See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266824141

Digital competence – an emergent boundary concept for policy and

educational research

Article  in  Education and Information Technologies · May 2016

DOI: 10.1007/s10639-014-9346-4

CITATIONS READS

82 2,262

4 authors:

Liisa Ilomäki Sami Paavola

University of Helsinki University of Helsinki
57 PUBLICATIONS   584 CITATIONS    72 PUBLICATIONS   2,519 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Minna Lakkala Anna Kantosalo

University of Helsinki University of Helsinki
89 PUBLICATIONS   1,079 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   110 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Computational Linguistic Creativity (CLiC) View project

Developing Teachers’ Critical Digital Literacies (DETECT) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Liisa Ilomäki on 08 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679
DOI 10.1007/s10639-014-9346-4

Digital competence – an emergent boundary concept

for policy and educational research

Liisa Ilomäki & Sami Paavola & Minna Lakkala &

Anna Kantosalo

Published online: 21 August 2014

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Digital competence is an evolving concept related to the development of

digital technology and the political aims and expectations of citizenship in a knowledge
society. It is regarded as a core competence in policy papers; in educational research it
is not yet a standardized concept. We suggest that it is a useful boundary concept,
which can be used in various contexts. For this study, we analysed 76 educational
research articles in which digital competence, described by different terms, was
investigated. As a result, we found that digital competence consists of a variety of
skills and competences, and its scope is wide, as is its background: from media studies
and computer science to library and literacy studies. In the article review, we found a
total of 34 terms that had used to describe the digital technology related skills and
competences; the most often used terms were digital literacy, new literacies,
multiliteracy and media literacy, each with somewhat different focus. We suggest that
digital competence is defined as consisting of (1) technical competence, (2) the ability
to use digital technologies in a meaningful way for working, studying and in everyday
life, (3) the ability to evaluate digital technologies critically, and (4) motivation to
participate and commit in the digital culture.

Keywords Digital competence . Digital skill . School . Pupil . Student

1 Introduction

In recent years, digital competence has become a key term in policy-related papers. It is
used especially in general discussions on what kinds of skills and knowing people
should have in a knowledge society, what to teach young people and how to do so.

L. Ilomäki (*) : S. Paavola : M. Lakkala

Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki( P.O.Box 9, 00014, Finland
e-mail: liisa.ilomaki@helsinki.fi

A. Kantosalo
Helsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT, University of Helsinki, Helsinki( PO Box 68, 00014,
Finland
656 Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679

Nowadays the term digital is used instead of such previously used terms as information
and communication technology (ICT) or information technology when talking about
technology-related skills. In this new form, the term digital competence still carries the
broad meaning of technology skills – but what else?1
Digital competence is a relatively novel term which is not yet well-defined. It
appeared first in policy-related documents and papers; and in relatively recent policy
papers, such as The OECD’s Definition and Selection of Competencies (OECD 2005),
it was not mentioned. But, for example, in Ala-Mutka et al. (2008) and Punie (2007) it
was already used, and connected with digital literacy. In an OECD report from 2010,
one of the policy recommendations suggested identifying and fostering the
development of 21st -century skills and competences, and pointed out that
“most of these competences, if not all, are either supported or enhanced by
ICT” (OECD 2010, p. 169).
Changes in society and culture, based on new technology, have effects on the terms
used. It is expected that the content and scope of these terms will continue to change. In
the European Commission’s Key Data on Learning and Innovation through ICT at
School in Europe 2011 (Eurydice 2011), several terms were used, without any specific
definition, to describe the competences students should have: “ICT practitioner skills,
including digital and media literacy (eLearning, digital/media literacy, eSkills)” (p. 26).
Ala-Mutka et al. (2008) and Ala-Mutka (2011) recommend in their policy-related
papers that approaches to terms should be dynamic and regularly revised because of
the evolution of technologies and their use in society. The terms are not standardized or
clearly defined, not even in quite recent policy papers; in the European Commission’s
new reports concerning digital competence this lack of clear concepts was one of the
starting points (Ala-Mutka 2011).
Digital competence seems to be a ‘loose’ concept: one that is not well-defined, still
emerging, with meanings varying based on users from different approaches. There is,
however, a need to use the concept in societal discussion and thus to find a common
ground for using the same concept by different users. Recently the importance of
‘loose’, historically evolving and future oriented concepts has been recognized in
contrast to an old cognitivist idea of well-defined concepts (Engeström et al. 2006).
Löwy (1992) introduced the term boundary concept to refer to the importance of
imprecise or ‘fuzzy’ terms which are used and constructed in inter-group collaboration
in particular. Löwy’s example was the concept of ‘self’ in the history of immunology,
which helped various scientific and medical actors to redefine immunology as a
discipline. According to Löwy, boundary concepts are close to boundary objects. Star
and Griesemer (1989, 393) defined boundary objects as “objects which are both plastic
enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints of the several parties employing
them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites”. Miettinen (2013)
used the concept transdiscursive term to highlight the tension-laden and debated terms
which operate in between research and policy making, and are not just crossing
disciplinary boundaries in research.
In this article, we investigate the phenomenon which is described by the term digital
competence but also by its close synonyms: the background, scope, content, change

1
We use concept when speaking about a defined meaning, or an aim for defining a term, and term when
speaking about an undefined meaning.
Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679 657

and relation to various background domains. For the study, we have conducted a review
based on scientific articles in which the phenomenon, digital competence, is investi-
gated. We focus on schools, especially on general education in primary and secondary
schools for several reasons: Policy strategies and their educational aims are often
targeted at ‘school’ learning. School mainly mean educational levels from one to nine
or twelve, depending on the school system in a country, which are administered and
regulated by national educational authorities. It is generally assumed that the basic
competences that are important for every citizen, including digital competence, should
be acquired at school. In vocational education, work-related competences are more
specific, including particular competences for using technologies; although policy
papers seldom focus on this level. Higher education is less bound by policy regulations
and it is often more independent from the national authorities. Digital competence is not
a central topic of the curriculum at this level. It appears, furthermore, that the school
level is the main object for policy-makers when it comes to learning and teaching
digital competence.
Our hypothesis is that digital competence is an emerging, broad concept, which
connects various domains in that it consists of something from each domain, and which
operates as a loosely defined boundary concept (and a transdiscursivte term) amongst
policy-makers, practitioners and researchers. It is necessary to aim at a better under-
standing of the content and scope of digital competence because high-level policy
papers emphasize that it is a key competence. Moreover, as it is disseminated to
education across national curriculums and monitored world-wide, it is important to
understand what is really expected of it. For research, digital competence offers a
boundary concept within various domains for investigating interdisciplinary compe-
tences and digital technology.
In this study, we first describe how digital competence is used in policy papers in
order to outline its scope and content in political discourse. Then we review how digital
competence and related terms appear in educational research. We analyse, further, how
the term connects research in various domains. In the conclusion, we introduce our
suggestion for defining digital competence and discuss its scope and use as a boundary
concept.

