion of literacy evoked a multitude of competencies, skills and knowledge, as it were a lot more than interacting with digital technologies (Sefton-Green et al., 2009). Furthermore, they emphasised how the ambiguity of the definition of the fairly new concept developed points of disagreement and struggle, in effect carrying similar values as Gilster, Bawden and Eshet (Sefton-Green et al., 2009).

Buckingham (2015) argued for a particular definition of digital literacy that went beyond some approaches that have been embraced in the field of information technology in education; as it could no longer be viewed as a matter of information or of technology. In his words, digital literacy is a function that includes children using media as a cultural form and not only as machines and techniques, and that the teachers need to provide the students with the means of understanding these experiences. Buckingham also stated that most discussions surrounding digital literacy remained primarily occupied with information and tended to neglect some of the broader cultural uses of the internet. Pangrazio et al. (2020) discussed the differences and similarities with digital literacy in different contexts, them being Scandinavian, Argentinian and Australian, and how different contexts have different educational, technological and political histories that could influence the uptake and use of digital technologies. They wrote about how they were concerned with the drive to standardise definitions of digital literacy even if there were notable differences in the cultural politics of each country. As defined back in the 1990s “the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide variety of sources when it is presented via computers” was a good starting point back then but digital practices have gotten more complex, diverse and divergent since (Pangrazio et al., 2020)

(20)

4.1.2 Frameworks and Competencies

Throughout the research works selected for the review, not many specified necessary competencies to be deemed “digitally literate”. In fact, the largest critique of Gilster (1997), apart from the definition of digital literacy being too broad, was that there were no specific competencies and skill sets to be considered “digitally literate” (Bawden, 2008). Although, in an interview with Pool (1997) Gilster mentioned some qualities and competencies that you should possess to be digitally literate. Them being: multidimensional and interactive (f.e. acquire a photo, be able to manipulate it, share it, save it, view it, etc). Gilster also talked about how everyone could be a publisher online and that you should not trust everything you read, in result of this you should be critical and both check the source and the hypertext links on a website before you explore it, he continues with that you should also email and communicate with the authors of the website or article. Gilster also mentioned how important it is to integrate traditional sources of information with the internet, to maintain a sense of familiarity and context (Pool, 1997).

Following along, the term of Digital Literacy was still in its infancy in the late 1990s and early 2000s, a clear-cut list of competencies and skill sets was yet to be defined. To mitigate that, Eshet (2004) provided research work revolving around developing a more clear-cut conceptual framework to improve the understanding of skills encompassed by Digital Literacy. He narrowed down and defined 5 types of literacy “necessary” for the concept of digital literacy: photo-visual literacy; reproduction literacy; information literacy; branching literacy; and socio-emotional literacy (Eshet, 2004). In short, Eshet elaborated and gave a more thorough explanation of the work that Gilster (1997) produced, as in Gilster’s words: “Digital literacy is the ability to understand information and more important - to evaluate and integrate information in multiple formats that the computer can deliver” (Pool, 1997). Eshet specified the formats the computer could deliver at the time of writing (Eshet, 2004). While this framework did provide a clearer consensus of digital literacy, there was still a sheer diversity of specific accounts of “digital literacy” that existed (Lankshear & Knobel, 2008). In one of the publications mentioned above, “Origins and Concepts of Digital Literacy” by David Bawden, he claimed that constant updating of competence is necessary, as individual circumstances change, and as the ever changing digital world brings the need for new understanding and new competencies (Bawden, 2008). Bawden did not produce a new and substantial perspective of digital literacy, he only explained and elaborated upon old research works, mainly Gilster (1997) and Eshet (2004). Specifically, he elaborated the framework that Eshet (2004) produced and acknowledged that Computer Literacy should be categorised as a basic skill under Digital Literacy.

