D.1.2. Reconsidering digital skills - VUB · Reconsidering!digital!skills! ......

Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Reconsidering digital skills: A theoretical questioning of the skills that define e-inclusionIordache, Catalina; Baelden, Dorien; Marien, Ilse

DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.3229.4007

Publication date:2016

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):Iordache, C., Baelden, D., & Marien, I. (2016). Reconsidering digital skills: A theoretical questioning of the skillsthat define e-inclusion. Brussels: Belgian Science Policy. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3229.4007

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portalTake down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Download date: 30. Jul. 2021

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3229.4007

https://cris.vub.be/portal/en/publications/reconsidering-digital-skills-a-theoretical-questioning-of-the-skills-that-define-einclusion(c1a78a18-ffb0-4033-b909-c3c64e551582).html

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3229.4007

Iordache, Catalina; Baelden, Dorien; Mariën, Ilse

iMinds SMIT Vrije Universiteit Brussel

13/04/2016

IDEALiC Deliverable D.1.2.

T (NL) +32 2 629 16 14 T (FR) +32 81 72 51 22 Website www.idealic.be Email [email protected] Twitter idealic_be

Reconsidering digital skills A theoretical questioning of the skills that define e-‐inclusion

© IDEALiC – Powered by BELSPO – iMinds-‐SMIT Vrije Universiteit Brussel – Centre de recherché Travail & Technologies de la Fondation Travail-‐Université

2

The research pertaining to these results received financial aid from the Federal Science Policy according to the agreement of subsidy no. BR/143/A5/IDEALiC

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-‐Non Commercial License, which means that this work, or a derivative of it, may be copied, distributed, and displayed only if the correct credits

are provided (i.e. author(s) name(s), names of collaborating institutions, title of the work, URL if applicable, and link to the CC-‐BY-‐NC license) and only for non-‐commercial purposes.


3

1. Table of contents

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. 3

2. ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... 4

3. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 5

4. PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES AS ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF DIGITAL LITERACY ........ 6 4.1. AUTONOMY ................................................................................................................................. 7 4.1.1. ACCESS ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 4.1.2. SUPPORT NETWORKS ............................................................................................................................... 8 4.1.3. GROUPS AT RISK ........................................................................................................................................ 9 4.1.4. AUTONOMY IN DECISION-‐MAKING ......................................................................................................... 9 4.1.5. AUTONOMY IN ACTING ON SELF-‐SELECTED CHOICES ...................................................................... 10 4.2. SELF-‐DETERMINATION ............................................................................................................ 10 4.3. SELF-‐EFFICACY ......................................................................................................................... 11 4.4. PROBLEM-‐SOLVING ................................................................................................................. 13 4.5. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 14

5. ANALYSING DIGITAL LITERACY MODELS ...................................................................... 16 5.1. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS .......................................................................................... 16 5.2. FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................. 18 5.2.1. DIGITAL SKILLS AND COMPETENCES .................................................................................................. 18 5.2.2. FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF DIGITAL LITERACY ..................................... 23

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 28

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 29

8. ANNEX 1 – MATRIX ................................................................................................................ 35

9. ANNEX 2 – INDICATORS ....................................................................................................... 36


4

2. Abstract

This deliverable D.1.2. ‘Reconsidering digital skills: a theoretical questioning of skills that define e-‐inclusion’ entails a theoretical review of scientific literature that focuses on conceptualizing and measuring digital skills. Although digital skills such as information literacy, strategic skills, button knowledge etc. are commonly considered as key skills to fully participate to social and professional life, empirical research that studies to what extent digital skills impact life outcomes remains scarce. Therefore, this literature review will concentrate on this under-‐researched area and will investigate how digital competences are related to other transversal skills – i.e. problem solving skills, self-‐efficacy and determination, autonomy – also considered as crucial in our contemporary society. The literature review will question the added value of these transversal skills and explain if, how and why they should be developed.

The first part of this deliverable entails a theoretical exploration of the notions of autonomy, self-‐determination, self-‐efficacy, and problem-‐solving and examines to what extent these personal attributes are relevant for the discussion on digital skills and digital exclusion. The second part aims at examining to what extent these notions are integrated into existing models on digital skills. These models usually aim at describing, promoting and/or measuring the digital skills and underlying competences that are needed to become digitally skilled. A quick-‐scan analysis was employed in order to analyse 13 digital skills models and the digital skills they promote, which were translated into a series of indicators. The models selected for this study were identified through an extensive review of academic literature, scientific publications, and institutional reports and studies.


5

3. Introduction

The ongoing digitization of services – both public and private – has led to an increased risk amongst the general population of being or becoming digitally excluded (van Dijk, 2005; Helsper, 2008; Mariën et al., 2013). The so-‐called digital turn is posing a threat to all individuals who do not have the necessary skills to handle the digitization of the various life domains (Helsper, 2011). Recent studies have shown that the socio-‐economic background of individuals no longer solely defines digital exclusion, and also that mechanisms of digital exclusion go beyond socio-‐economic vulnerable groups (Brotcorne et al., 2009; Schurmans & Mariën, 2013). Moreover, research by experts in the field such as van Deursen and van Dijk (2014), emphasizes that digital skills, and the ability to make use of digital media in an autonomous and strategic way, are of increasing importance to ensure one’s full societal participation. This move towards strategic goals and added value gained through the use of digital media is also visible at the level of e-‐inclusion policies that have shifted from the mere provision of physical access to broader societal goals such as empowerment, inclusion, and participation (Zillien & Hargittai, 2009; Witte & Mannon, 2010; Steyn & Johanson, 2011; Mariën & Prodnik, 2015).

The IDEALiC project aims to address these issues by setting the future scene of e-‐inclusion for the upcoming years. The central research question of the IDEALiC project is how e-‐inclusion policies and initiatives can provide solutions for the mechanisms of digital exclusion that coincide with the digital turn. Regarding theory, the IDEALiC project aims to reach updated insights on the crucial aspects that define the autonomous and hence, independent use of digital media, by studying factors such as problem solving skills, soft skills, or autonomy in the learning process, in relation to existing frameworks for digital skills. An underlying hypothesis of the IDEALiC proposal is that, in today’s digital society, autonomy leads to empowerment while a lack of autonomy leads to vulnerability.

