Article

E-Learning and Digital Media

2020, Vol. 17(6) 442–459
What is digital literacy? ! The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
A comparative review sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2042753020946291
of publications across journals.sagepub.com/home/ldm

three language contexts

Luci Pangrazio
Faculty of Arts & Education, Deakin University, Australia

Anna-Lena Godhe
Department of Culture, Languages and Media, Malm€
o University,
Sweden

Alejo González L
opez Ledesma
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientıficas y Tecnicas, Buenos
Aires, Argentina; Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento,
Argentina

Abstract
Many scholars across the world have studied the knowledge, skills and dispositions needed to use
digital media. Yet as digital texts have proliferated and evolved, there has been much conjecture
over what it means to be ‘digitally literate’. As literacy researchers from Australia, Sweden and
Argentina we are concerned with the drive to standardise definitions of ‘digital literacy’ despite
notable differences in the cultural politics of education in each country. This paper analyses how
the term digital literacy has been conceptualised and applied by scholars in these three language
contexts. To do this, we analyse the most cited publications on digital literacy in the English-
speaking; Scandinavian; and Spanish-speaking contexts. In the analysis the variety of definitions
across and within each context, the key tensions and challenges that emerge and the implications
for digital literacy education are explored. Our findings reveal that similar tensions and challenges
exist in all three contexts, however, the path to resolution varies given contextual
differences. The article concludes with suggestions for educational research that acknowledges
and advocates the need for local conceptualisations of digital literacies in increasingly globalised
educational systems.

Corresponding author:
Luci Pangrazio, Faculty of Arts & Education, Deakin University, Australia.
Email: luci.pangrazio@deakin.edu.au
Pangrazio et al. 443

Keywords
Alfabetizaci
on, bildung, digital literacies, literacy research, socio-cultural literacies

Introduction
The digitalisation of everyday life has had significant implications for education. Given the
recent proliferation of digital devices and educational software, schools and educators are
still grappling with how to integrate technologies into the curriculum and prepare students
for their (digital) futures. Amidst these concerns, “digital literacy” has emerged as a key
concept to help educators, researchers and educational bureaucrats make sense of the com-
peting demands on schools and students in a digital society.
As it was first defined back in the late 1990s, digital literacy refers to “the ability to
understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide variety of sources when it
is presented via computers” and, particularly, through the medium of the internet (Gilster,
in Pool, 1997: 6). While this definition provided a useful starting point, digital texts and
practices have become more complex. For example, the rise of mobile media, particularly in
the developing world (see Pearce, 2013), is just one example of how diverse and divergent
digital practices are. As proved by studies on vernacular practices with technology (Dussel
et al., 2013), different contexts have different educational, technological and political his-
tories that influence the uptake and use of digital technologies, as well as how digital literacy
is conceptualised.
Despite these differences, there has been a drive to standardise the concept of “digital
literacy” to ensure its definition could be measured and compared in an increasingly glo-
balised educational setting. For example, multinational publishing and assessment company
Pearson Education have introduced a “digital literacy” certification to help students become
“more effective with technology”.1 In addition, UNESCO is developing “A Global
Framework to Measure Digital Literacy” (2018), which focuses on “relevant skills, includ-
ing technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship”.
Definitions from multinational organisations such as these tend to standardise the concept
of digital literacy in an “instrumental” way, promoting skills that are labour-oriented.
As three literacy researchers working in Australia, Argentina and Sweden, we are con-
cerned by the overriding need to provide a standard definition of digital literacy. The goal of
this research is to investigate how approaches to digital literacy differ across these three
language contexts in order to find points of similarity and difference. In doing so, we pro-
vide counterpoint to the creeping universalisation of digital literacy as a standardised oper-
ational ideal. Across all contexts we have observed a deprioritising of the situated meanings
and approaches that have been a hallmark of social literacies. Our goal is two-fold. First by
exploring differences across contexts, we highlight why a standardised approach to digital
literacies education is problematic. Second, we explore the value of cross-national, multi-
disciplinary scholarship on social approaches to digital literacies in order to find the thread
of connection across communities.
In this article we draw on research in these three research contexts to tease out the
different definitions of digital literacy. From its early conceptualisation, digital literacy
1
See: https://certiport.pearsonvue.com/Certifications/IC3/Digital-Literacy-Certification/Overview.aspx
444 E-Learning and Digital Media 17(6)

has been defined in reference to different theoretical frames, which has meant that the
concept has been ambiguous from the outset (see Chase and Laufenberg, 2011 ; Tamborg
et al., 2018).After detailing the method, we analyse how digital literacy is conceptualised in
the English speaking; Spanish speaking and Scandinavian contexts and the implications this
has for digital literacy education in each country. We examine the dominant definitions, key
tensions and challenges and make a case against the creeping universalisation of this con-
cept. The article concludes with recommendations on how we might pursue a research
agenda that advocates for local understandings of “digital literacies”.

Why digital literacy?

Digital literacy is closely related to new literacies, media literacy and even multiliteracies, so
why have we chosen to focus on this particular concept? First, digital literacy appears to
focus most intently on digital technologies. In the Spanish language, for example, media
literacy is strictly linked to news media, whereas digital literacy has a broader meaning that
can involve critical literacies or performative and instrumental literacies. ‘New literacies’ has
faded from use given that the digital technologies in question were introduced over 20 years,
meaning ‘new’ can be a misleading determiner. Multiliteracies, on the other hand, tends to
focus on the growing linguistic diversity due to both multiculturalism and the proliferation
of new media (Kalantzis and Cope, 1997). Apart from the Spanish-speaking context there is
perhaps greatest similarity between digital and media literacy, however, there are a couple of
key points of difference.
Although both concepts are based on developing critical thinking, digital media are now
networked and interactive, which requires a unique set of skills and dispositions. Canada’s
Centre for Digital and Media Literacy sum up the differences: “media literacy generally
focuses on teaching youth to be critically engaged consumers of media, while digital literacy
is more about enabling youth to participate in digital media in wise, safe and ethical ways”
(Media Smarts, 2010). Digital literacy therefore encompasses issues of privacy, safety and
ethical use of technology.
However, it is important to realise that digital literacy does not replace media literacy, but
instead builds on it to articulate the set of skills required for a dynamic digital context. For
example, the principles of critical media literacy (see Kellner and Share, 2005) are still
relevant to engaging with digital texts, however, networked interactivity calls for more
technical understandings such as algorithmic processing and the role of metrics (see
Pangrazio, 2016; 2019 ). As our focus in this article is on digital technologies, digital literacy
is the most appropriate concept for our review. Not only is the concept more widespread,
but it also focuses on the key skills and dispositions required to live and learn with digital
media. Digital literacy is also the concept that international organisations such as UNESCO
and Pearson are trying to standardise across the three contexts in which we work.