Continuing on to another paper from the book, Buckingham (2015) reinforces the meaning of multiple “digital” literacies and some of the values that Eshet and Bawden wrote about in their frameworks. Despite this, Buckingham prioritised not the technical “know-how” side of digital literacy but the socio-emotional literacy

(21)

mentioned by Eshet (2004), and cautious internet browsing (Buckingham, 2015). He claimed that the technical skills required to operate digital tools are likely to become obsolete fairly rapidly. Buckingham pushed the idea that digital literacy is much more than a functional matter of learning how to use digital tools, or how to do online searches (Buckingham, 2015). In his words:

“[Children] need to be able to evaluate and use information critically if they are to transform it into knowledge. This means asking questions about the sources of that information, the interests of its producers, and the ways in which it represents the world; and understanding how these technological developments are related to broader social, political and economic forces.” (Buckingham, 2015, pg. 25)

4.1.3 Education

As early as 1997, when Gilster wrote his book about Digital Literacy and was interviewed (Pool, 1997), he discussed digital literacy in an educational context and how to implement it. In Gilster’s opinion, it was important that teachers and students needed to learn sophisticated and advanced searching techniques, so they only hit 50 or fewer results when searching for specific information (Pool, 1997). He also mentioned that it was fairly simple to copy-paste information and that students had to learn to assimilate, evaluate and then reintegrate it. Continuously in his interview, he talked about how computers and technique can be powerful tools to assist teaching and present new experiences for the students but never replace the teachers, although in 10 years (2007) he mentions that a school’s best teacher could be available for everyone (Pool, 1997), e.g. online lectures and tutorials.

In one of the articles mentioned above, by Eshet, he wrote about how to implement his conceptual framework to assist and ease teachings surrounding digital literacy, as after a considerable amount of experiments, it was clearly indicated how the framework contributed to the understanding of how learners worked in digital environments (Eshet, 2004). Similar to the values of Eshet’s framework and writings of Bawden, Buckingham (2015) also argued for the need to teach and inform about the multiple literacies, and not just applying media or digital literacy to the curriculum.

Ng (2012) wrote about people who were born after the 1980’s and had been immersed in technology their whole lives, had a clear advantage in learning and were comfortable with using digital technologies. Buckingham (2015) continued to write about digital natives, students that possessed previous knowledge within digital literacy and suggesting ways of how teachers should consider educating them; for media education to be effective, the teachers had to acknowledge and respect the knowledge that the students already possessed in various mediums. As well as noticing and acknowledging that there were limitations to their knowledge. Pangrazio et. al (2020) sympathized with Buckingham's thoughts by saying that the digitalisation

(22)

of everyday lives had significant implications on education. They continued writing about how both schools and educators struggle with how to integrate the fast paced replacement of technologies into the curriculum and prepare students for their future with these digital technologies.

To summarise, from the reviewed articles, many researchers concluded that it seemed justifiable to consider digital literacy, referred to in an appropriate context, as an essential requirement for life in a digital age and important to implement in the curriculum (Bawden, 2008; Sefton-Green et al., 2009; Ng, 2012).

4.2 Thematic Analysis

Interviews were held with six participants that possessed different levels of skill-sets considering digital literacy. All names were changed to protect the participants’ confidentiality. When conducting the thematic analysis, themes were identified as follows: ‘Uncertainty’, ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Personal Preferences’.

4.2.1 Uncertainty

The ‘uncertainty’ theme encapsulates the struggle and cautiousness that multiple participants have had with finding relevant and trustworthy information online, as well as the uncertainty when dealing with various computer-based tasks. Although there were multiple participants feeling secure about how they can easily find trustworthy information online, some also expressed uncertainty and concern. For example Lola and Sebastian answered:

“Yes and no, it depends on the situation presented.”

The dependencies on the situation according to the participants were if they were meant to find information about a topic that does not have that much information surrounding it as well as that it could be too much information about the topic in question, Sebastian states:

“Today, it seems that there are so many options out there. So sometimes it can be hard to know.”

When asking the participants about certain skills within editing and coding, some of them were uncertain when it came to the knowledge they possessed within these areas. Throughout the interviews the participants seemed to know what programs and coding languages they knew or did not know but were uncertain in how well and on what level.

4.2.2 Knowledge

The theme of ‘knowledge’ contains the knowledge that the participants possess of digital media and software, their desire to improve by themselves or taking advantage of outside assistance and their resolve for problem-solving. Referencing the previously mentioned uncertainty whilst searching for trustworthy information, multiple participants did not know the existing criteria for trustworthy and reliable

(23)

information sources on the internet (criteria ref here). The provided answers were primarily situational, as Sebastian said:

“It depends on what kind of information I'm searching for. If it's an important subject, like COVID, maybe I would look at different sources of information. But if it’s information regarding some smaller subject, for example a football game or media event, then I don't usually look around that much.”