This deliverable D.1.2. ‘Reconsidering digital skills: a theoretical questioning of skills that define e-‐inclusion’ entails a theoretical review of scientific literature that focuses on conceptualizing and measuring digital skills. Although digital skills such as information literacy, strategic skills, button knowledge etc. are commonly considered to be key skills in order to fully participate in social and professional life, empirical research that studies to what extent digital skills impact life outcomes remains scarce. Therefore, this literature review will concentrate on this under-‐researched area and will investigate how digital skills and competences are related to other transversal skills – i.e. problem solving skills, autonomy – also considered crucial in our contemporary society. The literature review will question the added value of these transversal skills and explain if, how, and why they should be developed.

Priority was given to literature that encompasses conceptual frameworks for digital skills, with an emphasis on most recently identified crucial aspects as autonomy, self-‐efficacy, soft skills, or problem solving capabilities. More concretely, this literature review has prioritised articles and reports that are reviewing past and current research, comparing research results from different disciplines, assessing empirical research methods, indicating new research directions and needs for improved knowledge. Moreover, the literature review was based on a diversified selection of scientific literature, regarding physical form – e.g articles, books, policy and research reports


6

– and regarding type of discipline – e.g. communication studies, sociology, anthropology, policy studies.

The aim of the deliverable is twofold: (1) to demonstrate the added value of these personal attributes for the development of digital skills and competences, and (2) to examine to what extent they already are part of existing digital skills models that were developed to describe, promote, and measure digital skills and competences. The second aim is based on the hypothesis that these types of skills are not considered in established digital skills models, or, if they are, they represent a recent addition. In the context of these models, we discuss both skills and competences, as ‘competence’ has been defined as the ability to apply knowledge and skills to different contexts, such as work, leisure, or learning (Ala-‐Mutka, 2011:18).

The first part of this deliverable entails a theoretical exploration of the notions of soft skills, autonomy, self-‐determination, self-‐efficacy and problem-‐solving and examines to what extent these notions are relevant for digital skills and digital exclusion. The second part aims to examine to what extent these notions are integrated into existing models on digital skills. These models usually aim to describe, promote and/or measure the digital skills and underlying competences that are needed to become digitally skilled. A quick-‐scan analysis was employed in order to analyse 13 digital skills models and the digital skills they promote, which were translated into a series of indicators. The models selected for this study were identified through an extensive review of academic literature, scientific publications, and institutional reports and studies. The quick-‐scan analysis of the 13 selected digital skills models resulted in a matrix that contains 81 indicators (Annex 1). For each indicator a definition was provided (see Annex 2).

4. Personal attributes as essential elements of digital literacy

Recent research and policy discussions highlight the need for new skills for working, learning, and participating in a society that is increasingly knowledge and service oriented. Transversal skills are particularly important, as is the ability to adapt, be innovative, and autonomous in the changing personal and professional environments. In this context, the EU “New Skills for New Jobs” initiative notes that ‘there is a growing demand from employers for transversal and cross-cutting skills, such as problem-solving and analytical skills, self-management and communication skills, linguistic skills, and more generally, "non-routine skills"’ (European Commission, 2008b in Ala-Mutka, 2011:39). These transversal skills are increasingly being recognized as essential in order to ‘encourage initiative rather than simple reproduction of received knowledge’ (European Union, 2010:5).

In line with this reasoning, and as previously mentioned, we believe that personal attributes are important components in the development of digital skills. Digital skills and underlying competences are necessary to fully participate in an increasingly digitized world. However, these also change rapidly nowadays, as a result of the fast-paced introductions of technological innovations in society (Van Deursen et al., 2011). The reproduction of previously acquired digital skills and underlying competences is


7

therefore not always sufficient. In contrast, people should be able to autonomously take initiative to decide upon which digital skills are needed and how they will acquire those skills if they want to ensure their social, economic, cultural and political participation in today’s digitized society. But what does it mean to take initiative? According to the Cambridge Online Dictionary an initiative can be defined as ‘a new plan or process to achieve something or to solve a problem’ and as the ‘ability to use your judgment to make decisions and do things without needing to be told what to do’ (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/). In other words, taking an initiative requires having the personal and strategic skills that enable you to actively take your life into your own hands, to autonomously solve problems and to believe in your personal judgments to make decisions in order to achieve these things.

A number of theoretical concepts that are closely related to this interpretation are (1) autonomy, (2) self-determination, (3) self-efficacy, and (4) problem-solving. These concepts, or personal attributes, are not new and have been discussed elaborately in psychological and behavioural sciences since the 1970s and 1980s (see for instance Bandura, 1977; Deci and Ryan, 1985; D'Zurilla and Goldfried, 1971). The sections below examine how they can be relevant for the discussion on digital skills.

4.1. Autonomy

The Oxford Dictionary defines autonomy as freedom from external control or influence; independence (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com). The term has been used in a number of disciplines, either in relation to autonomous behaviour, autonomous development, or autonomous learning. In education, and particularly in language learning, autonomy has been described both as an attitude towards learning, and a capacity for independent learning (Dickinson, 1995:167). To demonstrate the former, independent or autonomous learners have been found to be more active in the learning process; they can identify and formulate their own goals, as well as tailor them to their own learning needs and interests (Wang and Peverly, 1986). As for the latter, this has been associated with detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, responsibility, and independent action (Dickinson, 1995; Little, 1991).

Autonomous learners clearly have a number of advantages compared to learners who require more assistance. It is therefore interesting to investigate which aspects support or hinder technology users in their process of autonomously acquiring digital skills and competences.

In the literature on digital skills, two main categories can be identified: (1) autonomous and unrestricted access to and use of digital tools, and (2) autonomy in decision-making and in acting on self-selected choices. These can be discussed under several aspects, as follows:


8

4.1.1. Access

Autonomous and unrestricted access to and use of digital tools can influence the development of digital skills and underlying competences in a number of ways. Research has shown that the freedom to access and use technology when and where one wishes to has a highly significant, positive impact on the use of digital tools and the development of digital skills (Hargittai, 2003). The question of access itself can be looked at from a number of angles. There is, of course, the matter of basic access to hardware and software; but there is also the matter of unrestricted access in terms of time, as well as unrestricted access to certain software or online channels and communities. Finally, there is the issue of quality of access. Although these elements are essentially interlinked, it is instrumental to consider the implications of each with regards to the possibilities for using digital tools, and how these can support the development of digital skills.