Digital literacy – A contested term

The term “digital literacy” emerged in the United States and can be traced back to the
publication of Paul Gilster’s book Digital Literacy in 1997. Gilster’s landmark work first
defined the skills needed to critically navigate information in an increasingly digital world.
However, as digital literacy emerged from an existent field (i.e. literacy) many of the tensions
and issues evident in literacy research were carried over into this new and emerging field.
Pangrazio et al. 445

For example, whether digital literacy should be thought of as a list of skills or whether
it referred to something broader, such as social practices and values, remains an ongoing
question. The extent to which context should be emphasised is another point of difference.
Both of these issues have implications for digital literacy education and research.
For example, educators and researches working in the ‘skills’ tradition would focus on
what needs to be taught and understood, whereas those working in the social tradition
might be more interested in finding out what people actually do with digital media and
texts in their everyday lives. To researchers from the social practice perspective, digital
literacies cannot be separated from the social, technological and economic changes taking
place, so any kind of empirical work must take account of these broader shifts (Sefton-
Green et al., 2016).
Academic disciplines bind scholars to shared ways of knowing about what counts as
‘literacy’. In this article, we review work from scholars across a range of disciplines, includ-
ing education, information science and psychology (see Appendix A for a more detailed
summary of the disciplinary backgrounds of each author) - each with a different set of
priorities. For example, to computer scientists, digital skills and competency tend to be
more important than the identity work that takes place when participating. In this article,
we draw out these differences, exploring the plurality of literacies, as well as the plurality of
methods for identifying, measuring and developing them.

Methodology
Our aim in this article is to explore the diverse ways that digital literacy has been conceptu-
alized by scholars in three different contexts. While this is not strictly a systematic review, we
have used systematic methods to select the articles for review (see Gough et al., 2012; Grant
and Booth, 2009). Following Gough et al. (2012, p.5) this involved three key activities:

• identifying and describing the relevant research (‘mapping’ the research)

• critically appraising research reports in a systematic manner (‘critiquing’ the research)
• bringing together the findings into a coherent statement (‘synthesising’ the research).

As our goal was to analyse the most well-known and used definitions of “digital literacy”,
we used Google Scholar to provide us with a list of the 10 most cited publications in the
English-speaking, Spanish-speaking, and Scandanavian contexts (i.e. 30 publications in total).
We chose Google Scholar because it is a leading search engine for scholarly literature
across the contexts we research. Searches were made in Google Scholar using the terms
“digital literacy/ies” and “digital competence” (a term used synonymously in Spanish and
Scandinavian contexts with digital literacy). The number of citations listed by Google
Scholar was used to determine the most cited articles in each international context.
The searches were made from October 2018 through to June 2019. A list of reviewed
publications can be found in Appendix A.
Since it is not possible on Google Scholar to choose to search for only peer-reviewed works,
these initial lists were screened to only include peer-reviewed publications. In addition, pub-
lications in which “digital literacy” was a minor focus were also discarded. We are aware of
the fact that using other databases may have given a slightly different result, however, our aim
is not to give a complete picture of what has been written about digital literacy, but rather to
enable the comparison of how the term is conceptualized in different contexts.2
446 E-Learning and Digital Media 17(6)

Five questions guided our analysis of the corpus of 30 publications:

1. What local variations are there for ‘digital literacy’?

2. Who is writing about it?
3. What are the central tenets of these descriptions?
4. What fields, perspectives, disciplines are they working in?
5. What theoretical traditions are being used and/or drawn upon?

Each publication was closely read and re-read in terms of these five questions by a native-
speaking member of the research team. Individual analyses of each publication were syn-
thesised and written-up in English to form the basis of the review presented in the remainder
of this paper.

Findings
The findings within each context are presented in three subsections: Digital literacy as con-
cept; Digital literacy as educational initiative; and Issues and tensions. Each subsection is
organised and discussed under the most relevant subheading. For example, articles that
focus most intently on digital literacy in the classroom are discussed under the subheading
“Digital literacy as educational initiative” rather than “Digital literacy as concept”.

The English-speaking context

The first, and still most significant, publication on digital literacy across all contexts was
Paul Gilster (1997) book Digital Literacy (1568 citations). Gilster’s book was published at a
time when the internet was just starting to reach the mainstream and there was much con-
cern over defining the skills users needed to effectively navigate the ‘web’. An important part
of Gilster’s contribution was bringing awareness to the different literacies required for
individuals to engage with the internet. He emphasised the multimodal forms of communi-
cation (i.e. print, visual, video, audio etc) and argued that engaging with information on the
internet required fundamentally different search and retrieval skills.

Digital literacy as concept

While Gilster begins with a fairly simple definition of digital literacy as ‘the ability to
understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources’ (p.1),
he goes beyond this to argue that it also emphasises particular cognitive challenges
associated with integrating analogue and digital media. Of particular importance is the
need to ‘contextualise the internet’ and the way it presents information against other non-
networked forms.
Bawden’s 2001 article (1046 citations) is a review of digital literacy concepts with much of
the article dedicated to finding intersections and similarities with other fields of literacy, such
as information literacy and computer literacy. Coming from an information science back-
ground, there is a focus on information management and ‘skill-based literacies’ (p.219).
Following Gilster (1997), Bawden argues that digital literacy should not be reduced to a
set of functional skills and competences, and focuses on the importance of context to
the meaning making process. By the conclusion of the article he advocates for a
Pangrazio et al. 447