This was a largely recurring theme amongst the participants, as it presented the idea of searching for different sources about an important subject and comparing the results to find a definitive answer for themselves. This is a key criteria for intelligent internet browsing (put ref here). Though, the participants all together did not show expert, or intermediate even, signs of sensitive data confirmation online.

During the interview, the participants were also asked about the Google Operator search, a specific way to search online using code operators and symbols to narrow down the search results for the user. Using this way of searching presents a higher knowledge and preference of searching for information online. 80% of the participants who have ended up hearing/using the operator search in the past, only employ it for specific situations only.

Throughout the two hypothetical computer crash and breakdown tests, the participants provided similar answers. During the application crash test, a majority of participants provided solutions that do not have a satisfactory rate of succession or practicality, as Alice states, a Windows user:

“I would go to the bottom of the screen, the taskbar and close the window. And if usually that doesn’t work, I’d just turn off the computer.”

A handful of participants stated that the “taskbar solution” would not often work and they would have to be forced to restart their system. While restarting the computer system would solve the issue, it is one of the more extreme solutions. That can be avoided by using a utility known as Task Manager on Windows, and Activity Monitor on Apple systems. This utility allows the user to access a more detailed view, and monitor their system and different processes, while also the ability to terminate any of those processes. Only one of the participants, Edgar, took use of this entry level utility.

Following along, during the hypothetical breakdown test, regardless of the difficulty, the participants collectively answered that they would attempt to fix their computer systems themselves either with outside help (tutorial videos, tech support forums) or single handedly. Only when the issue was beyond them, would they resolve to seek professional help. As Megan states:

“I’d try to look into it, then I’d probably go on YouTube, or google it, try and find something. And then I’d probably call someone like a friend or something. And if they don't fix it, I would go to a professional, last.”

(24)

The entirety of the participants provided this type of answer, attempting to resolve the issues themselves first and only seeking professional help as a last resort. It shows how they are open and willing to learn by trial and error, rather than take the “easy way out”.

At the end of the interview, the participants were asked how much they value their existing knowledge and their strive to improve upon it. Half of them continuously work on their skill-sets in their free time, seeking out new software and tools to learn. Rebecca explaining:

“I like to develop myself and improve everything whenever I can. So if I feel like I have extra time on my hands, I see okay, what could I learn about Word? What should I know about Excel? How can I find shortcuts on my computer? And I don't know if that's being nerdy or just having a passion for developing yourself, but that's what I do.”

While the other half felt they possess the skill-set they would need at the time being and only absorb new information and skills when they “need to”. The participants expressed themselves in different ways but all reached the same conclusion to this question and topic. One participant, Megan, summarised their opinions, which lead to: “I think currently, with what I’m doing, I'm quite happy with my skill set. Because I think I know what I need to do. Still it depends on what field (of work) I go in but at the moment I’m satisfied.”

4.2.3 Personal Preferences

The theme of ‘personal preferences’ explains the prominent personal reflection bias and visual preference amongst the participants, their preferences revolving around certain digital tools and media software. Some of the participants had preexisting news outlet preferences which affected their interactive test answers. For example, during the interview Rebecca mentioned:

“I like to read The Economist, which is a newspaper. If I read that a lot, then it would be more natural for me to put that in the search bar rather than googling. And I guess it's the same for people that read Aftonbladet more often than not.”

This statement followed throughout the other interviews and the participants’ preferences stood out considerably. The feeling of familiarity affected some of the participants, as it made them ignore the existing and known bias of the provided news outlets. During the interview, Megan claimed about their validity:

“Both CNN and BBC, I've heard of them before. I've read articles from them before. I feel like they're popular, so that kind of gives them validity.”

These outlets have been openly criticised and shunned for their apparent bias, but the participants’ personal preference bias clouded their decision. Although, 60% of the

(25)

participants were aware of these claims of bias, and did not rank the commercial news outlets as high. Rebecca stated:

“The WHO and the CDC are more natural and informative. While BBC, CNN and Aftonbladet are more commercial websites. So even if they have numbers and such, I think I would be disrupted in my line of thought and start reading news and such and those are usually biased.”

Considering another side of bias, the participants’ visual preferences affected their decisions during the interactive tests ranking process. Although most participants provided rankings disregarding the visual appeal of the supplied websites and acknowledging their reliable reputation, a pair of participants based their decisions purely on aesthetic pleasure. According to both Megan and Alice, the visuals had a very important role when ranking the websites, Megan saying:

“These two (CDC and WHO) I just feel like are way too overwhelming. And I don't, I don't know. I wouldn't trust a site that looks like WHO’s website.”