More points of access and better quality not only strongly influence basic operational skills, but also communication and content-creation skills, as they give users more control over the production process and support them in producing more content (Schradie, 2011 in Van Dijk and Van Deursen, 2014:82). In addition, Hassani (2006) has conducted research which clearly shows that those with more access points to the Internet ‘are more likely to engage in capital-enhancing online activities such as health-information seeking and online banking compared with those who have fewer locations at which they can use the Web’ (Hargittai, 2010:96). Individuals who can only use the Internet at school, in libraries, with friends, or in Internet cafés have less time to practice and experiment (Van Deursen and Van Dijk, 2011). Access restrictions usually result in a very targeted approach to using the Internet as users are often only concerned with achieving specific goals, such as doing homework or searching for information, thus limiting their exploration and experimentation with the technology (Eynon and Geniets, 2015). However, elements of play and experimentation can be of great importance: ‘What a person can accomplish with an outdated machine in a public library with mandatory filtering software and no opportunity for storage or transmission pales in comparison to what [a] person can accomplish with a home computer with unfettered Internet access, high band-width, and continuous connectivity’ (Jenkins, 2006:13). Moreover, mandatory filtering of certain media sites (i.e. social networking sites, downloading and streaming sites…) in public access points, such as in schools and libraries, keeps users from collaborating online or joining important types of social media (Hobbs, 2010).

4.1.2. Support networks

Autonomous use is not only influenced by access but also by the encouragement and support of users’ social networks, made up of family, teachers, and friends (Hobbs, 2010). Social context and the amount of social support to which a user has access can thus prove instrumental in the uptake and further individual usage of digital tools (Van Dijk and Van Deursen, 2014), providing both technical instruction and demonstration,


9

but also moral support and encouragement, in a natural, fast, and convenient manner (Van Dijk, 2005). However, research conducted by Eynon and Geniets (2015) among teenagers partly contradicts this. Their results show that the element of autonomy may be lost in the process of social support, as peers may completely take over digital tasks instead of supporting their friends’ or colleagues’ autonomous use: ‘in some cases (…) peers seem to actually stymie the skill development of our participants by doing tasks on their behalf’ (Eynon and Geniets, 2015:12).

4.1.3. Groups at risk

Users with different levels of physical and mental well-being are particularly challenged when it comes to autonomously accessing and using digital tools. With regard to access, the limited availability of tools and equipment adapted to these different levels represents a key barrier towards digital autonomy. Users with physical or mental disabilities are far less likely to have autonomous access to the Internet or possess the skills needed to autonomously use it compared to non-disabled people (Thoreau, 2006 in Van Deursen, 2010). According to Van Dijk and Van Deursen (2014:65), studies have shown that psychomotor difficulties of the elderly also affect the use of computer input devices such as the mouse and the keyboard, while impaired vision affects their use of computers and the Internet.

Organisations for the disabled have increasingly been calling for adjustments in hardware and software that will enable people with visual, hearing or mobility impairments to gain online access (Goggin & Newell, 2003 in Van Deursen, 2010). Adapted tools would not only ensure a more autonomous user access to the digital environment, but it would also be an important step towards gaining the necessary confidence for autonomous use. In this regard, students with disabilities have demonstrated passive behaviour as a result of following highly structured educational programmes where they lack control and perceive themselves as incapable of academic success (Walker and Bensen, 1995 in Fiedler and Danneker, 2007:2). This structured support from teachers can be of enhanced benefit to students but only as long as it allows them to experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Reeve, 2006 in Fiedler and Danneker, 2007:2). The same type of guidance would also benefit the development of digital skills, where support offered at school or in the family should aim to instil confidence in users, and help them achieve autonomy in digital use.

4.1.4. Autonomy in decision-‐making

Autonomy in decision-making has been identified as relevant towards reaching strategic skills, as ‘One must always be conscious of one’s own objectives (nobody else will do it for you) and strive towards them in order to get the most benefit from the internet. This means having the interest and perseverance to search for the best digital tools and media for one’s tasks, keeping one’s goals clear, and also adapting to and reflecting new circumstances when necessary, in the continuously changing technical environments and social practices for their usage’ (Ala-Mutka 2011:52). The notion of autonomy in decision-making can also be discussed in correlation to playful activities, as


10

these can help users develop imagination, creativity, and decision-making skills, supporting reflective thinking about their own choices and their consequences (Hobbs, 2010:2).

4.1.5. Autonomy in acting on self-‐selected choices

The second indicator, autonomy in acting on self-selected choices, is closely related to the previous, but focuses on the opportunities that users take towards an identified goal, and volition – the faculty and power of using their will. When discussed in an educational setting, student autonomy increases as teachers provide choice and acknowledge feelings (Reeve, 2006 in Fiedler and Danneker, 2007:2), while positive feedback can result in confidence and motivation: it shows students they are successful due to their own efforts (Fiedler and Danneker, 2007:2).

This indicator was also discussed as relevant to building collaborations: ‘self-organising communities provide opportunities to collaborative knowledge construction on almost any topic, but benefiting from it requires skills for personal reflection and autonomy together with collaboration skills. If no suitable opportunities are found, an active learner can set up a new group of its own in order to explore the topic and share ideas’ (Ala-Mutka, 2011:42).