sociocultural perspective arguing for the significance of context and meaning making in
information science.
Adopting a situated literacies approach, Jones and Hafner (2012) (259 citations) link the
skills needed to use and critique digital technologies to particular contexts of use and appli-
cation. Like Gilster (1997) Jones and Hafner frame digital literacy as much broader than
simply functional use of digital devices, but as ‘the ability to creatively engage in particular
social practices, to assume appropriate social identities, and to form and maintain various
social relationships’ (p.12, emphasis in original). Despite this, the focus remains on digital
literacy for education and work, which is examined against the framework of the ‘new work
order’ ( Gee et al., 1996 ).
Adopting a similar approach, O’Brien and Scharber (2008) (187 citations) conceive of
digital and traditional literacies as more like different points on the continuum. They con-
ceive of digital literacy in the plural (i.e. digital literacies) and define it as ‘socially situated
practices’ which are ‘supported by skills, strategies and stances that enable the representa-
tion and understanding of ideas using a range of modalities enabled by digital tools’ (p. 67).
O’Brien and Scharber argue that digital literacies should be seen as ‘evolving’, as digital
practices ‘shape, and are shaped by, youth inside and outside of school’ (p. 66). Rather than
seeing traditional print based and digital literacies as opposite ends of the spectrum they
argue that education should work to ‘braid together new digital literacies and old or already
established literacies’ (p. 67).
The main point in Lankshear and Knobel’s (2008) (202 citations) introductory chapter on
digital literacy is to argue the importance of seeing digital literacy in the plural (i.e. digital
literacies). They provide three reasons for this: the sheer diversity of digital practices that
exist; the strength and usefulness of adopting a sociocultural perspective on literacy prac-
tices; and the benefit of an expansive view when considering digital learning. They argue
digital literacies should be seen as a sociocultural practice and that there are different ways
of reading and writing with digital texts.

Digital literacy as educational initiative

While several scholars (Gilster, 1997; Jones and Hafner 2012; O’Brien and Scharber, 2008)
look at digital literacy as concept and practice, four articles in the top 10 most cited focus on
frameworks or recommendations for education. Alkalai ( 2004 ) (655 citations), Martin
(2005) (178 citations) and Aviram and Eshet-Alkalai (2006) all take a functional approach
in their articles and attempt to develop a framework for digital literacy that would be useful
for educators. On the other hand, Bawden (2008) addresses emerging tensions at the con-
ceptual level, but similarly concludes with a framework for educators.
Alkalai (2004) argues that the use of the term ‘digital literacy’ has been ‘inconsistent’,
arguing that some scholars ‘restrict the concept to the technical aspects of operating in
digital environments, while others apply it in the context of cognitive and socio-emotional
aspects of work in a computer environment’ (p.103). Instead he identifies five subcategories
to digital literacy: photo-visual literacy; reproduction literacy; branching literacy; informa-
tion literacy; and socioemotional literacy. Alkalai repeatedly refers to digital literacy as a
‘survival skill’ for ‘scholars and information consumers’ (pp. 100–101). By contrast,
Lankshear and Knobel (2008) (202 citations) argue against a standardised instrumental
approach to developing digital literacies, arguing that situated digital learning, such
as through online gaming and fanfiction ‘underpin deep understanding and competence’
448 E-Learning and Digital Media 17(6)

(p. 13). Furthermore, acknowledging the different ways of being digitally literate can
address longstanding structural inequities.
At the conclusion of his article, Bawden (2008) (438 citations), puts forward four com-
ponents for digital literacy education based on his reading of Gilster (1997). They are:
Underpinnings (i.e. traditional literacy and computer/ICT literacy); Background knowledge
(i.e. nature of information resources); Central competences (i.e. ‘knowledge assembly’);
Attitudes and perspectives (i.e. independent learning, moral/social literacy).
In a slightly later article, Alkalai and Aviram (2006) (176 citations) adopt a similar
premise to (Martin, 2005) and Alkalai (2004), arguing that the discourse on digital literacy
‘lacks a sound integrative framework and theoretical foundation’ and calls for a ‘clear and
theoretically-grounded view of the basic literacies required for effective learning in digital
environments’ (p. 1). Adopting Alkalai’s (2004) earlier idea, they argue that digital literacy is
a ‘survival skill’. However, in this article their main goal is to test whether digital literacy
should be thought of as a coherent list of already existent skills or whether it goes beyond
this to mean ‘something much deeper’ (p. 3) involving completely different epistemologies
and values to more traditional print-based literacies. Alkalai and Aviram’s question stems
from a binary perspective in which digital texts are seen as antithetical to traditional print
based texts. As such, they argue that unlike traditional print-based culture, digital culture is
‘post modern, multimedia-based, branching and much less individual-oriented’ (p. 16). This,
they argue, lays the foundation for a decidedly new type of literacy – digital literacy.

Issues and tensions

The first issue emerging in English speaking contexts is that the term digital literacy has
become too broad and confused. Bawden (2008), for example, argues that digital literacy
needs to be more clearly distinguished from ‘information literacy’ and ‘computer literacy’, as
well as more recent terms ‘informacy’ and ‘information fluency’. Like Gilster (1997) and
Alkalai (2004), Bawden argues that a ‘central theme’ of digital literacy should be ‘an ability
to synthesize and integrate information from varied sources’ (p. 28). At the same time, he
explains that there is a need for flexibility in how we think about digital literacy education,
explaining that it is not ‘sensible to suggest that one specific model of digital literacy will be
appropriate for all people or, indeed, for one person over all their lifetime’ (p. 28).
By contrast, Buckingham’s (2011) book chapter ‘Defining digital literacy’ (377 citations)
adopts a strident tone to argue against the narrow, functional definitions of digital literacy
that tend to focus on ‘information’ and ‘online safety’. The word literacy, he argues is from a
‘broader form of education about media’ (p. 75) and should therefore recognise the sym-
bolic, persuasive and emotional dimensions of our uses and interpretations. Similarly,
Lankshear and Knobel (2008) argue against a ‘narrow focus on encoding and decoding’
(p. 8) but their reasoning is more to do with building bridges between formal and informal
learning than the dimensions of the media itself. Nevertheless, like Bawden (2008),
Buckingham questions whether the proliferation of different “literacies” in recent years
means that literacy has become a synonym for competence.

The Spanish-speaking context

The first thing to acknowledge in the Spanish-speaking context is the difficulty of translating
‘digital literacy’. As Chartier and Rockwell (2013) have indicated, the difference between the
Pangrazio et al. 449

meanings of literacy and alfabetizaci on (the term which stands for literacy in Spanish) was
first noticed in the 1980s, when education reforms and standardized evaluations carried out
by different English-speaking countries were translated to other languages, along with their
terminology. While alfabetizaci on originally refers to the procedure of encoding and decod-
ing written language and focuses on ‘mechanical skills’, more recent and broader conceptu-
alizations of this term relate to the use of written language in context, which is closer to the
English term ‘literacy’.