2 Digital competence and related terms in policy papers

Digital competence is a strongly political term by nature, reflecting beliefs and wishes
about the future skills, thought to be necessary for capable citizens. It has roots in
economic competition, an area in which new technologies and knowledge-intensive
work are expected to have a major role in the future (Eurydice 2011; OECD 2005;
2010). In A Digital Agenda for Europe (EC 2010), several strategic initiatives were
introduced to strengthen the role and use of ICT. Schools and in particular education in
general are regarded as key actors in enhancing digital competence. In education the
use of ICT is monitored worldwide; as an example, Eurydice’s (2011) data concerning
ICT in schools consisted of statistics about how well “digital and media literacy as well
as e-skills” (p. 9) are spread across Europe and how national ICT strategies are
monitored in various countries. These expectations have created considerable interest
within educational policy making and communities of practitioners in grasping what
658 Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679

digital competence is; to define it and to adopt and apply it in educational strategies and
curricula.
The term skills is nowadays often replaced by the term competences,
reflecting the need for a wider and more profound scope for issues related to
skills: “A competence is more than just knowledge and skills. It involves the
ability to meet complex demands, by drawing on and mobilizing psychosocial
resources (including skills and attitudes) in a particular context” (OECD 2005,
p. 4). Tchibozo (2010) widened the term to include not only internal resources,
but also external ones, such as networks of cooperation, documentary resources,
and instruments. Moreover, competence means successful behaviour in non-
standardized situations and, for education, it should be measurable (Westera
2001). Another reason for using competence instead of the traditionally or more
narrowly defined term skill is based on the connection between educational
outcomes and assessment practices in general. There is a shift from a content-
based (and knowledge-based) assessment approach to a competence-based ap-
proach, focusing on “new skills for new jobs” (Eurydice 2011, p.7). New
suggestions for developing qualification and assessment frameworks based on
competences have been linked to the demands of globalisation, modernization,
and the knowledge society (European Union 2010). Korthagen (2004) suggested
that competence-based education, or performance-based as it is also called,
serves as a basis for novices because it provides with specific, observable
behavioural criteria. However, as Westera (2001) wrote, competence is a con-
fusing term, and, from the research point of view, there is no appropriate and
commonly accepted definition of it.
Several policy-related organisations have initiated and/or conducted projects to
define what kind of understanding of technology people should have. The OECD
(The OECD’s Definition and Selection of Competencies, 2005) provided a framework
for guiding the longer-term extension of assessments into new competence domains.
This framework is used in OECD’s PISA studies. In the framework, the key compe-
tences for a successful life and a well-functioning society are classified in three broad
categories; these are the abilities to (1) use tools interactively, (2) interact in heteroge-
neous groups, and (3) act autonomously. The first key competence, “use tools interac-
tively”, seems to come close to what is understood by digital competence. It is defined
as the ability to use technology with other people for communication, that is, for
working and for playing, which requires an awareness of new ways of using technol-
ogies in daily life. An individual should have the ability to make use of the potentials of
ICT to change his/her way of working, to access information and to interact with
others. The first key competence is, further, divided into three sub-competences, which
focus on using (1) language, symbols and texts interactively, (2) knowledge and
information interactively, and (3) technology interactively.
The European Parliament and the European Council recommended certain key
competences for lifelong learning (Eurydice 2011), and the OECD (2010) suggested
that governments should try to identify and conceptualise the required set of skills and
competences, and then incorporate them into educational standards. In response to
these suggestions, several countries have national strategies and are working defining
these key competences. Most often ICT is regarded as helping pupils and students to
gain at least some of the key competences; in these papers ICT competences are often
Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679 659

related to digital competence (Eurydice 2011). As an example, in the curriculum reform

in Norway, digital literacy was defined as one of the central competences needed in the
future, and the ability to use digital tools was defined as a basic skill (Sefton-Green
et al. 2009) and it is also defined as a key competence for teachers, emphasizing the
educational perspective (Krumsvik 2008; 2009.) Also for example in Finland, the
National Board of Education (2011) in which promoting digital competence is one of
the aims for the future.
The European Union (2010) has created a detailed framework for key
competences for lifelong learning in a knowledge society, one of which is
digital competence. It maintains that new technology for schools is needed to
ensure basic ICT skills, which are part of digital competence. The authors state
that besides basic ICT skills, other aspects have received less attention, such as
critical thinking in the use of new technologies and media, safe and responsible
use, risk awareness, and ethical and legal considerations. They suggest that
these issues should also be explicitly addressed in teaching and learning. In
2011–2012 the European Commission (Ala-Mutka 2011) also had a specific
project, Digital Competence (DIGCOMP), to identify the key components of
digital competence, and to develop descriptions in order to support a European-
level framework (for the framework, see Ferrari, 2012). In the project’s report,
the digital competence areas identified were (1) Instrumental knowledge and
skills for digital tool and media usage; (2) Advanced skills and knowledge for
communication and collaboration, information management, learning and prob-
lem-solving, and meaningful participation; (3) Attitudes to strategic skills usage
in intercultural, critical, creative, responsible and autonomous ways.
Other institutions and organisations have also been interested in the phenomena that
can be described by the term digital competence. These phenomena are, however, often
discussed using different terms. Various institutions, consortia and national policy
makers have projects seeking to define eligible meanings for competences either in a
general sense or for a chosen group, such as teachers or students. The target groups for
these consortia are three-fold: policy-makers, educational practitioners and
(educational) researchers.

3 Purpose of the literature review

In order to arrive at a more precise meaning of the term digital competence, we

conducted a review to investigate which terms are used and to see how t the phenom-
enon of digital competence in school-related peer-reviewed research articles has been
described during the years 2005–2013. We consider its content, emergence, and
connection to the educational field in particular. In addition, we used the most impor-
tant policy-related papers, discussed in the previous chapter, to compare the usage of
the term in research and policy papers.
The research questions of the review are as follows:
What is the content of digital competence in education-related studies?
Which other terms close to or similar to digital competence are used?
What are the background domains for its use?
How should the concept of digital competence be defined?
660 Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679

4 Method of the review

Previous reviews concerning the use of concept have used varying methods. Armitage
and Keeble-Ramsay (2009) wrote about making a rapid structured literature review
(RSLR) of novel concepts, offering a strategy for dealing with the fragmented onto-
logical and epistemological tensions. By the term rapid structured literature review they
meant a process which consisted of conceptualisation (the needs and problem defini-
tion), operational aspects (conducting the literature search), and structuring and
reporting the RSLR results (reporting). Hulleman et al. (2010) examined whether
researchers, focusing on achievement goals, use different labels for the same constructs
or put the same labels on different constructs. They conducted a statistical analysis of
the concepts, and their results showed that researchers use similar terminology to refer
to different underlying constructs. Schoen and Teddlie (2008) investigated the use of
concepts school culture and school climate. The authors conclude that the concepts
have little substantive difference, but they are from different levels in school, and the
concepts have been researched differently in various research communities. Their
review was conducted, first, by conceptualising the terms used, and second, by creating
a framework for the construction of the concept.
The present review has similarities with all three approaches mentioned above: we
investigated a phenomenon described by different terms with the same content but also
described by the same term for different contents. In addition, we used the idea of a
rapid literature review. The research questions were answered by conducting a descrip-
tive review focusing on empirical studies on the subject. The review process consisted
of (1) the definition of the research questions; (2) the selection of sources; (3) the
choosing of the search terms; (4) the applying of practical screening criteria; (5) the
applying of methodological screening criteria; (6) doing the reviews, and (7) synthe-
sizing the results (Fink 2010).

4.1 Search procedures

The searches for relevant articles the focused on the phenomenon of digital competence
were conducted in two electronic databases: EBSCOhost (the databases Academic
Search Complete and Education Research Complete) and ERIC (Educational
Resources Information Center).

4.1.1 Search terms

The search terms were generated based on (1) the researchers’ own previous
understanding on the subject, (2) the terms used in policy papers. As search
terms, digital competence and digital skills were used in the first search; digital
literacy, ICT skills and ICT competence were added as search terms based on
the first articles found. These key terms produced articles in which other terms
were also used, such as Internet-skills; media literacy and 21st-century skills.
We decided not to use these although they could have produced some results
coming close to digital competence. Internet-skills were most often related to
ICT skills, media literacy would have widened the focus onto media education
which was not the focus of this review, and 21st -century skills also stretches
Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679 661

out of technology-related skills. The following search terms and combinations

produced results:

& Digital competence* (all text), Definition (all text), Education (subject terms)
& Digital skill* (all text), Definition (all text), Education (subject terms)
& Digital competence* (all text), Definition(all text), Education (subject terms)
& Digital skill* (all text), Definition (all text), Education (subject terms)
& Digital literac* (all text), School (subject terms)
& Digital literac* (all text), School (subject terms)

4.1.2 Search options

The searches were conducted with the following limitations: Peer-reviewed articles,
where there was a full-text available, written in English, with a publishing period
between January 2005 and February 2013. In the first search procedure we started the
search from the year 2000 but digital competence as a term did not appear during the
first years of 2000 so we continued the searches from 2005 on. The searches were first
conducted in EBSCO databases and, after that, in the ERIC database. The ERIC
database did not, however, produce any new articles as results. Altogether 272 articles
were found through the search procedures.