4.2. Self-‐determination

The term self-determination is defined in the Oxford dictionary as the process by which people control their own life (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com). Along these lines, specialised literature describes it as the ability to define and achieve goals based on a foundation of knowing and valuing oneself (Cross, Cooke, Wood and Test, 1999 in Fiedler and Danneker, 2007:3). Research in education portrays students who are self-determined as ‘those who know who they are, what they want, and how to achieve their goals’ (Hong et al., 2011:175). Self-determination has been extensively studied in social psychology theories of human motivation (Deci and Ryan, 1985), such as in the Self-Determination Theory (SDT), according to which there are at least three universal psychological needs that are essential for optimal development and functioning: competence (to be effective), autonomy (to have choice and control over one’s life), and relatedness (to feel connected to others, loved and cared for) (Arnone et al., 2009:117; Deci and Ryan, 2012). Other research within the fields of psychology and sociology – in particular studies on minorities, groups at risk of exclusion, and people with both physical and mental disabilities – have linked self-determination to notions of self-advocacy, self-empowerment, and self-development (see Goodley, 1997, 2005; Skelton and Moore, 1999; Sprague and Hayes, 2000; Washington et al., 2012), emphasising the importance of self-determination for personal development and empowerment for people in vulnerable social and professional groups. Fiedler and Danneker (2007:3) have also identified a series of common characteristics in existing definitions of self-determination and self-advocacy (Test et al., 2005), such as the importance of self-knowledge,


11

identifying one’s own likes, dislikes, wants, needs, strengths and limitations; individuals’ need for autonomy and control in decision making on personal matters; and the importance of having opportunities to express one’s needs and interests.

In the context of learning, self-determination can be approached as a ‘combination of skills, knowledge, and beliefs that enable a person to engage in goal-directed, self-regulated, autonomous behaviour’ (Field et al., 1998:2). In the case of digital skills, this would mean that knowledge and skills alone are not sufficient for the development of a comprehensive set of digital competences. Instead, a series of psychological and personal factors – such as self-determination, autonomy, intrinsic motivation, perceived confidence – influence both the learning process and the extent to which individuals are able to define which digital skills and tools they need in order to reach their personal and/or professional goals. Eisenman et al. (2005) claim that students who possess self-determination skills are more confident, and reflect more on their strengths and educational needs; to this end, they are more likely to achieve professional success and participate in social interactions. When applying the Self-Determination Theory to a study on perceived competence and reading enjoyment as contributors to information skills and digital technology knowledge, Arnone et al. (2009) have found that an inherent need for competence, autonomy to take responsibility towards fulfilling this need, and relatedness, in the form of connecting with others, feeling loved and cared for, are all elements which can support building motivation and confidence in one’s digital skills and knowledge.

In order for individuals to develop self-determination, a set of opportunities is required, in the form of underpinning competences and socio-economic factors (Fiedler and Danneker, 2007). To this end, youth from higher socio-economic backgrounds was found to be ‘naturally’ superior in their use of technology, due to the resources and assistance they have access to at home, thus further amplifying self-confidence in their knowledge, and their autonomy in digital usage at school, as they do not need to rely on teachers and peers to make up for a lack of experience at home (Jenkins, 2006:14).

4.3. Self-‐efficacy

The concept of self-efficacy derives from ‘efficacy’, defined as the ability to produce a desired or intended result (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com). Self-efficacy has been discussed extensively in social psychology literature as an individual's belief in his or her capacity to execute behaviours necessary to produce specific performance attainments (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997). It reflects confidence in the ability to exert control over one’s own motivation, behaviour, and social environment, and to succeed in a particular situation (Blades et al., 2012). Self-efficacy determines the goals people set for themselves, how much work they put into achieving them, and how long they persevere in the face of obstacles or failures (Bandura, 1993). Educational psychology discusses ‘perceived self-efficacy’, where the belief individuals have in their own skills can be as important to academic achievement as their actual skills (Bandura, 1993; Livingstone


12

and Helsper, 2009). The term has also been discussed in the context of ‘computer self-efficacy’ and ‘IT self-efficacy’, referring to individuals’ beliefs about their abilities to competently use computers (Compeau and Higgins, 1995; Joshi et al., 2010). Bandura (1977) claims that performance improves as long as levels of anxiety lower and experience increases. Meier (1985) applied this theory to computer-based learning and confirmed that high levels of computer anxiety reduce the levels of self-efficacy, and this has a negative impact on user performance; in contrast, experience with computers improves performance and leads to higher self-efficacy (McInerney et al., 1994 in Brosnan 1998: 225).

Digital competence, discussed as a set of digital knowledge, skills and attitudes, ‘aligns best with the concept of personal competence in self-efficacy theory and is therefore an antecedent of digital self-efficacy’ (De George-Walker and Tyler, 2014:208). Self-efficacy can be thus linked to the discussion on digital competence, as perceived digital self-efficacy can support the learning of new digital skills, the motivation to take up a new digital service, and the confidence to make use of digital tools. As previously discussed, it can help build the belief in one’s operational skills, but also support the development of strategic skills, when focused on achievements. Scholars claim that the concept directly affects the development of digital competences as people with weak self-efficacy beliefs will demonstrate low levels of confidence in their ability to use digital tools, dissatisfaction with their Internet skills, or uneasiness to use the Internet. Moreover, they will be less likely to adopt and use the Internet than individuals with high levels of self-efficacy (Eastin & Larose, 2000 in Van Deursen, 2010:150).

Self-efficacy has been described both as a product and a constructor of experiences, as it incorporates a feedback loop where performance and its consequences become new sources of efficacy information (De George-Walker and Tyler, 2014:204). Confidence in one’s efficacy, through imagination and perseverance, can determine individuals to exercise more control, even when they encounter constraints, or have access to limited opportunities (Bandura, 1993:125). Therefore, the term has been used as a measure of overall confidence in digital inclusion studies, where high digital self-efficacy has been identified as a strong predictor of critical, social and creative engagement with digital content (Helsper and Eynon, 2013: 12). Studies have shown that older adults with higher technology self-efficacy were more likely to become Internet users, engage with social media, and adopt computer technology in general, as opposed to those with lower levels of confidence (De George-Walker and Tyler, 2014).

However, research has also shown the opposite to be true. For instance, the stereotype threat – the salience of negative stereotypes about one’s identity group in a performance domain (Kvasny et al., 2011:509) – that is often present in minority groups may have a negative impact on the beliefs in the ability to carry out tasks and engage in certain activities, which can result in a restricted use of digital tools: ‘It appears that having access to racial and ethnic identity-relevant information has important implications for users’ confidence in being able to seek, find, and interact with web-based information’. Indicators such as gender, race-ethnicity, disability or health status are already believed


13

to be linked to poor ICT skills, for example women having lower operational and formal skills than men (Helsper and Eynon 2013). In this context, these indicators have also been closely linked to the formation of self-efficacy, thus negatively influencing the formulation of interests, choice, actions and goals (Lent et al., 2002 in Koumoundourou et al. 2012:270).