Digital literacy as concept

Despite the complex and controversial nature of the terms alfabetizaci on and competencia,
many of the studies are not critical examinations and instead define them as a goal within
frameworks that contribute to the field of education. This is a noted difference from the
reviewed articles in the English-speaking context, which appear more intent on defining the
term conceptually.
The most cited studies in the Spanish speaking context provide definitions of digital
literacy that act as a reaction to the instrumental notions of technology recognized in the
field of education. In an attempt to transcend what are considered restrictive character-
izations, some scholars discussed below (Area Moreira, 2008; 2010; Area Moreira et al.,
2012; de Pablos Pons, 2010; Gutierrez Martın, 2003; Gutierrez-Martın and Tyner, 2012)
take up theoretical contributions on digital and information literacies. Based on these, they
argue that digital literacies should encourage students not only to use digital technology in a
functional, instrumental manner, but also – and more importantly – to transform informa-
tion into knowledge.
Gutierrez Martın (2003) (535 citations) emphasizes this idea when advocating for what he
calls a ‘multiple literacy’, composed of three basic referents: an information and digital
literacy; an ethical literacy; and a relational, socially focused, literacy. Other well cited
works (Area Moreira, 2008, 2010; Area Moreira et al., 2012; de Pablos Pons, 2010)
also contend that digital literacy ought to be developed in educational contexts
through informational and digital competences, oriented by non-instrumental or merely
functional objectives.
The distinction between instrumental and critical-reflexive uses of digital technologies is
also a visible concern in (Ferres and Piscitelli, 2012) (288 citations), Gros Salvat and
Contreras, 2006 (172 citations) and Cabero Almenara and Llorente Cejudo’s ( Almenara
and Llorente Cejudo, 2008 ) (128 citations) work. In words of the latter, ‘learning ICT
should not refer only to the technical-instrumental conception, but also to other dimensions,
such as the symbolic, social and communicative’ (p. 16).
However, the social, critical and ideological dimensions of digital literacy are nuanced
differently when oriented towards the civic and economic demands of the ‘information
society’. Similar to Cabero Almenara and Llorente Cejudo (2008), Area  Moreira (2010)
(215 citations) identifies two perspectives to digital literacy that should be reconciled.
He argues that education and training programs not only need to meet the demands of
the market economy, but should also aim to democratically integrate all citizens in the
information society. Other Spanish speaking scholars argue similarly. For example,
Ferres and Piscitelli (2012) deviate from the traditional meaning of the term competence,
in order to promote participatory digital culture (Jenkins, 2008).
450 E-Learning and Digital Media 17(6)

Also from a critical perspective, Gutierrez Martın and Tyner (2012) (280 citations) take
up Buckingham’s work (2011) to propose a media education in which digital competence is
neither reduced to its technological and instrumental dimension nor the perils of use.
Instead, these authors point out the need to pick up the key aspects of critical approaches
from old media education (Masterman, 1985) as a means to rethink new media.
All the most cited works from the Spanish speaking context are concerned with the increas-
ingly complex nature of communication and cultural practices. Some of them point out the
need to transcend traditional literacy and to address the new emerging traits of digital culture
in the educational field in terms of multiliteracy (Area Moreira et al., 2008) (235 citations).

Digital literacy as educational initiative

The most cited publications on digital literacy and digital competences in the Spanish-
speaking context focus on school (Area Moreira, 2008; Gros and Contreras, 2006), univer-
sity (Area Moreira, 2010; de Pablos Pons, 2010), formal education (Gutierrez Martın and
Tyner, 2012) but also address education in general terms (Cabero Almenara and Llorente
Cejudo, 2008; Ferres and Piscitelli, 2012; Gutierrez Martın, 2003). They point out the
challenges of the digital context, in order to outline the competencies and changes that
institutions, teachers and students require to face it.
Many of the reviewed works from this context articulate digital technologies with already
existing pedagogical frameworks. In this line, some of the publications examined are focused
on overcoming what their authors understand in general terms as a traditional pedagogical
model of education in which the teacher is an isolated professional, the initiator and centre
of the instruction process and the agent who transmits information to a passive student, in
the context of a resistant institution. Close to this idea, Cabero Almenara and Llorente
Cejudo (2008) advocate for transforming the present teaching culture into a learning culture,
in which the reproduction of information is replaced by the process of actively building
knowledge with new communication tools that demand an active engagement of learners.
Although Ferres and Piscitelli (2012) do not refer critically to any pedagogical format,
they share the same view on the need for a critical, active and participatory way of learning
in order to develop media competence, which tacitly acts as a counterpart to the pedagogical
model mentioned before. These authors draw our attention to a neuroscientific perspective
which clashes with the ideas of critical pedagogy, where teaching is an opportunity to
establish a cultural, ideological, political and social framework for students learning.
Highlighting schools resistance to change and current teacher-centred pedagogies, Area
Moreira (2008, 2010; Area Moreira et al., 2012) proposes a general techno-pedagogical
frame that brings together psychological principles of Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory
(1978), Piaget’s constructivism (1981) and Paulo Freires emancipation literacy theory
(1977). Also from a socio-cultural perspective, Gros and Contreras take up Wengers
(1998) pedagogic theory, where learning implies taking part in cultural practices and in
the activities shared by social communities. They also base their proposal on the educational
approach of John Dewey (1995), who stresses the importance of experience, reflective and
thinking skills, as well as democratic and humanitarian ideals.
De Pablos Pons (2010) (127 citations) is also guided by a socio-cultural vision of learning,
where education is a process of sharing knowledge between teachers and students.
He explains that while digital technologies do not provide a pedagogical frame, they do
contribute to settle the grounds for new educational formats.
Pangrazio et al. 451

Issues and tensions

Two of the most significant issues arising in the Spanish-speaking context are not addressed
by its most cited works. These have to do, first, with the tension between the terms literacy
and alfabetizacion, and literacy and competence. Many scholars point out the problematic
nature of the translation of the term literacy to Spanish (Braslavsky, 2004; Kress, 2005).
Dussel and Southwell (2009) argue that, despite this, there is much to be gained by the
adoption of the term alfabetizaciones (alfabetizaci on in plural), as it highlights the range
of digital practices and languages people are currently engaged in and are relevant to edu-
cation and school.
The term competence has also raised controversy, as it has become an organizing element
of the curriculum in many educational systems in Spanish-speaking countries in the past
decades. It responds to educational reforms developed by international organizations and is
framed by neoliberal demands such as structural adjustments of educational expenditures, a
retrenchment of state allocation of resources and decentralization and greater autonomy of
educational institutions (Fonseca, 1998).