4.2 Criteria for inclusion

Two criteria were established to narrow the pool of articles generated during
the electronic search. The goal in narrowing the pool was to focus on education
and on the school level (from primary school to upper secondary school). After
the basic searches, all the articles were organised in RefWorks application and
duplicates were removed. After that, 245 articles were left for the selection. The
summary of the article (and sometimes also the conclusions) was read in order
to estimate the relevance of the article. The articles not relevant for the study
were excluded. After that, the articles left were read more carefully and again
those articles were excluded which were not relevant for clarifying the ques-
tions of this study. Altogether 192 articles were excluded, which is partly based
on the too wide meaning of the search terms (education, school). These search
terms produced a lot of articles in which the focus was not in digital compe-
tence. The reasons for excluding an article (with the number of articles exclud-
ed and examples of the focus) in the second phase were the following:
Societal issues, not education (31; e.g., Internet safety, digital divide); learn-
ing in general with technology (22); teacher training, or teachers’ attitudes and
knowledge as the main focus (21); focus on literacy, general or specific,
without any connection to digital technology (18); technical emphasis, usually
one technology introduced and investigated (16); higher education focus (16);
learning theories, education or specific pedagogical approaches (8); non-
research basis of the subject (8; an interview, introduction to articles); media
education (7; without referring to digital etc. competence); school, school leader
(7); learning environment (7); adult education (5); technology teaching visions
662 Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679

(3); a methodological study (2); not available (2); other content (19; e.g.,
gaming, gifted students).
Altogether 63 articles were finally left for the review. The authors also used a few
other peer-reviewed journal articles, which they found relevant for the theme.
Altogether 7 articles were added with these manual searches. In all, 70 articles were
used for the analysis of the review (see Appendix 2).

4.3 Coding

The unit of analysis was one article. Each article was analyzed for defining the
following features:

Terms In each article the terms used for describing digital competence were collected.
In many articles several terms were used, and all the variations were collected
(Appendix 2).

Background The background of the research described in the article was

interpreted based on the context and the theories mentioned in the article.
Because education was the general background of all the articles, it was not
coded. For describing the background, various types of descriptors were first
used, such as games and digital divide (specific focuses of the articles) or
socio-cultural approach (theoretical approach of the article), but to achieve a
more general level of description, the following background categories were
defined: Literacy studies, Media studies, Library studies, Technology studies,
the Societal approach, and Others. The four first backgrounds were oriented to
a theoretical background, the Societal approach was more general. It was used
when classifying studies which were related to societal questions, like digital
divide or immigrants; they also had a direct connection to policy-issues, often
to the knowledge society. The Others represented fields such as, gender studies
or science education, or those which were impossible to classify based on their
background. A few articles (8) were classified to represent two backgrounds,
and the term(s) used were coded in the background mentioned first.

Type of article Articles were also classified based on their type. The following types
were found: Theoretical, Empirical, A polemic article, A comment (a shorter article
representing one opinion), An overview (based on empirical evidence but not a
review), A meta-analysis, A Practical article for administration, and A research-based
project report (see Appendix 2).

5 Results

In the results of the review analysis, we first present the descriptive statistics of the
appearance of various terms used in the articles, then the definitions of the term digital
competence and its synonyms, and then an interpretative summary of the terms used
and their connection to the background domains.
Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679 663

5.1 The terms used for describing digital competence

The most used term, based on the data of this review, was, first, digital literacy (incl.
digital literacies or digital literacy skills) (32), second, new literacies (incl. new literacy
skills/practices) (13), third, media literacy (incl. media literacies or media literacy
skills), fourth, multiliteracies (incl. multiple literacies) (8), and, fifth, digital competence
(incl. digital competencies or digital competency) (7). (Table 1; the complete table is in
Appendix 1). Altogether 34 different terms were used; and the distribution was wide.
Altogether 17 terms were used only once.
First of all, the search procedure revealed that digital competence is a new term in
research articles. Based on the searches, the term was used in seven research articles
published during the years 2006–2012, and even in these articles, other terms were
used. Three of the articles (namely Erstad (2006), Krumsvik (2008) and Beqiri (2010)),
had a national policy connection. The use of the term was described only by Erstad
(2006), who wrote that digital competence relates both to an ability to operate techno-
logical applications and to use technology to accomplish personal and collective needs.
Gansmø (2009) argued that digital competence is needed in order to use digital media
for learning and for developing a democratic and participatory culture in a knowledge
society. For Beqiri (2010), digital competence was part of ICT literacy, the first level of
technique. Aznar and González (2010) mentioned that it means the effective use of
technology. Adeyemon (2009), Delfino (2011) and Krumsvik (2009) used the term
without any description and only once or a few times and as a synonym for some other
terms. In Norway, educational policy makers have adopted the term digital literacy for

Table 1 Terms used more than once and their background

Background of the article

Terms used Literacy Media Library Technology Societal Other In sum

21st-century literacies/-literate 1 1 2 4
21st-century skills 1 1 2
computer skills 1 1 2
critical digital literacy 1 1 2
critical literacies 1 1 2
digital competence/-y/competencies 2 1 3 1 6
digital literacy/literacies/+ skills 14 2 3 7 5 31
ICT/and e-learning/literacy 1 1 1 3
ICT skills 1 1 1 3
information literacy/literacies 1 3 4
media literacy/literacies/+skills 1 5 2 1 8
multiliteracies/multiple literacies 6 2 8
multimodal literacy/literacies 3 3
new literacies+skills/practices 10 1 2 13
new literacy skills of the 21st century 1 1 2
technological literacy/-literate 2 1 1 1 5
664 Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679

policy papers (see Erstad 2006; Krumsvik 2009), but digital competence is also
commonly used in research articles referring to Norwegian policy papers and strategies
(Erstad 2006; Gansmø 2009; Krumsvik 2008, 2009).
There was no general, research-based acceptance and justification of terms which
refer to competences and skills in using digital technology. The lack of generally
accepted terms was commented on by several researchers (Aviram and Eshet-Alkalai
2006; Van Deursen and van Dijk 2009; Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan 2008). Terms
also have different backgrounds although their content might be nearly the same
(Arnone and Reynolds 2009). Hague and Williamson (2009) wrote that definitions
cannot be exact and fixed because of the changing nature of the phenomenon. This lack
of theoretical justification results in multiple definitions that ignore the full range of
digital skills, focusing only on some limited skills, for example, those that are important
for practical purposes to educators and designers (Aviram and Eshet-Alkalai 2006).
One reason for the absence of definitions of digital competence is that only a small
number of studies focus on measuring phenomena related to digital competence (or
digital skills). As van Deursen and van Dijk (2009) noted in their review concerning
research about digital skills and Internet skills, the studies are often limited in their
definitions, sample sizes and methods of data collection. According to them, there is
not enough empirical data to validate the structures and the content of digital compe-
tences or skills.
Sometimes terms are used narrowly, such as, for example, Internet skills, referring
only to a limited area of digital technology. Technology literacy is used by some
researchers, connecting traditional literacy to technology (Benson 2008). Some of them
expand the scope to media and literacy, such as, for example, media literacy skills,
digital literacy, and recently more often to general competences like the term 21st-
century skills. Erstad (2010) as well as Jenkins et al. (2006) investigated the necessary
digital skills connected to various participatory cultures. They speak about 21st-century
literacy, emphasizing social skills, too.
In general, the wide variety of terms in research articles reflects numerous issues: (1)
the rapid development of technologies; (2) the emergence of various technologies
instead of only “ICT”, such as traditional computers, mobile phones, Internet and
cloud services, and games; and (3) different areas of interest, such as library studies
or computer science (Arnone and Reynolds 2009; Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan 2008).