Self-efficacy has also been used as a measure for digital skills through self-assessment, with a focus on assessing the perceived level of competence of users. However, it has been suggested that self-efficacy measures confidence learned through socialisation, rather than reflecting actual skills (Bandura, 1982). The theory supports criticism regarding the use of self-efficacy as a proxy for digital skills (Hargittai, 2005; Livingstone and Helsper, 2009), as scholars have suggested that the self-assessment of skills has problems of validity and is a poor predictor of performance (Van Deursen, 2010). To this end, research has shown that males and the young tend to overrate their performance while women and the elderly tend to underrate it (Hargittai and Shafer, 2006), the measurement thus reflecting the respondents’ level of confidence in their skills, rather than their actual knowledge and use.

The same theory regarding confidence through socialisation has led Helsper and Eynon (2013) to draw a strong connection between self-efficacy and social media engagement. They suggest that general confidence in Internet skills could even be more important than actual skills because it stimulates users to get involved in more complex forms of online engagement, thus encouraging digital communication and collaboration with peers.

In the literature, the development of self-efficacy has also been discussed in direct connection to digital access: more access locations, a better quality of access, and a higher duration of online use have been found to encourage exploration and learning, and could potentially increase users’ digital confidence, self-efficacy and, as mentioned earlier, autonomy of use (Helsper, 2007; Livingstone and Helsper, 2009).

4.4. Problem-‐solving

Problem-solving has been defined as the process of finding solutions to difficult or complex issues (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com), but may also include ‘the ability to identify problems’ (Blades et al. 2012:12). The concept is discussed in the field of psychology as a behavioural process that provides a variety of responses for dealing with a situation, and that increases the probability of selecting the most effective solution among the alternatives identified. Research on the process has identified five stages of problem-solving: (a) general orientation, (b) problem definition and formulation, (c) generation of alternatives, (d) decision making, and (e) verification (D'Zurilla and Goldfried, 1971). Similarly, problem-solving has been defined in the educational field as ‘the processes used to obtain a best answer to an unknown, or a decision subject to some constraints’ (Woods et al., 1997:75). Cognitive-social problem-solving skills and


14

strategies have been assessed as part of programmes aimed at enhancing prosocial development in school children, with a focus on interpersonal sensitivity, consideration of others’ needs, and means-end thinking (Battistich et al., 1989). Programmes for developing students’ problem-solving skills have also been researched, implemented, and evaluated at higher education level (Woods et al., 1997).

In the literature on digital skills, problem-solving is believed to have a positive impact on a number of levels. First, problem-solving skills can assist users in deciding which digital tools are appropriate to reach their goals. Second, a problem-solving attitude can enhance users’ abilities to use digital tools to solve conceptual problems. Third, problem-solving attitudes and skills can also assist users in addressing technical problems. In a report by the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies, one of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centres, Ferrari (2013) proposes a framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. In this framework, problem-solving is described as one of the 6 key areas of digital competence. According to this report, problem-solving can be summarised as follows: ‘Identify digital needs and resources, make informed decisions on most appropriate digital tools according to the purpose or need, solve conceptual problems through digital means, creatively use technologies, solve technical problems, update own and other's competence’ (Ferrari, 2013: 32). The concept of problem-solving is then divided into a set of 4 sub-competences, namely (1) solving technical problems, (2) identifying needs and technological responses, (3) innovating and creatively using technology, and (4) identifying digital competence gaps (Ferrari, 2013). In other words, users that posses (digital) problem-solving skills will not only have an advantage on the operational, but also on the strategic level.

4.5. Conclusion

From a conceptual viewpoint, it can be stated that the discussed concepts of autonomy, self-determination, self-efficacy, and problem-solving are highly intertwined. For example, there can be no autonomy without a certain degree of self-determination and self-knowledge. Problem-solving skills in turn are needed to decide upon the various options available and subsequently to enable a self-determined choice. Similarly, self-determination is characterized by having the necessary autonomy and control over one’s life choices.

The overview of how these personal attributes are defined also clearly highlights the importance of confidence. Being self-determined entails high levels of confidence through knowing who you are, what you want, what your strengths and educational/development needs are, and how to achieve your goals. A certain degree of self-efficacy reflects having the necessary confidence and a strong belief in one’s own capabilities. In the digital field, weak self-efficacy beliefs go hand in hand with low levels of confidence in the ability to use digital media and subsequently hamper fruitful interactions with digital media. Also, benefiting from the necessary resources in the


15

home environment – unrestricted and quality access, motivational support, pedagogical assistance, freedom to experiment and be creative in one’s use of digital media – significantly contributes to the development of self-confidence, and enhances the construction of an autonomous use of digital media. High digital self-efficacy – having the personal control, confidence, motivation and perseverance to engage with digital media – is more likely to lead to a critical, social and creative use of digital media. It is suggested that high levels of perceived confidence in one’s own digital skills is more important than having a certain level of digital skills, because confidence encourages a more complex, creative and free engagement with digital media, and thus indirectly enhances the development of digital skills.

The overview additionally reflects a highly personal and goal-oriented interpretation of the discussed personal attributes. At the core of each concept is the individual need or aspiration that subsequently develops into processes of self-reflection and self-development. Lacking the necessary level of autonomy, self-determination or self-efficacy implies not possessing the ability to formulate one’s own interests, choices, actions or goals. Problem-solving however starts from a problematic constraint experienced at a personal level but is, once translated into more concrete characteristics, also linked to the identification of needs and competence gaps.

These observations imply that the need to reflect and identify one’s personal needs and wants, as well as one’s personal competence and skills gaps, represents a crucial first step when considering e-inclusion trainings. Without creating an initial level of consciousness and awareness about one’s personal digital skills level, the following steps towards developing problem-solving skills, autonomy, self-efficacy and self-determination will either be incomplete or will fail altogether. An additional issue that the analysis of the concepts only briefly touches upon, but that has a huge influence on processes of self-determination and self-efficacy, is the inherent need for self-development. If the motivation and the need to improve one’s personal competences and life are not inherently present, developing self-determination and self-efficacy will encounter obstacles that will consequently negatively impact the development of digital skills.