The Scandinavian context

Similar to the Spanish context, “literacy” generally is not translated in Scandinavian lan-
guages (Erstad, 2010a) (131 citations) and digital literacy and digital competence are used
interchangeably in the Scandinavian context, although distinctions are also made between the
two. Digital literacy and digital competence are in the reviewed articles written in relation to
21st century skills, information literacy, media literacy, computer literacy, and ICT literacy.

Digital literacy as concept

Many Scandinavian scholars draw on sociocultural theories (Barton, 2007; Vygotsky, 1978)
in their definition of literacy to emphasise how it is shaped by the historical, cultural and
political context (Voogt et al., 2013 , Erstad et al., 2007). Yet other theories are clearly
integral to how digital literacy is conceptualised. Erstad et al. (2007) (103 citations) refer to
social semiotics and multimodality (Kress and van Leuween, 2001) in their analysis of
students’ media productions. Whereas the notions of situated practice and communities
of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) are referred to as analytical tools in
some of the articles. The most cited paper, Tuominen et al., (2005) (331 citations), comes
from the field of information science rather than education. The authors argue for infor-
mation literacy to be seen as a sociotechnical practice that includes technology but empha-
size that the use of technology depends on the situation and people involved.
While definitions of digital competence refer to aspects of digital technology and its
increased impact on society and education, Aarsand (2007) (159 citations) and Voogt
et al. (2013) (266 citations) point out that the conceptual background of literacy stems
from critiques of traditional conceptions of the ability to read and write. Literacy incorpo-
rates a broader sociocultural understanding of different forms of representations and
changes in reading and writing practices. Erstad (2010b) (109 citations) points out the
impact that technologies have on life in general and on our conception of learning. New
technologies change conceptions of literacy and literacy practices change because of tech-
nological developments.
452 E-Learning and Digital Media 17(6)

Hatlevik and Christophersen (2013) (113 citations) write that digital literacy and digital
competence are often used as synonyms since they do, to some extent, overlap. When
referring to the differences, however, they compare each with digital skills, which focus
on technological issues, and regard both digital literacy and competence as broader terms
that incorporate skills, understandings and critical reflections. According to (Krumsvik,
2008) (143 citations), digital competence is the most commonly used concept in
Scandinavia. Based on an overview of how digital competence is defined in European and
global policy documents, Søby (2013), concludes that the concept has a double function as
agenda setter since it is a principal concept in innovation policy and educational reform,
while simultaneously acting as an objective in the development of schools and pedagogy.
Krumsvik (2008) argues that competence as a concept is more holistically interpreted in
Scandinavian English emphasising not only the use of digital texts and technology, but also
how to be a digital citizen.

Digital literacy as educational initiative

Since a large majority of the articles reviewed in the Scandinavian context discuss digital
literacy and digital competence in an educational setting, the expected “outcomes” are
students who are able to live and work in a digital society. In the Norwegian curriculum,
which is taken as an example in several articles (Aarsand, 2007; Erstad et al., 2007; Hatlevik
and Christophersen, 2013 ; Krumsvik, 2008; Voogt et al., 2013), digital competence, rather
than digital literacy, has been used since 2006 but has lately been changed to digital
skills or proficiency (in Norwegian ‘ferdighet’). The ability to use digital tools is in the
Norwegian policy documents referred to as a fourth basic skill, together with reading,
writing and numeracy. Erstad (2010b) states that the term used in the curricula, ‘the
ability to use digital tools’ implies ‘a narrow conception of digital literacy as directly
linked to operating a specific technology’ (p. 300). The meaning of digital competence is
not static but changes over time as both social practices and technology develop. Since the
introduction of the concept in the Norwegian curriculum, a broader understanding of
digital competence has developed, which includes tools, critique and learning competences
(Engen et al., 2015).
The Scandinavian or Nordic concept of bildung influences how digital literacy and digital
competence is interpreted in educational contexts. Bildung emphasizes what it means to be
literate in contemporary culture and refers to critical, conscious understanding and reflec-
tion of technology-use (Erstad et al., 2007 ; Voogt et al., 2013). In a school context, digital
bildung focuses on how the digitisation of society affects pupils’ participation in different
communities and their identity development. Ethical and moral issues around the role of
technology are of importance as well as the need for students and teachers to develop
their critical abilities when evaluating sources and being aware of ethical implications in a
digitised society (Krumsvik, 2011) (98 citations). Erstad (2010a) writes about digital
bildung as cultural competence that concerns the challenges of learning and being part of
a digital culture. This involves being able to take informed decisions important to oneself
but also to society. Digital bildung refers to a holistic view on learning and literacy
that incorporates how students learn and communicate in different contexts and with dif-
ferent tools.
In a digital competence model for teachers developed by Krumsvik (2011; 2014) (109
citations), digital bildung is regarded as the fourth core component along with basic ICT
Pangrazio et al. 453

skills, didactic ICT competence and learning strategies. Krumsvik considers digital bildung
to be a meta-perspective that needs to be acquired by teachers in order to understand how
bildung influences the three other components.

Issues and tensions

The first issue that emerges in the Scandinavian context is that the abundance of concepts
associated with literacy make the term vague. For this reason, literacy can be used as a
synonym for knowledge, competence and learning (S€alj€ o, 2012). Changes in what consti-
tutes digital literacy involves a move from tool based functional literacies to literacies of
representation, as well as from reproduction and reception to creating and sharing in digital
environments.
A second issue relates to whether digital literacy is a ‘skill’ for using digital technologies
or a ‘disposition’ toward those technologies. Erstad (2010b) argues against the conceptual-
isation of digital literacy as a ‘skill’. In his opinion, literacy is not related to a specific
technology but ‘rather the competences and skills needed in order to take advantage of
different technologies in order to learn, framed within certain social and institutional set-
tings like schools’ (p. 295). Based on findings of a large-scale intervention study in Norway,
Erstad argues for the need to look into both institutional practices and the social practices of
teachers to identify the contextual constraints for establishing new literacy practices with
digital media.
Finally, as in the English speaking context, the tension between the term ‘digital literacy’
and ‘media literacy’ arises, with questions over which best encapsulates the skills and
dispositions young people require to be active and agentic citizens in the digital age.
Erstad (2010a; Erstad et al., 2007), for example, argues for the use of media literacy
since it relates to broader aspects, such as production, representation and audience, and
living in a media society, rather than focusing on skills of handling and operating informa-
tion and applications.