5.1.1 Digital literacy as the main synonym for digital competence

The term most often used close to digital competence, and often as a synonym, is
digital literacy and both the terms can be found in the same article (as examples, see
Adeyemon 2009; Delfino 2011; Krumsvik 2008). Also digital literacy is an undefined
concept; O’Brien and Scharber (2008) investigated digital literacies and they wrote
how that term has a range of meanings including digital media, new technologies, new
literacies, or new literacy studies. Digital literacies were explained with phrases such as
“using computers”, “critically reading webpages”, and “understanding how to view
digital images”. Baird and Henninger (2011) defined digital literacies as the capacity to
understand and even create the multi-media, multi-modal texts of digital technologies.
One definition for digital literacy, suggested by Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan (2008),
connects literacy and media traditions: digital literacy represents a person’s ability to
Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679 665

perform tasks effectively in a digital environment. Digital means information repre-

sented in a numeric form and primarily used by a computer, and literacy includes the
ability to read and interpret media, to reproduce data and images through digital
manipulation, and to evaluate and apply new knowledge gained from digital environ-
ments (Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan 2008). Also Hague and Williamson (2009)
interpreted digital literacy as a kind of “concluding concept” which is a combination
of social awareness, critical thinking and knowledge of digital tools.
Digital literacy was also described as being based on social connections and
interactions. Sefton-Green et al. (2009) explained the term by describing people’s
engagements with digital technologies since they mediate many of our social interac-
tions. They wrote, however, that the literacies associated with participation in digital
practices and cultures are complex. The authors regarded the term of digital literacy as
fundamentally useful but that it needed to be analysed more specifically at the
intersection between formal and informal learning domains. Poore (2011) distinguished
functional and critical digital literacy: the first one involves finding out how the digital
world works in a technical sense, and the second one asks how the digital world works
in an anthropological or cultural sense. According to the analysis, digital literacy is
often understood in a wide and general way. For example, Erstad (2006) defined it,
referring to his previous book (Erstad 2005), as skills, knowledge and attitudes in using
digital media to be able to master challenges in a learning society. Aviram and Eshet-
Alkalai (2006) described digital literacy as a combination of technical-procedural,
cognitive and emotional-social skills. Similarly, Eshet-Alkali and Amichai-
Hamburger (2004) gave a broad meaning to the term: they suggested that digital
literacy consisted of five major digital skills: photo-visual skills (“reading” instructions
from graphical displays), reproduction skills (utilizing digital reproduction to create
new, meaningful materials from existing ones), branching skills (constructing knowl-
edge from non-linear, hypertextual navigation), information skills (evaluating the
quality and validity of information), and socio-emotional skills (understanding the
“rules” that prevail in cyberspace and applying this understanding in online cyberspace
communication). In addition, one more skill was added to this list by Aviram and
Eshet-Alkalai (2006), that is, real-time thinking skills (the ability to process and
evaluate large volumes of information in real time).
In some articles, digital literacy was defined from an educational perspective:
Krumsvik (2009) stated that digital literacy is a holistic perspective on ICT use in
school, and thus, in Norway, digital literacy is implemented in schools as a basic
competence for all subjects at all stages in the national curriculum. Erstad (2010)
broadened digital literacy to media literacy, suggesting the following aspects of media
literacies as part of school-based learning: (1) Basic skills, (2) Media as an object of
analysis, (3) Knowledge building in subject-domains, (4) Learning strategies, and 5)
Digital Bildung/Cultural competence. This kind of approach seems to describe studies
which have a connection to national educational policies (e.g., Beqiri 2010). Digital
literacy is also connected to 21st-century skills (Adeyemon 2009). Digital literacy was,
however, also used in a narrow meaning, consisting mainly of some basic ICT skills
and skills in using the Internet (Meneses and Mominó 2010). Lotherington and Ronda
(2009) spoke about digital meta-literacies skills and defined them as skills which
include navigating and ‘reading’ digital environments as well as developing an under-
standing of digitally-connected audience, and searching for information online.
666 Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679

The other terms found in the reviewed articles are more clearly connected to
background domain and will be discussed in the following chapters.

5.2 The background domains of and synonyms for the term of digital competence

From the analyses, four basic domains emerged which were somehow connected to the
phenomenon of digital competence: literacy studies (35 articles), a societal approach
(14), media studies (12), library studies (6), and technology studies (4). Backgrounds
such as gender studies, philosophy, science education, or articles for which the back-
ground was undefined were classified into Others (6). Seven articles were classified
into two background categories. (The distribution of terms and backgrounds is present-
ed in Appendix 1). Many of the terms concerning digital competence are used in
articles of several backgrounds, especially digital literacy, which is used in all back-
ground categories.

5.2.1 Literacy studies as a background domain

In the searches, the majority of articles which had their background in literacy were
influenced by “new literacies”, meaning the way in which technology changes reading
and especially writing, and The New London Group (1996) was often mentioned as the
main background for these articles. These articles did not focus specifically on tech-
nology but on the need to include some technology skills in writing competence. The
most often used terms were new literacies (13) and multiliteracies, including multiple
literacies (8).
One way of defining the term was to broaden the traditional term of literacy and
investigate what kind of new features digitalism brings to the content of literacy. Hague
and Williamson (2009) referred to Bazalgette (2008), who suggested that literacy
should be redefined for the requirements of the 21st−-century. Carrington (2005)
regarded the change from printed text to digital “texts” as a profound change that also
concerned people’s participation in an open and interactive literacy culture. Leu et al.
(2004) suggested principles for the new literacies, and all these were additions to
traditional literacy (e.g., the transactional relationship between literacy and technology);
they also expanded literacy to education (e.g., learning is often socially constructed
within new literacies).
Information skills as well as communication skills were suggested as additions to
literacy. Leu et al. (2004) argue that the new literacies of the Internet and other ICTs
allow one to identify important questions, locate information, critically evaluate the
usefulness of information, synthesize information to answer those questions, and then
communicate the answers to others. Kitson (2011) described multiliteracies as drawing
together two other areas of change: multimedia and technology and the range of
semiotic systems, and, moreover, cultural and linguistic diversity. Walsh (2008) de-
scribed multimodal texts as a combination of the traditional literacy strategies of
reading and writing and the new technologies. Gomez et al. (2010) described the
new literacy skills “as the ability to negotiate meaning across numerous texts or
combine technologies to construct new meanings” (p. 21–22).
Merchant (2007) emphasized the “written (symbolic) presentation at the heart of any
definition of digital literacy” (p.121), which is then mediated by new technology. He
Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679 667

defended this approach with examples of new technologies which, although strongly
visual, also incorporated a strong element of writing. Multimodality is an
essential characteristic of digital literacy, as is the context within which it is
created and used. Merchant continued by introducing the term critical digital
literacy with which he emphasized the responsibility to provide the young with
the tools and understanding to interpret the constructed nature of popular
culture and to investigate it critically (see also Hague and Williamson 2009).
Hague and Williamson (2009) presented a research-based but practically orient-
ed definition which connects digital literacy to literacy but expands it to “the
reading and writing of digital texts” (p.5). In this sense, digital literacy means
the functional skills required to operate and communicate with technology and
media. Several researchers emphasized that digital literacy should not be about
replacing existing literacies: reading, writing and numeracy are crucial skills for
full participation in a digital society (e.g., Burns 2008). Moran et al. (2008)
investigated whether digital technologies can affect the acquisition of advanced
reading skills.