Finally, although the level of digital interaction and participation between users varies, it is important to take into account the different contexts in which they may develop or improve their digital skills. To this end, it is important to take a closer look at how the aforementioned personal attributes can contribute to the development of digital skills, and whether they are already part of existing conceptual models. As discussed above, autonomy, self-efficacy, self-determination, and problem-solving could all influence the construction of a solid foundation for the development of competences, by strengthening users’ confidence, their levels of motivation and self-knowledge, as well as their decision-making processes.


16

5. Analysing digital literacy models

While the first part of this report aimed to investigate how personal attributes and, in particular, skills related to autonomy, self-determination, self-efficacy, and problem-solving are relevant for the development of digital skills, the second part of this report examines to what extent these skills are integrated into existing models on digital skills, aimed at describing, promoting and/or measuring digital skills and competences. The sections below first discuss the research design and methods, followed by the findings from the analysis.

5.1. Research design and methods

The method used in this study is quick-scan analysis. Quick-scan analysis is a systematic but fast method that allows for a cross-case analysis of multiple small case studies, on the basis of a limited set of variables or indicators (Van Audenhove et al., 2015). The small case studies in this research are 13 digital skills models. Each of these digital skills models was analysed via document analysis in order to identify the indicators of digital skills they put forward. Across the 13 digital skills models, a total of 81 different indicators was identified and clustered into a matrix (see Annex 1). For each of these 81 indicators a definition was formulated (see Annex 2). The mapping of these indicators into a single matrix allows for an analysis of similarities and variances between the chosen cases as well as for an identification of the potential reasons behind the differences and similarities. In addition, the single matrix enables the creation of a broad overview of what concepts are put forward by the digital skills field and it facilitates gaining insights into how digital skills models – i.e. the description, promotion and measurement of digital skills and competences – has conceptually evolved over the years.

The 13 digital skills models that were selected for this study were identified by means of an extensive review of academic literature, scientific publications, and institutional reports and studies. This review was carried out through a systematic search in physical and online libraries and article databases for the following key words: ‘digital literacy’, ‘media literacy’, ‘information literacy’, ‘digital skill(s)’, ‘digital competence’, ‘digital framework’, as well as combinations and derivatives of these terms. Priority was given to works that promote their own models, are comprehensive in their discussion of digital skills and underpinning competences, propose methods for measuring digital skills, implement measurement studies, or analyse previous theory and empirical research within the digital skills framework.

While exhaustiveness is not the aim of a quick-scan analysis, a well-chosen purposive sample is. The 13 cases – or digital skills models – were selected on the basis of several criteria. Firstly, the models needed to be consistently referred to and acknowledged in specialised literature. Secondly, models needed to be relevant to the debate on digital skills through their conceptual novelty and their comprehensive


17

analysis of a wide range of digital skills and competences. Thirdly, models should be presented as frameworks, following a certain layered structure of relevant knowledge, skills, and competences. Finally, the models needed to be published between 2004 and 2014. While this time span allowed the prioritization of more recent publications, it still allowed for the identification of evolutions within the models over time.

It should be noted that some of the selected publications are considerably lengthier and more comprehensive than others. It is important to consider that books on the topic (e.g. Van Dijk and Van Deursen, 2014), extensive academic works (e.g. Belshaw, 2011), or institutional reports (e.g. Ala-Mutka, 2011; Hobbs, 2010) discuss the topic in more detail, and thus consider a wider range of indicators, in comparison to more condensed works, such as journal articles (e.g. Calvani et al., 2008; Hargittai, 2007). The availability of more details in the original works obviously leads to a more detailed description in our analysis. In other words, variations in the length and depth of the selected publications are inevitably reflected in the matrix.

As mentioned above, the quick-scan analysis of the 13 selected cases resulted in a matrix that contains 81 indicators (Annex 1). For each indicator a definition was provided (see Annex 2) based on the descriptions found in the publications of the analysed models, and relevant literature in general, as well as online dictionaries. Some models discuss certain concepts under different names than the exact ones used in the matrix, but their definitions are similar to those used in the matrix (e.g. concepts such as computer literacy, technology literacy, ICT literacy are discussed under the indicator ‘knowing and using hardware’). For more clarity, some of these instances are mentioned under the Remarks column in Annex 2.

Table 1: Matrix of digital literacy indicators

Clusters

Digital skills and competences Factors that influence digital skills

Sub-categories

Operational, technical and formal Personal / psychological attributes

Information, cognition Personal / physical well-being

Digital communication Underpinning competences

Digital content creation Economic

Strategic Cultural

Other Social

Political


18

In the matrix, the 81 indicators are divided into two main clusters, each with a number of sub-categories (see table 1). The first cluster represents a number of actual digital skills and competences and consists of 42 indicators divided into 6 sub-categories. The second cluster represents factors that can have an influence on whether or not users become digitally literate and consists of 39 indicators divided into 7 sub-categories.

The personal attributes discussed in the first part of this article – autonomy, self-determination, self-efficacy, and problem-solving – were categorized under both clusters of this matrix, and some of the concepts were discussed under more than one sub-category, as they were found to be relevant for different aspects of digital skills.

Finally, once the matrix was composed, the indicators were analysed. The aim of the analysis was to identify similarities and differences between the 13 cases; evolutions over time; and which elements are well and less well represented in the different cases. It should be noted that while at times numbers are used (e.g. x number of models mention y indicator), the analysis is not a statistical exercise. Numbers are used strictly to indicate variances between models and indicators more clearly.

5.2. Findings

The sections below discuss the main findings of the cross-case analysis. Attention is first given to the indicators that are related to actual skills and competences, followed by a discussion of the indicators that influence the development of digital skills. It must be noted that not all the indicators that were identified and integrated into the matrix are discussed. Priority was given to findings that are most relevant to the purposes of this report. A full overview of the indicators, and the degree to which they are present in the different digital literacy models, can be found in Annex 1. In the discussion of the findings, references will be made to the extent to which indicators are mentioned in the different cases. When indicators are mentioned in more than 11 models, they are present in ‘many or a large amount’ of models. When they are identified by 7 to 10 models, they are part of a ‘fair amount’ of models and when they are mentioned by less than 7 models they are part of ‘some’ models (5-6) or ‘few to very few’ models (less than 5).