Discussion
This article has examined how the term digital literacies is defined and applied in teaching
and research across the English speaking, Spanish speaking and Scandinavian context.
While using citation counts of articles does have limitations, it provides a broad indication
of the articles that have gained prominence in each of these contexts. We use this as a way of
exploring issues that have concerned us as literacy researchers, such as the way literacy
research articulates (or not) with young people’s digital lives, as well as the changing
focus of curriculum, pedagogy and educational policy. As sociocultural researchers we
are particularly attuned to the influence of context on digital literacies. Yet despite local
differences, we find some universality to the tensions that emerge in all three contexts –
tensions associated with the conceptual, practical and political dimensions of digital liter-
acies research.
The first, and perhaps most obvious thing to note, is that the term digital literacy is most
commonly used in English speaking parts of the world. Originating in the US (Gilster, 1997)
and spreading quickly to the UK, Canada and Australia, the term digital literacy appeared
to capture the set of skills and dispositions required for effective use of digital media. It
refers not only to the skills and capacities required to use digital texts, but also a disposition
454 E-Learning and Digital Media 17(6)

toward the digital that is both critical and creative. In these early conceptualisations, digital
literacy had a normative function, with little focus on the everyday literacies individuals
bring to their use of digital media.
While digital literacy is now used in the Spanish speaking and Scandinavian research
contexts, it is not easily translated, and terms such as digital competence, digital bildung and
alfabetizaci on digital have greater prominence. Perhaps the closest to Gilster’s (1997) orig-
inal definition of digital literacy is the Spanish alfabetizaci on digital and the Scandinavian
digital bildung. Both terms, like digital literacy, are broader in definition and emphasize that
‘literate’ technology use involves digital skills, as well as critical, conscious and reflective
capabilities (Gutierrez Martin, 2003; Voogt et al., 2013). However, alfabetizaci on, bildung
and competence capture something specific to the contexts in which they are used, and it is
this specificity that will be lost as the term ‘digital literacy’ becomes the standard. Indeed, as
some have argued the globalisation of the term ‘digital literacy’ could be seen as a kind of
‘cultural colonialism’ (Kress, 2005).
Across all three contexts digital literacy refers to something broader than digital compe-
tence, digital skills or digital proficiency (Area Moreira, 2008; Bawden, 2002). Digital com-
petence, for example, refers to the specific set of skills required to be digitally literate,
whereas digital literacy refers to skills as well as dispositions, including the tacit and
social practices associated with digital media use. In more recent years, with the push to
standardise digital literacy as a set of ‘skills’ the trend has been against social approaches to
literacy. However, several scholars (Buckingham, 2011; S€alj€ o, 2012) have critiqued broader
definitions of digital literacy as ‘vague’, arguing that digital literacy becomes a ‘catch-all’
phrase for knowledge, competence and learning. This might explain why the term ‘digital
competence’ rather than ‘digital literacy’ has become an agenda setter for education policy
in Scandinavia (Søby, 2013).
Focusing more specifically on ‘digital literacy’, the different definitions analysed in this
article reveal the tensions evident in the field. These definitional debates have been more
prominent in English speaking research, whereas in the Scandinavian and Spanish speaking
context the literature has been more focused on applied understandings of the term. Yet
despite the prominence of the term in the English-speaking context, and after reviewing the
articles listed, it is still difficult to define what is meant by ‘digital literacy’. This has been an
ongoing challenge for digital literacies research (see Chase and Laufenberg, 2011; Sefton-
Green, Nixon and Erstad, 2009), and shows no signs of being resolved any time soon. Some
believe this lack of definition is positive (i.e. Lankshear and Knobel, 2008; O’Brien and
Scharber, 2008), as not one form of digital literacy will be appropriate for all learners or
even the same learner across their life course. However, the definitional ‘squishiness’ (Chase
and Laufenberg, 2011) of digital literacy has implications for education, which is only
exacerbated by the fact that students and teachers relate to technology in different ways
inside and outside the school. Sefton-Green, Nixon and Erstad (2009) argue digital literacy
needs to be framed ‘far more at the intersection of formal and informal learning domains
where “top down” and “bottom up” approaches meet’ (p.110).
Some of these tensions existed well before literacies became ‘digital’. Perhaps the most
significant of these is whether literacies are a cognitive process or a social practice, which has
implications for how digital literacy is taught in schools. If literacy is seen as a social practice
then the pedagogical approach might involve educators connecting school based digital
literacy tasks with student’s everyday practices and their existent ‘funds of knowledge’
(Moll et al., 1992). On the other hand, if it is approached as a cognitive process then
Pangrazio et al. 455

pedagogy might focus on building new skills that can be applied to digital technologies in a
functional way. These are unresolved tensions which are glossed over in the drive to stan-
dardise the term. As a consequence, at the international level ‘digital literacy’ is approached
in a more generic and instrumental way and avoids drawing on the specific operational
context of the learner.
Indeed, in contrast to the plurality and expansion of digital cultures, and by extension,
the skills required to be digitally literate, according to the works reviewed there has been
little expansion to digital literacies education in all three contexts. In the main, social
approaches to digital literacy remain on the sideline, meaning young people’s digital lives
remain quite separate from school-based programs (Livingstone and Sefton-Green, 2016).
This is not to say that there are no innovative digital literacies programs taking place in
classrooms around the world – as we know for a fact there are – but just that these are not
often in the most cited academic literature. Adopting a sociocultural approach to digital
literacies means researchers and educators should not only appropriate and extend upon
everyday uses of digital media, but also investigate how these cultural practices can be
engaged with in the formal school curriculum. In doing so it is also necessary to understand
how formal curriculum is also cultural and how it is appropriated by teachers. In the rush to
standardise digital literacy, we are concerned that social and local approaches to digital
literacies will continue to be overlooked even though it is evident across all three contexts
that this is the most productive method of engaging students.
Related to this point, is the question raised in each of the three contexts examined
regarding the overarching purpose of digital literacy education. Is the goal of digital literacy
education to create productive workers in the ‘knowledge economy’ or is it to help individ-
ual’s realise personal and social liberation? Indeed, across all three contexts, scholars rec-
ognise the need to see literacies in the plural (ie. ‘literacies’), as diverse texts and codes
require diverse literacies. Yet it is this fine-grained, learner focused approach that will be
further lost if multinational educational-technology companies are left to determine what it
means to be digitally literate. While best pedagogical practice might suggest scaffolding
students’ understanding of the technological, as well as the social and personal implications
associated with digital practices, this approach does present a challenge to international,
standardised testing.
In recent decades, critical pedagogical theories, particularly in literacy, have played a
central role in overcoming restricted perspectives on the social and political purposes of
education. We have learnt from Paulo Freire (1977) that literacy can be conceptualized as
a series of situated social and political decisions that allow subjects to interact with the
existing culture as well as to recreate it in a critical and emancipatory way. Other con-
tributions to critical pedagogy from Dewey (1995) have made it possible to develop a
humanitarian approach to democratic education and rethink the values that guide learning
in relation to the social practices of digital culture. These ideas have been crucial to
critically transcend literacy in terms of the acquisition of neutral, ahistorical, cognitive
abilities which satisfy the educational requirements of an increasingly predatory and con-
centrated global market.
We also understand that the process of standardisation of digital literacy indicated in the
beginning of this work is part of a broader tendency that seeks to blur the disputes that
underly the notion of digital literacy in favour of a functional, technical perspective of this
notion. Given this, our comparative work has been an attempt to bring those disputes to the
surface and systematize them as part of the present educational scenario.
456 E-Learning and Digital Media 17(6)