5.2.2 Media studies as a background domain

In the articles reviewed, media studies (and media education) were essential contents
and backgrounds of digital competence. Some of the articles received by the searches
were probably in between literacy and media, for example Erstad’s (2010) and Poore’s
(2011) case studies describing students’ digital video production; Poore even men-
tioned the two overlapping backgrounds. The most often used term was media literacy/
literacies/+skills (5).
Lee (2010) focused on the terms and contents of media literacy and defined the
competences in the 21st -century for a media literate person: “1) To be aware of the
influence of the media on individual’s life and on the society as a whole, 2) Understand
the operation of the media and the techniques used by the media, 3) Media analytical
skills, 4) Critical appreciation of the media, 5) Learn through the media, 6) Creative
expression, 7) Monitor and influence the media, 8) Practice media ethics as respon-
sible prosumer (People in the age of Web 2.0 are both media producers and consumers
so they need to practice media ethics when they are engaged in media production), 9)
Wisely and constructively apply what has been learned from the media to everyday
life” (p. 3). Hug (2011) discussed the need for defining media and visual literacies and
competences. He criticized “the language-theoretical roots” (p. 10) of media and
literacy competences and regardedas important the “aspects of educability, orientation
and the ability to act appropriately in a given situation” (p. 10). Studies with a media
background have some specific interests, like visual literacy as one form of new
content, but it was connected to traditional media education (Lin and Polaniecki
2008).
Ryberg and Dirckinck-Holmfeld (2008) focused on conceptualising and analysing
learning as a process of patchworking and they investigated the ways in which “Power
Users” use digital media. Researchers concluded that the skills of highly ICT-literate
young people in a learning context was not restricted only to media literacies but they
also exhibited reflective and critical abilities, and they had complex competences in
terms of work processes integrating the “form” to the “content or substance”.
668 Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679

5.2.3 Library studies as a background domain

The library study background and the literacy study background are difficult to
separate; the authors of these background domains use the same terms and speak about
the same phenomena (see Arnone and Reynolds 2009; Kiili, Laurinen, and Marttunen
2009). The common issue is to widen information skills (in library studies) towards
(critical) literacy skills (in literacy studies), and vice versa. Adeyemon (2009) also
connected information skills to digital competence.
Terms related to library science have emphasized information skills, or more
recently information and digital literacy skills (Arnone and Reynolds 2009). These
skills have also become more popular among educators because of the complexity of
information on the Internet (van Deursen and van Dijk 2009; Kiili, Laurinen, and
Marttunen 2009). In addition, a good example of the analysis of this complexity is a
study by Brand-Gruwel, Wopereis and Wermetten (2005), which analysed the Internet
search procedures of experts and novices. The term Internet skills focuses on the use of
various Internet functionalities: these skills have both a technical orientation and often
also a knowledge orientation. As Kiili, Laurinen, and Marttunen (2009); they use
Internet reading) state, it is not enough to have technical Internet skills, although the
use of the Internet as a source of information is a basic skill. In their study, the focus
was on finding, reading and evaluating information as well as planning one’s own
performance based on relevant information in the Internet.

5.2.4 Technology studies as a background domain

Technology-based and technology-oriented terms have their origin in computer

science and/or technology education in general. The terms used in the articles
were digital literacy, digital skills, ICT-skills, Internet skills and technological
literacy. These terms were previously used widely among educators, researchers
and practitioners as well as policy makers, but nowadays there is less interest in
purely technical skills, and technology-based and technology-oriented terms
describing general competences are diminishing in research papers. If such terms
are used, authors at least refer to a wider context, like media or education.
Technology literacy was used in a study for creating a test for measuring
technology skills among students (Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt, and Barron 2010). The
content of the test in the study was defined to focus on the following: (1)
Software Use and File Manipulation, (2) Ethics, Safety and Acceptable Use,
(3) Graphics, Presentation, and Video Editing, (4) Spreadsheets, (5) Browser Use
and E-mail, and (6) Word Processing and Flowcharts. In research articles on
other backgrounds, technology or computer-related terms were also used. Selwyn
and Husen (2010) spoke about technology competence, and argued that the good
use of information and communication technology (ICT) was an essential ‘life
skill’ for individuals as they grow up in an ‘information society’. Delfino (2011)
reported concrete computer skills as part of wider digital literacy/competence.
Gansmø (2009) wrote about the general aim to provide all pupils with digital
competence, and presented the results of concrete ICT skills and use. She
referred to studies in 2004–2008, which obviously used the terms computer
skills/ICT skills and focused mainly on technical skills.
Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679 669

5.2.5 Societal approach: Digital competence and 21st- century skills

A wide variety of terms were used in the articles categorized in the Societal approach:
several of these were connected to national policies or to societal issues in general, such
as Greenhow et al. (2009), who investigated low-income students’ access, use, activ-
ities, and capacity for using the Internet, and Levy (2009), whose study was connected
to the national curriculum work. The term 21st-century skills/competences is quite
close to digital competence, and its background is similarly in societal (or policy) needs
for defining, and improving, core competences in a rapidly changing knowledge
society (Annetta et al. 2010). However, as Jenkins et al. (2006) suggested, its scope
is wider and different than digital competence, and they defined them as skills that
enable participation in the new communities emerging within a networked society.

6 Discussion and conclusions

In this study we investigated the emergence of the phenomenon digital competence. It

is a relatively recent term, and has originated in a societal need for defining core
competences for a knowledge society. The term was first used in policy-related papers,
later it has also appeared in educational research publications, but only quite recently
and only in a few research articles, often connected to policy aims and strategies. The
vagueness in and the contradictions between the uses of the term in policy contexts was
the impulse for choosing digital competence as the main term of this study.

6.1 The background of digital competence

The four background disciplines all bring some elements to the term, which is not itself
directly connected to any single discipline. The emergence of the concept occurs in the
transaction between various thematic contexts but also between actors of various work
cultures, which have different traditions and focuses. These four main backgrounds of
competence bring digital competence close to 21st -century skills, which, however, also
focus on skills and competences other than just digital ones. Figure 1. connects the four
backgrounds and the basis for the phenomenon as well as the terms most frequently
used in the reviewed articles. The exact place of each term is not the main concern. The
most important point is how we interpret the position of digital competence in
connection with the background disciplines.

6.2 Digital competence as a potential boundary concept

Digital competence is a potential boundary concept (and a “boundary phenome-

non”) in two ways: First, it has elements from different disciplines: literacy and
library studies, media studies, and technology studies, which are complementary to
its content. Second, as a concept it lives – and was introduced first – particularly
in policy- and practice-related papers and discussions, and only later did it appear
in research papers. It is seldom defined in an exact way, and various actors give a
somewhat different meaning to it, but it is explicit enough to initiate general and
collaborative discussions between various cultures, as Löwy (1992) argued about
670 Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679

MEDIA STUDIES TECHNOLOGY STUDIES

ICT skills (2)
Computer skills (2)
Media literacy (8)

Multimodal literacies (3) ICT and e-learning literacy (2)

Critical digital literacy (2) DIGITAL COMPETENCE (7) Technological literacy (5)

Digital literacy (31)

Multiliteracies (8) Information literacy (4)

New literacies (13)

LITERACY STUDIES LIBRARY STUDIES

21st century literacies (4) 21st century skills (2)

SOCIETAL APPROACH

Fig. 1 Digital competence, background disciplines, related terms and the number of articles in which the term
was used

boundary concepts: they must be imprecise and open enough to allow people from
different traditions to join in their use.
The term as such seems to be relevant because it widens the narrower terms used
earlier and integrates essential elements into a new term better suited for current
phenomena. It is expected that digital competence will continue to live in particular
in policy-related papers, because important international actors have used it in their
strategies. Other actors, like national policy-making organizations will probably apply
the same term. Practice-related research will, plausibly, follow this trend: for example in
the latest conference of the European Association for Research and Learning in 2013
there was a symposium titled Assessing Digital Competence in National and
International Contexts (Mendelovits 2013). In the symposium, the presenters used
various terms (e.g., information literacy, ICT literacy, digital competence) and all the
presentations were closely connected to policy aims, reporting of policy-related results.
In this sense, the term, even in a research context, is still closely connected to policy
aims. The potential of digital competence to function as a boundary concept will
strengthen in the future if it can facilitate collaboration and discussion between various
cultures.