5.2.1. Digital skills and competences

The cross-case analysis clearly showed that some indicators related to digital skills and underpinning competences were mentioned quite often in the different digital skills models and that others only received limited attention. The sections below discuss these findings more in depth.

Technical and operational skills, such as knowing and using hardware and software, as well as digital tools and the Internet are at the foundation of virtually all digital skills models. Although many of the frameworks emphasise the fact that technology, or


19

medium-related skills, are not necessarily the central elements, these are nevertheless a primary requirement for further digital use: ‘Content-related skills somehow depend on the medium-related skills because the absence of medium-related skills means that one will not even come to perform the content-related skills’ (Van Deursen, 2010:70). Furthermore, we can also observe a fair amount of attention given to skills related to privacy management and the protection of personal data. Research in the field of privacy has determined a trend that is particularly present in social networking sites (SNSs), where the responsibility is pushed towards the user (De Wolf et al., 2012). In this context, it becomes instrumental for individuals to understand the way their data and personal information is being shared, accessed by others, or used by governments and corporations; and, more importantly, they need to have the necessary skills to protect themselves from disclosing information they may not need, or want to: ‘it is crucial that users understand that those sites (without the appropriate privacy settings and critical skills) can lead to loss of control of personal data, and to having it delivered to third parties for commercial purposes’ (Ala-Mutka, 2011:10).

Information and cognition skills and competences also score high in mentions. The main focus is placed on critical skills – the analysis and evaluation of online information – that are present in all 13 models. Eshet-Alkalai (2004:99) goes as far as claiming that ‘the ability to evaluate and assess information properly has become a ‘survival skill’ for scholars and information consumers’. Several of the analysed frameworks (e.g. Ala-Mutka, 2011; Bawden, 2008; Calvani et al., 2008; Martin and Grudziecki, 2006) integrate elements from Gilster’s model (1997), the first to emphasise that digital skills were ‘about mastering ideas, not keystrokes’ (Bawden, 2008: 13). Many of the models also refer to these competences under the construct of ‘Information literacy’, which mainly incorporates the ability to search, locate, access, as well as disseminate relevant information, thus generally concerned with ‘how data and information in any format and form are managed, using different technological tools’ (UNESCO, 2013:30). Although they are more difficult to acquire, once developed, cognitive skills are not as prone to quick changes as operational, medium-related skills that need to keep up with the rapid and constant development of technical tools (Ala-Mutka, 2011).

In addition to critical skills, digital problem-solving skills are also relatively often mentioned in the analysed models. As previously discussed, problem-solving skills can have a positive effect on the development of digital skills and competences. In the digital skills models, problem-solving skills are defined as the ability to ‘identify digital needs and resources, make informed decisions on most appropriate digital tools according to the purpose or need, solve conceptual problems through digital means, creatively use technologies, solve technical problems, update own and other's competence’ (Ferrari 2013:32). Scholars have also claimed that the focus should not just be placed on autonomous problem-solving, as is currently the case in the educational system, but on collaborative problem-solving – working together in teams to complete tasks and develop new knowledge (e.g. Jenkins, 2006; Van Dijk and Van Deursen, 2014). They also discuss play as a form of problem-solving, as the capacity to experiment with one’s


20

surroundings can help shape children’s relationship to their environment, as well as motivate alternative forms of learning (Jenkins, 2006). In the analysed cases the concept of problem-solving has also been discussed under two other categories, namely under personal and psychological attributes (i.e. problem-solving attitudes) and under underpinning competences (i.e. offline problem-solving skills). These concepts will be discussed later on.

Communication skills are very visible in the frameworks, most authors highlighting skills related to the construction and understanding of messages: ‘To read well, people need to acquire decoding and comprehension skills plus a base of knowledge from which they can interpret new ideas. To write, it is important to understand how words come together to form ideas, claims and arguments and how to design messages to accomplish the goals of informing, entertaining or persuading’ (Hobbs, 2010: 31). Considerable attention is also given to online interaction and collaboration skills. Jenkins (2006) claims a ‘Participatory culture’ is emerging ‘as the culture absorbs and responds to the explosion of new media technologies that make it possible for average consumers to archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate media content in powerful new ways’ (p. 8). Aside from communication skills that are necessary to convey messages and interact with online audiences, the skills to participate in online communities is therefore also important. This indicator was mentioned in a fair amount of digital literacy models and is also related to critical and privacy management skills. When participating in online communities, users need to be able to critically assess the information they consume and distribute.

Netiquette is also regarded as a necessary skill, as users need to know and follow rules on the appropriate and respectful way of communicating with others when using computer networks and the Internet. Belshaw (2011) refers to this type of skill as ‘cultural’ and describes it as a ‘need to understand the various digital contexts an individual may experience, different codes and ways of operating, things that are accepted and encouraged as well as those that are frowned upon and rejected’ (p. 207). It has also been suggested that netiquette is a mode of online behaviour that must be learned in practice, as no formal guidance is available (Van Dijk and Van Deursen, 2014: 34).

When discussing digital content creation, the skills to create and edit new content, construct new knowledge, and produce creative expressions are mentioned in a large amount of models, and seen as necessary for present day social participation, personal expression and professional activity. ‘Creativity with digital tools and media can benefit work, learning or hobbies by providing new and innovative means of carrying out tasks or presenting results. Being open to learn or invent, and to adapt and mould existing ways into new models is necessary’ (Ala-Mutka, 2011: 52).

A fair amount of digital skills models also discusses the integration and remixing of existing content as a relevant element in users’ development of digital competences. Eshet-Alkalai (2004) talks about reproduction literacy, or the ‘art of creative recycling of existing material’ (p. 96), which requires multi-dimensional synthetic thinking and aims to


21

combine existing material in legitimate, original and creative ways. Often linked to this skill is the awareness and management of intellectual property rights (IPR) and licences, an indicator that was mentioned a fair amount of times in the analysed models. As the contemporary digital society is considered as one where personal communication and mass communication are converging (Castells, 2009), literature has highlighted the importance of being aware and respectful of the property rights of others. To this end, not only should users be aware of the existence of these rules regarding existing work, but they should also be able to understand the difference between various types of licencing, as well as correctly apply them to their own digital production (Ferrari, 2013).