Final remarks
To conclude, we make two suggestions for future digital literacies research. First, future
research should investigate the tensions that arise when critical pedagogical approaches are
reconfigured into digital literacy frameworks and operationalised in schools. In particular, a
question that arose in all three contexts was whether the goal of digital literacies is to create
productive workers in the ’knowledge economy’ or, in a more sophisticated fashion, address
active engagement with democratic citizenship. This issue goes to the very heart of digital
literacy education and research and in many respects is resolved by the individual teacher
and/or researcher as they decide which theories best align with their values and their student’s
needs. A variety of approaches and models to digital literacy is therefore an advantage, and
tacitly acknowledges the right of the educator to choose. Investigating how educators make
these decisions, as well as the discourses that influence the decision-making process would
help understand how these theories and frameworks are operationalised in classrooms.
A final suggestion for future research might be to investigate how digital literacies ped-
agogies are addressed in educational institutions. Many lines of research assume that educa-
tional institutions –and education itself– must be transformed; either to adjust their culture
and traditions to fulfil democratic citizenship or meet the imperatives of the global market.
Yet this approach often overlooks the social and cultural dimensions already present in
current curriculum and pedagogy, and in the broader institutions of schooling. All of these
points are key to transformation processes in the educational field. Detailed ethnographic
accounts of how digital cultures and practices manifest in schools would guide researchers as
they reconceptualise digital literacies models to meet the needs of educators and students.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
Luci Pangrazio https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7346-1313

Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes
1. See: https://certiport.pearsonvue.com/Certifications/IC3/Digital-Literacy-Certification/Overview.
aspx
2. It is important to note that the most cited Spanish speaking publications in Google Scholar are
written by Spanish scholars. Despite being absent in this investigation, we acknowledge that Latin
American scholars have had a major impact on the field of digital literacy. The scope of their work
on this subject remains to be studied.
Pangrazio et al. 457

References
Aarsand PA (2007) Computer and Video Games in Family Life. Childhood 14(2): 235–256.
Alkalai Y (2004) Digital Literacy: A Conceptual Framework for Survival Skills in the Digital Era.
Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 13(1): 93
Almenara JC and Llorente Cejudo MC (2008) La Alfabetizaci on Digital De Los Alumnos.
Competencias Digitales Para El Siglo XXI. Revista Portuguesa De Pedagogia 7–28.
Area Moreira M, Gros Salvat B and Marzal MA (2008) Alfabetizaciones y Tecnologıas de la
Informacion y la Comunicacion. Madrid: Sıntesis.
Area Moreira M, Gutierrez Martın A and Vidal Fernández F (2012) Alfabetizaci on digital y compe-
tencias informacionales. Barcelona: Fundaci on Telefonica- Ariel.
Area Moreira M (2010) >Por que formar en competencias informacionales y digitales en la educaci on
superior? RUSC. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento 7(2): 2.
Area Moreira M. (2008) La Innovaci on Pedag ogica Con TIC y El Desarrollo De Las Competencias
Informacionales y Digitales. Revista De Investigaci on En La Escuela 64: 5.
Aviram A and Eshet-Alkalai Y (2006) Towards a Theory of Digital Literacy: Three Scenarios for the
Next Steps. The European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 9 [Online]
Barton D (2007) Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language. 2nd ed. Malden:
Blackwell.
Bawden D (2002) Revisi on de los conceptos de alfabetizaci on informacional y alfabetizacion digital.
Anales de Documentaci on 5: 361–408.
Bawden D (2008) Origins and concepts of digital literacies In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital
Literacies: Concepts, Policies & Practices (pp. 17–32). New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Braslavsky B (2004) >Primeras Letras o Primeras Lecturas? Una Introducci on a la Alfabetizacion
Temprana. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Econ omica.
Buckingham D (2011) Media Literacy: New Directions or Losing Our Way? Manifesto for Media
Education Symposium. London: Royal Institute of British Architects.
Cabero Almenara J and Llorente Cejudo MC (2008) La alfabetizaci on digital de los alumnos.
Competencias digitales para el siglo XXI. Revista portuguesa de pedagogıa 42(2): 7–28. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.14195/1647-8614_42-2_1.
Chartier AM and Rockwell E (2013) Histoire comparee des outils et debats sur la lecture des
debutants: alphabetisation vs literacy. Introduction. Histoire de L’
education 138: 5–16.
Chase Z and Laufenberg D (2011) Embracing the Squishiness of Digital Literacy. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54(7): 535–537.
Dewey J (1995) Democracia y Educaci on. Madrid: Morata.
Dussel I, Ferrante P and Sefton-Green J (2013) Changing narratives of change: Unintended conse-
quences of educational technology reform in Argentina. In: Selwyn N and Facer K (eds) The
Politics of Education and Technology. London: Palgrave-MacMillan, pp. 127–145.
Dussel I and Southwell M (2009) La escuela y las nuevas alfabetizaciones. El Monitor 13: 26-32.
Engen BK, Giæver TH and Mifsud L (2015) Guidelines and regulations for teaching digital competence
in schools and teacher education: A weak link? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 10(2): 69–83.
Erstad O, Gilje Ø and De Lange T (2007) Re-mixing Multimodal Resources: multiliteracies and
Digital Production in Norwegian Media Education. Learning, Media and Technology 32(2):
183–198.
Erstad O (2010b) Weaving the context of digital literacy. In: Ludvigsen S Lund A Rasmussen I & S€alj€ o
R (Eds.) Learning Across Sites - new tools infrastructures and practices. London: Routledge.
Erstad O (2010a) Educating the Digital Generation. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 5(1): 56.
Retrieved from http://www.idunn.no/dk/2010/01/art05
Ferres J and Piscitelli A (2012) Media Competence. Articulated Proposal of Dimensions and
Indicators. Comunicar 19(38): 75–82.
Freire P (1977) Pedagogıa Del Oprimido. Madrid: Siglo Veintiuno.
458 E-Learning and Digital Media 17(6)