6.3 The content and definition of digital competence

There will hardly be any final and single definition for digital competence because of
the various points of view surrounding it and because of the rapid changes in the
technologies and society. As an interpretation and summary for connecting the different
approaches based on the articles reviewed, we suggest the following definition of
digital competence: Digital competence consists of the skills and practices required to
Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679 671

use new technologies in a meaningful way and as a tool for learning, working and
leisure time, understanding the essential phenomena of digital technologies in society
as well as in one’s own life, and the motivation to participate in the digital world as an
active and responsible actor. For the definition, we kept in mind Westera’s (2001, p. 13)
note about competences: “the only determinants of human abilities are possessing
(knowledge), feeling (attitudes), and doing (skills)”.
According to our definition, digital competence consists of the following elements:

1. Technical skills and practices in using digital technologies, which is a central basis
for digital competence. This first aspect is close to technology studies.
2. Abilities to use and apply digital technologies in a meaningful way and as an
appropriate tool for working, studying and for various activities in everyday life in
general. This second aspect integrates all the four disciplines, but goes beyond
them to include various everyday activities and tasks. The emphasis is strongly on
knowledge-related skills and competences, which integrate information and digital
literacy competences.
3. Abilities to understand the phenomena of digital technologies. This aspect similarly
integrates all the background disciplines. This means an understanding of the
ethical issues, the limitations and challenges, and the critical use of the various
technologies, but also the very recent interests in understanding computational
thinking or the principles of robotics.
4. Motivation to participate and engage in the digital culture. This domain goes,
again, beyond the background disciplines and has an orientation towards attitudes
as well as social and cultural issues; it is based on the ideas of the previous three
elements, which then also create the motivation to participate, and engage. This
also has a societal aspect: digital culture as part of a democratic society, as Gansmø
(2009) suggested.

6.4 Practical and scientific implications of the results

One fundamental question is, of course, how to define digital competence. Our
suggested definition includes an implicit approach for practical educational applica-
tions: digital technologies should be included in a ubiquitous way in all learning and
teaching. Using technology is not a specific “content” to be learnt but a didactic
approach to be applied in various school subjects. In many articles reviewed, it was
emphasized that skills related to using technology should not be seen narrowly;
therefore, the methods for learning these skills require practising them through com-
plex, challenging and “authentic” activities. Digital competences develop in problem-
oriented, technology-rich and long-term settings where technology is used in a mean-
ingful context, and various technological tools are used in integrated ways.
The efforts to define measurable competences have led to serious problems, as
Korthagen (2004) and Westera (2001) have pointed out. Referring to Westera (2001),
it is highly questionable if strict definitions for measuring competences are useful at all,
because competences are not measureable, for instance if we think of them as
consisting of successful performance in novel, ill-defined situations and not only in
some concrete tasks.
672 Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679

It is obvious that the concept of digital competence should not be defined in too
narrow a way in order to capture the wideness of the influence of new technology in
society. In addition, it should not be defined too strictly from the technology perspec-
tive because of the rapid changes in technology. Recent changes, such as mobile and
cloud services change the ways in which technology is used, including its use in
education. An implication of our results for research should be to clarify the definition
of the concept, and figure out the best ways to learn digital competence in order to
produce research-based evidence for educational practitioners.

Acknowledgments The first version of this article wais based on work in the LINKED project (Leveraging
Innovation for a Network of Knowledge on Education), co-ordinated by the European Schoolnet and funded
by the European Commission. The first author had a scholarship from the Finnish Cultural Foundation for
finalizing the article.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 2 Terms found, the number of terms and their background

Terms Literacy Media Library Technology Societal Other In sum

21st-century literacies/-literate 1 1 2 4
21st-century skills 1 1 2
changing literacy practices 1 1
computer literacy 1 1
computer skills 1 1 2
critical digital literacy 1 1 2
critical literacies 1 1
digital age literacies 1 1
digital competence/-y/competencies 2 1 3 1 7
digital fluency 1 1
digital information literacy 1 1
digital literacy/litercies/+ skills 14 2 3 7 5 31
digital meta-literacies 1 1
digital skills 1 1
functional digital literacy 1 1
ICT/and e-learning/literacy 1 1 2
ICT competence 1 1
ICT skills 1 1 2
information competence 1 0 1
information literacy/literacies 1 3 4
information skills 1 1
Internet reading 1 1
Internet-skills 1 1
media competence 1 1
Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679 673

Table 2 (continued)

Terms Literacy Media Library Technology Societal Other In sum

media literacy/literacies/+skills 5 2 1 8
multiliteracies/multiple literacies 6 2 8
multimodal literacy/literacies 3 3
new literacies+skills/practices 10 1 2 13
new literacy skills of the 21st century 1 1
new media writing 1 1
on-line literacy skills 1 1
technology competence 1 1
technological literacy/-literate 2 1 1 1 5

Appendix 2

Table 3 Articles, terms used, background and type of article

Article Terms used Backgrounds Type of article

Adeyemon (2009). Digital literacy, digital Library Empirical

competency, 21st century
litercies
Annetta et al. (2010) 21st century skills Other: Science Empirical
education
Arnone and Multiple literacies, information Library Empirical
Reynolds (2009) literacies, digital literacy
Aviram and Digital literacy skills Literacy Theoretical
Eshet-Alkalai (2006) overview
Aznar and González Digital competence, information Media Empirical
(2010) competence
Baird and Henninger (2011) Digital literacies Literacy Empirical
Benson (2008) Technological literacy, Literacy Empirical
multiliteracies
Beqiri (2010) ICT and e-learning literacy, Societal Practical for
digital competence administration
Braasch et al. (2009) New literacy skills Literacy Empirical
Brass (2008) 21st-century literacies Literacy Empirical
Bulfin and North (2007) Changing literature practices Literacy Empirical
Burnett et al. (2006) ICT skills, new literature practices Literacy Empirical
Burns (2008) New literacy practices Literacy Theoretical
overview
Capuano and Digital age literacies, Literacy Empirical
Knoderer (2006) twenty-first century skills,
technological literacy,
information literacy
Carrington (2005) Digital literacies Literacy A comment
674 Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679

Table 3 (continued)

Article Terms used Backgrounds Type of article

Lin and Polaniecki Media literacy skills Media Empirical

(2008)
Coiro and Dobler (2007) New literacies Literacy Empirical
Delfino (2011) Digital competences, digital Media Empirical
literacy, computer skills
van Deursen and Digital skills, Internet skills Technology Empirical
van Dijk (2009)
Domine (2011) Media literacy Media An overview
Erstad (2006) Digital literacy, digital competence Societal An overview
Erstad (2010) Media literacy, digital literacy Media, Literacy An overview
Eshet-Alkali and Digital literacy Literacy Empirical
Amichai-Hamburger
(2004)
Gansmø (2009) Digital competence Other: Gender A polemic article
studies
Glewa and Bogan (2007) Digital fluency Literacy Empirical
Gomez et al. (2010) New literacy practices Literacy Empirical
Graff and Labbo (2009) New literacy skills of the 21st Literacy, Societal A comment
century,
Greenhow et al. (2009) Digital information literacy Societal An overview
Gudmundsdottir (2010) ICT-competence. Societal Empirical
Hagood et al. (2008) New literacies, multiliteracies Literacy Empirical
Hague (2009) Digital literacy Societal A research-based
project report
Hamilton (2009) Information literacy, multiple Library A comment
literacies
Haras (2011). Information skills Library Empirical
Hohlfeld et al. (2010) Technology literacy Technology Empirical
Hug (2011) Media Competence, Media Media Theoretical
Literacy
Hutchison and Online literacy skills, New Societal Empirical
Henry (2010) literacies
Jones-Kavalier and Digital literacy Library Theoretical
Flannigan (2008)
Kiili et al. (2009) Internet reading Literacy Empirical
Kitson (2011) Multiliteracies Literacy Empirical
Krumsvik (2008) Digital literacy Societal Theoretical
Krumsvik (2009) Computer literacy, media literacy, Societal Theoretical
digital literacy, digital
competence
Labbo (2006) Digital literacy Literacy A comment
Lebens (2009) ICT skills Technology, Empirical
Societal
Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679 675

Table 3 (continued)