Alice also provided insight about how different visual aesthetic preferences affected her ranking:

“And I like that they have like a reporter, commentating, and lots of videos and stuff. And the BBC also has a lot of videos. And that makes it easy to understand. Like, not just numbers, but how the situation is like.”

When asking the participants about their current skill-set and if they strive to progress further, multiple participants answered that they wanted to progress in a certain area or program on the computer and not their overall level of digital literacy. Their preferred software varied according to the programmes they were studying, although some participants explained that certain software was not relevant to their initial study programme, but they were still being exposed to it. Primarily, the participants did not concern themselves with software or programming languages that did not interest them, and were not relevant to their desired profession.

The largest amount of bias to stand out amongst the participants, related to the self-evaluation portion of the interview. Once asked to evaluate their current skill-set, we received a range of answers, some confident of their skills while the others humbled themselves. The participants who rated their skill level highly, provided answers regarding their current understanding and efficient use of digital tools. Meaning, they possess great skill in their current environment, not concerning themselves with learning new techniques or software. Meanwhile, the participants who rated themselves poorly, provided insight on their constant drive to improve. They held their skills similarly to the previously mentioned participants, but also did not ignore the fact that they did not possess as much skill as they would like to.

(26)

To summarise, the possession of advanced digital tool skill-sets has become an important and necessary life skill. As stated by one of the middle ranking participants, Sebastian:

“Our industry (design industry) is pretty competitive. If you're not good enough at something, someone else would get the job, there’s a lot of people applying for the same jobs. You need to have some advanced skills in your specific field.”

5

Discussion

5.1 Result discussion

5.1.1 Literature Review Discussion

The reasoning behind conducting a literature review was for us to obtain a deeper understanding of the previous research within the area of literacy and to answer our RQ1: “How sufficiently has digital literacy developed throughout the years, according to former research papers?”.

During the review, some noticeable gaps appeared throughout the selected research papers. The primary one being, Gilster’s initial definition of digital literacy he discussed in his book was too broad and imprecise. As a result of this, many of the following research collected followed the same notion of criticism; that the definition was too skewed and confusing. One of the gaps was seemingly unavoidable, as the researchers were entirely limited to the technology during the time of writing their articles and could only reflect upon and reference “current” digital tools. The practices that were mentioned were too underdeveloped and still in their infancy stages (Sefton-Green et al., 2009). Furthermore, from the wide selection of research papers we found to have a prominent presence in the field, a small number covered digital literacy in the socio-economical context. The primary contexts of writing and discussion were competencies and education, it was difficult to find papers which mentioned the influence of an individual’s life circumstances (e.g. different countries and cultures) to the subject of digital literacy.

Definitions and Criticisms

Many of the research articles followed a pattern of repetition, concerning themselves with the same confusion and issues that were covered many times by different researchers, such as Gilster (1997), Bawden (2001), Eshet (2004), Bawden (2008), Sefton-Green et al. (2009). It is important to mention that the researchers tackled similar issues in different contexts. Ranging from general understanding of the term digital literacy, to the competencies required to be considered literate, politics and

(27)

implementation of digital literacy to the educational curriculum in different countries. They reached very similar conclusions and posed similar criticisms that older articles covered, not including the results that Eshet (2004) and Bawden (2008) acquired, as the research they produced had a passive effect on the teachings in the following years.

From our point of view, all of the discussed definitions throughout the literature review become the same reiteration of itself and are closely comparable to each other, considering this, Ng’s (2012) framework of the dimensions of digital literacy provided the most specific and clear definition of what digital literacy is and what it takes to be digitally literate. As it encompasses the frameworks written by both Eshet (2004) and Bawden (2008) in a more focused manner.