Gee J, Lankshear C and Hull G (1996) The new work order: Behind the language of the new capitalism.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Gilster P (1997) Digital Literacy. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gough D, Oliver S and Thomas J (2012) An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. Thousand Oaks:
SAGE.
Grant M and Booth A (2009) A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated
methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal 26(2): 91–108.
Gros Salvat B and Contreras D (2006) La alfabetizaci on digital y el desarrollo de competencias ciuda-
danas. Revista Iberoamericana de Educaci on (42): 103.
Gutierrez Martın A (2003) Alfabetizaci on digital. Algo más que ratones y teclas. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Gutierrez-Martın A and Tyner K (2012) Media Education, Media Literacy and Digital Competence.
Comunicar 19(38): 31–39.
Hatlevik OE and Christophersen K-A (2013) Digital Competence at the Beginning of Upper
Secondary School: Identifying Factors Explaining Digital Inclusion. Computers & Education 63:
240–247.
Jones RH and Hafner CA (2012) Understanding Digital Literacies: A Practical Introduction. London
and New York: Routledge.
Kalantzis M and Cope B (1997) Multiliteracies: Rethinking what We Mean by Literacy and what We
Teach as Literacy the Context of Global Cultural Diversity and New Communications Technologies.
Leicestershire: Centre for Workplace Communication and Culture.
Kellner D and Share J (2005) Toward critical media literacy: Core concepts, debates, organizations
and policy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 26(3): 369–386.
Kress G (2005) El Alfabetismo en la Era de Los Nuevos Medios de Comunicaci on. Granada: Ediciones
El Aljibe-Ense~ nanza Abierta de Andalucıa.
Kress G and van Leeuwen T (2001) Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary
Communication. London: Arnold.
Krumsvik RJ (2014) Teacher Educators’ Digital Competence. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research 58(3): 269–280.
Krumsvik RJ (2011) Digital Competence in the Norweigan Teacher Education. H€ ogre Utbildning 1(1):
39
Krumsvik RJ (2008) Situated Learning and Teachers’ Digital Competence. Education and Information
Technologies 13(4): 279–290.
Lankshear C and Knobel M (2008) Introduction. Digital Literacies – Concepts, Policies and Practices.
Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Lave J and Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Livingstone S and Sefton-Green J (2016) The Class: Living and Learning in the Digital Age. New York:
New York University Press.
Martin A (2005) DigEuLit – a European Framework for Digital Literacy: A Progress Report. Journal
of ELiteracy 2: 130.
Masterman L (1985) Teaching the media. London: Comedia.
Media Smarts (2010) The Intersection of Digital and Media Literacy. Ottawa: Canada’s Centre for Media
and Digital Literacy. Available at: https://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy/general-information/
digital-media-literacy-fundamentals/intersection-digital-media-literacy (accessed 16 July 2020).
Moll LC, Amanti C, Neff D, et al. (1992) Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative
Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms. Theory into Practice 31(2): 132–141.
O’Brien D and Scharber C (2008) Digital Literacies Go to School: Potholes and Possibilities. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 52(1): 66–68.
Pangrazio L (2016) Reconceptualising Critical Digital Literacy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural
Politics of Education 37(2): 163–174.
Pangrazio et al. 459

Pangrazio L (2019) Young People’s Literacies in the Digital Age: Continuities, Conflicts and
Contradictions Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Pearce KE (2013) Phoning it in: Theory in mobile media and communication in developing countries.
Mobile Media & Communication 1(1): 76–82.
Piaget J (1981) La teorıa de piaget. Infancia y Aprendizaje 4(sup2): 13–54.
Pool CR (1997) A new digital literacy. Educational Leadership 55(3): 6–11.
S€alj€
o R (2012) Literacy, digital literacy and epistemic practices: The co-evolution of hybrid minds and
external memory systems. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 7(1): 5–19.
Sefton-Green J, Marsh J, Erstad O, et al. (2016) Establishing a Research Agenda for the Digital
Literacy Practices of Young Children: A White Paper for COST Action IS1410. Available at:
http://digilitey.eu (accessed 16 July 2020).
Sefton-Green J, Nixon H and Erstad O (2009) Reviewing approaches and perspectives on digital
literacy. Pedagogies: An International Journal 4(2): 107–125.
Søby M (2013) Learning to be: Developing and understanding digital competence. Nordic Journal of
Digital Literacy 8(3): 134–148.
Tamborg A L, Dreyoe J and Skov Fougt S (2018) Digital literacy – A qualitative systematic review.
Tidsskriftet Læring og Medier (LOM) 11(19): 29.
Tuominen K, Savolainen R and Talja S (2005) Information Literacy as a Sociotechnical Practice. The
Library Quarterly 75(3): 329–345.
Voogt J, Erstad O, Dede C, et al. (2013) Challenges to Learning and Schooling in the Digital
Networked World of the 21st Century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 29(5): 403–413.
DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12029
Vygotsky L S (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Wenger E (1998) Communities of Practice: learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Author Biographies
Luci Pangrazio is an Alfred Deakin postdoctoral research fellow at Deakin University
(Australia) focusing on critical literacies and the changing nature of digital texts. Her
research studies personal data and privacy, the politics of digital platforms, the gig economy
and young people’s critical understandings of digital media.

Anna-Lena Godhe holds a PhD in Applied Information Technology and is currently work-
ing as an associate professor in Educational Science at Malm€ o University. Her research
interests revolves around the use of digital technologies within language education.

Alejo González Lopez Ledesma holds an MA in Educational Technology and is a PhD

candidate in the Education program at Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA). He currently
is a doctoral fellow at CONICET, the Argentinean national research council, and
Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento. He develops his research in the areas of digital
literacy and Language and Literature teacher training. At present he holds a teaching posi-
tion at Universidad Pedagogica Nacional.