Article Terms used Backgrounds Type of article

Lee (2010) Media literacy Media Theoretical

Leverenz (2008) Multiliteracy; new media writing Literacy Theoretical
Leu et al. (2004) New literacies Literacy Theoretical
overview
Levy (2009) Digital literacy, multiliteracies, Literacy Empirical
Loertscher (2008) Information literacy Library An overview
Lotherington and Digital literacies, digital Literacy Empirical
Ronda (2009) meta-literacies skills
McLean (2010) Digital literacy Societal Empirical
Meneses and Digital literacy Societal Empirical
Mominó (2010)
Merchant (2007) Digital literacy, Critical digital Literacy Theoretical
literacy
Moran et al. (2008) Digital literacy, media literacy Literacy A meta-analysis
Mullen and 21st century literate, Societal A comment
Wedwick (2008) technologically literate
Nat Turner (2011). ICT-literacies, critical literacies, Literacy, Media Empirical
new literacies
O’Brien and Digital literacies Literacy Empirical
Scharber (2008)
O’Brien et al. (2007). New literacy practices, digital Literacy Empirical
literacies
Papadopoulou and Digital literacy Literacy Empirical
Ioannis (2010).
Pfannenstiel (2010) Digital literacy Other: undefined Theoretical
Poore (2011) Digital literacy, technological Other: Philosophy Theoretical
literacy, functional and
critical digital literacy
Ranker (2008) New literacies, media literacy Media, Literacy Empirical
Ryberg and Dirckinck- Media literacies Media Empirical
Holmfeld (2008)
Sefton-Green et al. (2009) Digital literacy Literacy, Media Theoretical
Selwyn and Husen (2010) Technology competence Other Empirical
Steinkuehler (2010) Digital literacy Media A comment
Taranto et al. (2011) Digital literacy Literacy A research-based
practical article
Tierney et al. (2006) Digital literacies, multimodal Literacy A research-based
literacies practical article
Vasudevan (2006) Multimodal literacy Literacy A comment
Walsh (2008) New literacies, multiliteracies, Literacy Empirical
multimodal literacy
Weeks et al. (2009) 21st literacy, new literacies Societal Empirical
676 Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679

References

Adeyemon, E. (2009). Integrating digital literacies into outreach services for underserved youth populations.
Reference Librarian, 50(1), 85–98.
Ala-Mutka, K. (2011). Mapping digital competence: Towards a conceptual understanding. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved September 30, 2012 from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/
JRC67075_TN.pdf.
Ala-Mutka, K., Punie, Y., & Redecker, C. (2008). Digital competence for Lifelong Learning. Luxemburg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from http://ftp.
jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC48708.TN.pdf.
Annetta, L., Cheng, M., & Holmes, S. (2010). Assessing twenty-first century skills through a teacher created video
game for high school biology students. Research in Science & Technological Education, 8(2), 101–114.
Armitage, A., & Keeble-Ramsay, D. (2009). The rapid structured literature review as a research strategy. US-
China Education Review, 6(4), 27–38.
Arnone, M. & Reynolds, R. (2009). Empirical support for the integration of dispositions in action and multiple
literacies into AASL’s standards for the 21st century learner. School Library Media Research. Retrieved
November 15, 2013 from http://www.ala.org/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume12/
arnone_reynolds.
Aviram, R., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2006). Towards a theory of digital literacy: Three scenarios for the next steps.
European Journal of Open Distance E-Learning, 1. Retrieved January 11, 2012 from http://www.eurodl.
org/?p=archives&year=2006&halfyear=1&article=223.
Aznar, V., & González, J. (2010). Interactive resources in secondary education: Design and application.
International Journal of Learning, 17(2), 181–194.
Baird, C., & Henninger, M. (2011). Serious play, serious problems: Issues with eBook applications.
Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3(2), 1–17.
Bazalgette C. (2008). A Stitch in Time: Skills for the New Literacacy. English in Education 34(1), 42–49. doi:
10.1111/j.1754-8845.2000.tb00569.x.
Benson, S. (2008). A restart of what language arts is: Bringing multimodal assignments into secondary
language arts. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(4), 634–674.
Beqiri, E. (2010). ICT and E-learning literacy as an important component for the new competency-based
curriculum framework in Kosovo. Journal of Research in Educational Sciences, 1(1), 7–21.
Braasch, J. L. G., Lawless, K. A., Goldman, S. R., Manning, F. H., Gomez, K. W., & MacLeod, S. M. (2009).
Evaluating search results: An empirical analysis of middle school students’ use of source attributes to
select useful sources. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(1), 63–82.
Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I. G. J. H., & Vermetten, Y. (2005). Information problem solving by experts and
novices: Analysis of a complex cognitive skill. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 487–508.
Brass, J. (2008). Local knowledge and digital movie composing in an after-school literacy program. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(6), 464–473.
Bulfin, S., & North, S. (2007). Negotiating digital literacy practices across school and home: Case studies of
young people in Australia. Language & Education: An International Journal, 21(3), 247–263.
Burnett, C., Dickinson, P., Myers, J., & Merchant, G. (2006). Digital connections: Transforming literacy in the
primary school. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(1), 11–29.
Burns, L. D. (2008). Relevance, new literacies, & pragmatic research for middle grades education. Middle
Grades Research Journal, 3(3), 1–28.
Capuano, M., & Knoderer, T. (2006). Twenty-first century learning in school systems: The case of the
metropolitan school district of Lawrence Township, Indianapolis, Indiana. New Directions for Youth
Development, 2006(110), 113–125.
Carrington, V. (2005). The uncanny, digital texts and literacy. Language and Education, 19, 467–482.
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade
skilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2),
214–257.
Delfino, M. (2011). Against BibliOblivion: How modernize scribes digitized an old book. Computers &
Education, 57, 2145–2155.
Domine, V. (2011). The Coming of Age of Media Literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 3(1) 8–10.
EC (2010)=European Commission (2010). A Digital Agenda for Europe. Brussels: Author. Retrieved June 1,
2012 from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0245: FIN:EN: PDF.
Engeström, Y., Pasanen, A., Toiviainen, H., & Haavisto, V. (2006). Expansive learning as collaborative
concept formation at work. In K. Yamazumi, Y. Engeström, & H. Daniels (Eds.), New learning
Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679 677

challenges: Going beyond the Industrial Age system of school and work (pp. 47–77). Osaka: Kansai
University Press.
Erstad, O. (2005). Digital kompetanse i skolen (Digital literacy in the school). Oslo: University Press.
Erstad, O. (2006). A new direction? digital literacy, student participation and curriculum reform in Norway.
Education & Information Technologies, 11, 415–429.
Erstad, O. (2010). Educating the digital generation. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 1, 56–70.
Eshet-Alkali, Y., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2004). Experiments in digital literacy. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 7(4), 421–429.
Eurydice (2011). Key Data on Learning and Innovation through ICT at School in Europe 2011. European
Commission. Retrived May 29, 2012 from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_
data_series/129EN.pdf.
Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital Competence in Practice: An Analysis of Frameworks. JRC Technical Reports.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Fink, A. (2010). Conducting research literature reviews. from the Internet to paper. Sage: Los Angeles.
Gansmø, H. (2009). Fun for all=digital competence for all? Learning Media and Technology, 34(4), 351–355.
Glewa, M., & Bogan, M. B. (2007). Improving children’s literacy while promoting digital fluency through the
use of blog’s in the classroom: Surviving the hurricane. Journal of Literacy & Technology, 8(1), 40–48.
Gomez, M. L., Schieble, M., Curwood, J. S., & Hassett, D. (2010). Technology, learning and instruction:
Distributed cognition in the secondary English classroom. Literacy, 44(1), 20–27.
Graff, J. M., & Labbo, L. (2009). Globilization & immigration: Aligning education with shifting demo-
graphics. Journal of Reading Education, 35(1), 21–30.
Gudmundsdottir, G.B. (2010). From digital divide to digital equity: Learners’ ICT competence in four primary
schools in Cape Town, South Africa. International Journal of Education & Development using
Information & Communication Technology, 6(2), 1–22.
Greenhow, C., Walker, J. D., & Kim, S. (2009). Millennial learners and net-savvy teens? examining internet
use among low-income students. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 63–68.
Hagood, M. C., Provost, M. C., Skinner, E. N., & Egelson, P. E. (2008). Teachers’ & students’ literacy
performance in & engagement with new literacies strategies in underperforming middle schools. Middle
Grades Research Journal, 3(3), 57–95.
Hague, C., & Williamson, B. (2009). Digital participation, digital literacy and school subjects. A review of the
politicies, literature and evidence. Bristol: Futurelab. Retrieved January 11, 2012, from http://archive.
futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/DigitalParticipation.pdf.
Hamilton, B. J. (2009). Transforming information literacy for nowgen students. Knowledge Quest, 37(5), 48–
53.
Haras, C. (2011). Information behaviors of Latinos attending high school in East Los Angeles. Library &
Information Science Research, 33(1), 34–40.
Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Barron, A. E. (2010). Development and validation of the student tool for
technology literacy (ST2L). Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 361–389.
Hug, T. (2011). Visual competence, media literacy and “new literacies” - conceptual considerations in a plural
discursive landscape. Seminar Net: Media, Technology & Life-Long Learning, 7(1), 1–17.
Hulleman, C., Schrager, S., Bodmann, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement
goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels?
Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 422–449.
Hutchison, A., & Henry, L. A. (2010). Internet use and online literacy among middle grade students at risk of
dropping out of school. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5(2), 61–75.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, P., Robinson, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of
participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: The John D and Catherine T
MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved January 11, 2012, from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%
7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7 days/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER. PDF.
Jones-Kavalier, B., & Flannigan, S. L. (2008). Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21st century.
Teacher Librarian, 35(3), 13–16.
Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., & Marttunen, M. (2009). Skillful Internet reader is metacognitively competent. In W.
Leo Tan & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 Level:
Issues and challenges (Vol. II, pp. 654–668). Singapore: Information Science Reference.
Kitson, L. (2011). Tween here and there, transitioning from the early years to the middle years: Exploring
continuities and discontinuities in a multiliterate environment. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years,
19(1), 9–17.
Korthagen, F. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77–97.
678 Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679