Education

As many of the research papers focused on information retrieval and evaluation of information, as well as the acknowledgment and teaching of digital natives. Taking the research conducted by Sefton-Green et al. (2009), Buckingham (2015) and Breakstone et al. (2018) specifically, digital literacy has been inducted to the curriculum with similar values that Gilster (1997) proposed, although producing former and fairly new issues. Sefton-Green et al. (2009) mentioned how digital literacy also carries within itself a notion of digital illiteracy. This was touched upon by both Buckingham and Breakstone et al., as young students, despite possessing advanced software and hardware operating skills, only concerned themselves with what was in front of them (Buckingham 2015, Breakstone et al., 2018). While Buckingham wrote more about pushing for a more socio-emotional side of digital literacy, both him and Breakstone et al. discussed a necessity of a more careful approach to information online, to avoid false news articles, propaganda and miscommunication (Buckingham 2015, Breakstone et al., 2018). The statement that Gilster gave during his interview (Pool, 1997); that search results should be as limited as possible and hopefully below 50 results shown, is somewhat relevant today, as it is still preferred to have a narrow search result list, but the most important factor is to obtain trustworthy and relevant information, and not necessarily the fewest results. Many of Gilster’s claims are still relevant today even if they differentiate slightly, depending on new digital technology. The book which Gilster wrote was mentioned in our most recent scientific article as: “Written when the internet was just starting to reach the mainstream” (Pangrazio et. al 2020). This shows, despite the many exceptional advancements in technology and competencies since the book was written, Gilster’s somewhat broad and open classification of digital literacy, is still relevant to this day.

(28)

5.1.2 Interview Discussion

The main objective of the interview for our study was to examine and measure the level of knowledge that students at Jönköping University possess and their strive to further expand their skill-set, to answer both RQ2: To what extent, does the knowledge of digital literacy reach between students in Jönköping University? and RQ3: How significant is the motivation to further develop their digital literacy, according to students at Jönköping University?. Earlier research shows the gap of digital literacy when it comes to students (Breakstone et al., 2018) and the lack of media education in school (Buckingham, 2015).

In the Breakstone et al. (2018) study, an experiment was conducted where students evaluated online content after the 2016 year presidential election. Our results somewhat verify the results that Breakstone et al. achieved, the gap of digital literacy between students. Our results revealed the aforementioned gap of knowledge, as a significant difference between participants, in what web pages they would preferably use to search and evaluate sensitive data, where some choose to rank the least trustworthy and relevant web pages first.

The results also revealed a significant difference between participants in how they would perform when facing various computer tasks, however there seemed to be a small difference in the level of skill that the participants possessed using different computer software and coding languages. The software and coding languages varied a bit though, depending on what they were studying and what they have learned in school. The participants found software or tools unrelated to their study programme or future profession completely irrelevant and posed no interest to progress that skill-set. Our results confirm all of the three Convergence Theory fundamental ideas. First one being Media Convergence, each participant confirmed to interact with various sources and ends of media during our interviews, finding stimuli to satisfy any possible craving of entertainment or information (Jenkins, 2006). Considering how the interviews were structured, we could not fully confirm, apart from trusting the word of our participants, the second idea of convergence. The participants expressed their preferred software for creating and interacting with media and digital tools. This directly falls under the Participatory Culture, as the participant directly creates media that stimulates the medium they are related to (Jenkins, 2006). The final idea of convergence, Collective Intelligence, has the most prominent presence across our results. Every single participant, during our interviews expressed the desire or need to look for online help, through video tutorials or help forums. This result precisely falls under the idea of there being more information on any given topic than one person can store, so at any given time when the person seeks out a group of people that know any specific topic (Jenkins, 2006).

With these results in correlation with the three dimensions of digital literacy, the majority of the participants possess most of the knowledge and skills needed for all of the three dimensions. All of the participants seemed to have the requirements for the

(29)

technical dimension as well as the social-emotional dimension. The possession of the cognitive dimension varied a bit between the participants, where some were not able to critically think when evaluating the different informative websites as well as searching for relevant and trustworthy information, and therefore if going after the frameworks reasoning, those participants are not digitally literate.

5.2 Method discussion

To employ a literature review was the most logical way to seek out, measure, and evaluate the existing research papers and the already conducted research within digital literacy, therefore the only relevant method to answer RQ1: “How sufficiently has digital literacy developed throughout the years, according to former research papers?”. The literature review aided us in both finding relevant theories and gaps in the current research. When writing the review in a thematic chronological order, the reader is able to follow the development and evaluation of digital literacy within the different themes. Considering the factor that the review was conducted from 10-15 research articles, it was limited to the conclusions of those selected articles. If more articles were to be selected, an even more concise result would have been a possibility to reach. To achieve validity and reliability, the articles we selected were peer reviewed and which had been recognised or induced a change in the field of digital literacy.

With the use of a survey to find participants for the interview, we were able to gather people who offered varied answers, and who possessed different skill levels of digital tool and software use. Since this was the only and primary purpose of the survey, it fully fulfilled its purpose. A notable issue regarding the survey, the participants had the option to answer open-endedly, which by itself is not a problem but a direct byproduct of that is the prominent presence of personal reflection bias, where the participant thought of their skill level higher than it may actually be.

The interviews answered RQ2, but on a small scale. If we measured all students at the University, the results would have been even more detailed and accurate, since it could differentiate more notably between some people that did not take our survey. To research the students' motivation to further progress their skill level and answer RQ3, interviews were an ideal method. The reasoning was that we could freely ask and discuss more intimate questions regarding their desire to further progress their skills and the reasoning behind it. To achieve validity we let the participants answer the questions open-endedly and freely speak about their thoughts, the participants also have been kept anonymous when discussing and displaying the results. If the current pandemic did not happen, and we were to change the approach to the interviews, the participants would have been given a more intimate and controlled interactive quiz to identify their knowledge regarding digital literacy. The quiz would not give the participants the option to answer open-endedly and produce personal reflection bias, as it would have been designed to point out their knowledge gap of efficient search of honest and reliable data online.

(30)

Conclusions and further research

6.1 Conclusions

Conducting a literature review has made it possible to compare, differentiate and discuss previous written literature about digital literacy as a whole. As stated in the problem statement of this paper, there has been a “lack of evaluation, analysation and comparison between the previously written research”, with the help of a literature review, we have concluded that the results from the study accentuate the necessity and importance of further development and agreed consensus of a true digital literacy definition to avoid possible confusion and miscommunication in the future, and for it to be properly implemented into the educational curriculum, as the concept and educational frameworks are still in their infancy stages, as the possessed skill-sets, of digital literacy specifically, of the students attending Jönköping University in Sweden are not fully developed. Hopefully, this literature review has partially provided a more clear image of the current state of digital literacy and can assist further research within the field.

6.1.1 Practical implications

The comparison of previously written research, surrounding the development and definitions of digital literacy, could hopefully help a lot of readers to get more information surrounding the subject, which is especially important since the subject is not generally known amongst people, considering the answers of our survey. This in turn hopefully makes the public sector further motivated to focus and progress their digital literacy skills.

The measurement of students' knowledge and motivation to progress their digital literacy skills can in turn help out educators and teachers in schools, to set up a valid education/curriculum for students. This new way of educating can in turn make students realize the importance and motivation to progress their skill-set further. 6.1.2 Scientific implication

Having a concise summary and comparison between previous research makes it more clear on how to define and describe the competencies needed, for people that want to write further research on the topic of digital literacy.

The measurement of students at Jönköping University’s knowledge can be used in further research if they want to compare or discuss further on the topic. With the use of students from Sweden, it is also possible to compare the results with a similar test with participants from other countries or with other cultural backgrounds.

(31)

6.2 Further research

In the literature review provided, definitions and competencies of digital literacies from previous research are mentioned and summarized, but there is still no research presenting a precise, obvious definition of digital literacy or the skill-set needed to be digitally literate.

Further research that includes similar interviews with more students of different ages and with different socio-economic values, to get a more precise measurement as well as seeing more accurately how it can differ between those students would be beneficial for digital literacy studies. With multiple studies measuring students' with different socio-economic values and their knowledge, it is possible to both see the cultural differences as well as the general knowledge and motivation that students possess.

References

Related documents

46 Konkreta exempel skulle kunna vara främjandeinsatser för affärsänglar/affärsängelnätverk, skapa arenor där aktörer från utbuds- och efterfrågesidan kan mötas eller

Both Brazil and Sweden have made bilateral cooperation in areas of technology and innovation a top priority. It has been formalized in a series of agreements and made explicit

The increasing availability of data and attention to services has increased the understanding of the contribution of services to innovation and productivity in

Av tabellen framgår att det behövs utförlig information om de projekt som genomförs vid instituten. Då Tillväxtanalys ska föreslå en metod som kan visa hur institutens verksamhet

The graph in Figure 3, which displays the results of students image editing abilities, shows a visibly higher competency level than both the audio and video graph, with only

However, since the provided solution also acts in the customer’s sphere to support activities taking place there, these additional activities contribute to the perception of

Method: This capstone project applied the methodology of Design Thinking (DT) to design the mobile app. It went through five phases: empathize, define, ideate, prototype and

The EU exports of waste abroad have negative environmental and public health consequences in the countries of destination, while resources for the circular economy.. domestically