Krumsvik, R. (2008). Situated learning and teachers’ digital competence. Education & Information
Technologies, 13(4), 279–290.
Krumsvik, R. (2009). Situated learning in the networked society and the digitised school. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 32(2), 167–185.
Labbo, L. D. (2006). Literacy pedagogy and computer technologies: Toward solving the puzzle of current and
future classroom practices. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 29(3), 199–209.
Lebens, M., Graff, M., & Mayer, P. (2009). Access, attitudes and the digital divide: Children’s attitudes
towards computers in a technology-rich environment. Educational Media International, 46(3), 255–266.
Lee, A. Y. L. (2010). Media education: Definitions, approaches and development around the globe. New
Horizons in Education, 58(3), 1–13.
Leu, D., Kinzer, C., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the
internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical
models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark: International Reading Association.
Leverenz, C. (2008). Remediating writing program administration. WPA: Writing Program Administration –
Journal of the Council of Writing Program Administrators, 32(1), 37–56.
Levy, R. (2009). ‘You have to understand words … but not read them’: Young children becoming readers in a
digital age. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(1), 75–91.
Lin, C.-C., & Polaniecki, S. (2008). From media consumption to media production: Applications of YouTube
in an eighth-grade video documentary project. Journal of Visual Literacy, 28(1), 92–107.
Loertscher, D. (2008). Information literacy: 20 years later. Teacher Librarian, 35(5), 42–43.
Lotherington, H., & Ronda, N. S. (2009). Gaming geography: Educational games and literacy development in
the grade 4 classroom. Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology, 35(3), 4.
Löwy, I. (1992). The strenght of loose concepts – boundary concepts. Federative experimental strategies and
disciplinary growth. The case of immunology. History of Science, 30(4), 371–396.
McLean, C. A. (2010). A space called home: An immigrant adolescent’s digital literacy practices. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1), 13–22.
Mendelovits, J. (Chair) (2013, August). Assessing digital competence in national and international contexts.
Symposium conducted at the meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and
Instruction, Münich, Germany.
Meneses, J., & Mominó, J. M. (2010). Putting digital literacy in practice: How schools contribute to digital
inclusion in the network society. Information Society, 26(3), 197–208.
Merchant, G. (2007). Writing the future in the digital age. Literacy, 41, 118–128.
Miettinen, R. (2013). Innovation, human capabilities and democracy. Towards an enabling welfare state.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moran, J., Ferdig, R., Pearson, P., Wardrop, J., & Blomeyer, R. (2008). Technology and reading performance
in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy and practice. Journal of
Literacy Research, 40(1), 6–58.
Mullen, R., & Wedwick, L. (2008). Avoiding the digital abyss: Getting started in the classroom with YouTube,
digital stories, and blogs. Clearing House, 82(2), 66–69.
Nat Turner, K. C. (2011). “Rap universal”: Using multimodal media production to develop ICT literacies.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(8), 613–623.
National Board of Education (2011). Osaaminen ja sivistys 2020 – Opetushallituksen strategia. [Competence
and education 2020 – Strategy for National Board of Education.] Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Retrieved
January 3, 2012, from http://www.oph.fi/download/133481_osaaminen_ja_sivistys_2020.pdf.
O’Brien, D., & Scharber, C. (2008). Digital literacies go to school: Potholes and possibilities. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 66–68.
O’Brien, D., Beach, R., & Scharber, C. (2007). “Struggling” middle schoolers: Engagement and literate
competence in a reading writing intervention class. Reading Psychology, 28(1), 51–73.
Papadopoulou, S., & Ioannis, S. (2010). The emergence of digital storytelling and multimedia technology in
improving Greek language teaching and learning: Challenges versus limitations. Sino-US English
Teaching, 7(4), 1–14.
Pfannenstiel, A. N. (2010). Digital literacies and academic integrity. International Journal for Educational
Integrity, 6(2), 41–49.
Poore, M. (2011). Digital literacy: Human flourishing and collective intelligence in a knowledge society.
Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 34(2), 20–26.
Punie, Y. (2007). Learning spaces: an ICT-enabled model of future learning in the knowledge-based Society.
European Journal of Education, 42, 185–199.
Ranker, J. (2008). Making meaning on the screen: Digital video production about the Dominican republic.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(5), 410–422.
Educ Inf Technol (2016) 21:655–679 679

Ryberg, T., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2008). Power Users and patchworking - an analytical approach to
critical studies of young people’s learning with digital media. Educational Media International, 45(3),
143–156.
Schoen, L. T., & Teddlie, C. (2008). A new model of school culture: A response to a call for conceptual clarity.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(2), 129–153.
Sefton-Green, J., Nixon, H., & Erstad, O. (2009). Reviewing approaches and perspectives on “Digital
literacy”. Pedagogies, 4(2), 107–125.
Selwyn, N., & Husen, O. (2010). The educational benefits of technological competence: an investigation of
students’ perceptions. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(2), 137–141.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’, and Boundary objects: Amateurs and
professionals on Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.
Steinkuehler, C. (2010). Digital literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1), 61–63.
Taranto, G., Dalbon, M., & Gaetano, J. (2011). Academic social networking brings Web 2.0 technologies to
the middle grades. Middle School Journal, 42(5), 12–19.
Tchibozo, G. (2010). Emergence and outlook of competence-based education in European education systems:
An overview. Education, Knowledge & Economy, 4(3), 193–205.
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005). The definition and selection of key
competencies. Executive summary. The DeSeCo Project. (n.p.): Author. Retrieved January 11, 2011, from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/61/35070367.pdf.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Are the New Millenium Learners
Making the Grade? Technology use and educational performance in PISA. Paris, France: OECD
Publishing.
Tierney, R., Bond, E., & Bresler, J. (2006). Examining literate lives as students engage with multiple literacies.
Theory Into Practice, 45(4), 359–367.
Union, E. (2010). 2010 joint progress report of the council and the commission on the implementation of the
‘education and training 2010 work programme’. Official Journal of the European Union, C, 117.
Retrieved January 11, 2012 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri =
OJ:C:2010:117:0001:0007:EN: PDF.
van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2009). Using the internet: Skill related problems in users’
online behavior. Interacting with Computers, 21(5), 393–402.
Vasudevan, L. (2006). Looking for angels: Knowing adolescents by engaging with their multimodal literacy
practices. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(4), 252–256.
Walsh, M. (2008). Worlds have collided and modes have merged: Classroom evidence of changed literacy
practices. Literacy, 42(2), 101–108.
Weeks, P., Boxma, A., & Maxwell, N. (2009). Does a “Flat World” level the playing field? International
Journal of Learning, 16(11), 557–567.
Westera, W. (2001). Competences in education: A confusion of tongues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(1),
75–88.

View publication stats