The majority of frameworks also discuss the strategic skills of using information in order to reach personal or professional goals. Van Dijk and Van Deursen (2014) consider strategic skills to be the most advanced Internet skills, and claim they should be linked to notions of empowerment and decision-making, where users should be able to orient, decide, and act upon information in computers or retrieved online to reach a particular goal, and eventually derive personal or professional benefits. Strategic skills are built upon the previously discussed types of skills and competences, but are considered a higher stage in achieving educational, professional, and personal goals through the appropriate use of digital means (Martin and Grudziecki, 2006: 265).

At the other end of the spectrum, there are a number of digital skills and competences that have received attention in only few of the analysed models, such as for instance knowledge of where to seek assistance. Knowing were to seek help can however have a positive influence on the uptake of digital tools and on finding further support for learning how to use these tools. Knowing where to find help both online and offline is related to concepts such as autonomy and problem-solving. This knowledge could empower individuals to act independently in the development of their digital skills, to search for information, and to solve problems they may encounter (Mariën, 2016).

Also supporting others in developing digital competence is a skill that is only mentioned in a few of the analysed models. This skill is however important in an environment where technology evolves at a fast pace and where users as a result have to brush-up on their skills on a regular basis. Research has shown that technology users often depend on different support groups to develop skills and competences, outside of the formal education environment (Hobbs, 2010). Family members, teachers, friends, and co-workers all play a part in providing encouragement and hands-on assistance in various contexts (Van Dijk, 2005). Being able to support others in developing their digital competence is therefore an important skill in rapidly changing technological environments.

Managing a digital identity was also discussed by only very few of the analysed models. Nevertheless, digital environments provide an increasing number of opportunities for users to create various ‘public selves’ and use them in different spaces and contexts (Ala-Mutka, 2011: 41). Individuals can participate in a number of online communities using a different identity, avatar, or persona in each space (Belshaw, 2011). Therefore, they must be aware of the information they share when creating these images, and how


22

this is accessed and traced online, in order to protect themselves, but also to ensure an effective and successful communication with others. Closely related to the ability of efficiently and safely managing a digital identity is the awareness of audience, indicator that was also only briefly discussed. Research in the domain of privacy and audience management has defined a series of levels that users should be aware of in their online activity. Firstly, there are the ‘usual’ audiences where matters of interpersonal privacy come into play. Users who are not knowledgeable about the open design of social media run the risk of downplaying the visibility of their online activity (De Wolf and Heyman, 2015). Boyd (2010) claims there are three dynamics caused by SNSs that users should be aware of: context collapse, invisible audiences, and the merging of the public and private spheres. In the socialisation process, people develop different contexts, such as family, friends, and colleagues; however, SNSs make it challenging to clearly differentiate between the three, thus creating difficulties for users to find the appropriate online behaviour for each context. Affordances of social media create invisible audiences, making users unaware of who is able to access their online performance, while boundaries between the private and public sphere are blurred through social media privacy management strategies (Lampinen et al., 2011). Secondly, people should be aware of who their audience is with regards to third parties. Information that people knowingly or unknowingly publish in the online realm may reach ‘silent listeners’ through apps (Stutzman et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2011) or advertisers. Research has shown that users are granted more options to control the information flow towards other users, than to third parties and service providers (Heyman et al., 2014). Users therefore benefit from having sufficient knowledge on the extent to which third parties can access their online data. Thirdly, scholars also discuss algorithmic control, which undermines the users’ power over their online image and communication, leaving the algorithm in charge of aspects of their daily lives (Beer, 2009). Lastly, the matter of online surveillance should also be considered by users, especially in light of recent disclosures regarding state surveillance (Greenwald and MacAskill, 2013), or the manipulation of users for research purposes, as is the case of the ‘Facebook experiment’ (Chambers, 2014).

Finally, the ability to identify digital competence gaps, discussed as a strategic competence, is also mentioned in only a few of the analysed models. However, as digital literacy needs vary according to particular life situations (Martin and Grudziecki, 2006) and change with the introduction of new innovations, the development of digital skills and competences is a lifelong process for which each individual needs to take personal responsibility (Ala-Mutka, 2011: 42). Users must be able to reflect on their level of competence, in order to identify the direction in which they need to further develop, towards reaching personal and professional goals in the current digital age. To this end, the DIGCOMP project proposes a detailed self-assessment grid as a tool for users to describe and understand how to improve their own level of digital competence (see Ferrari, 2013).


23

5.2.2. Factors that influence the development of digital literacy

When discussing factors that influence digital skills notable variances can be found in the attention given to the different indicators.

The cross-case analysis points to a strong focus on (traditional) literacy, as an instrumental underpinning competence for the development of newer ‘literacies’, such as media, information, ICT, or digital literacy (Jenkins, 2006). Defined as a continuum of reading, writing skills, and sometimes also basic arithmetic skills, literacy is seen as an aspect of human rights, closely related to the universal right to education, social development, freedom of expression, and access to information (UNESCO, 2013:25). Media literacy has also been discussed by a fair amount of models. Media literacy can be defined as ‘an ability to deal with information formats ‘pushed’ at the user’ (Bawden, 2008:30). When users have to deal with information ‘pull’, other types of literacy come into play, such as information or digital literacy. Literature has discussed the various types of terms, such as media literacy, digital literacy, e-literacy etc., in close connection. However, no consensus has yet been reached on how exactly they relate to each other, where they overlap and where they may be incorporated by an overarching concept. Therefore, although in this context we discuss media literacy under the ‘underpinning competences’ heading, we take into account the complexity of the relationship between the terms, and refer in particular to the critical skills media literacy puts forward, as relevant to the subsequent development and correct use of digital skills.

A strong focus has also been placed on economic sources, such as education, an element seen as having a positive effect on all skills related to digital literacy (Van Deursen, 2010). Scholars believe that the meaning of digital literacy can change according to various educational settings, from basic to professional training, lifelong learning, or specialised training (Calvani et al., 2008). A lower level of education, often associated with a lower socio-economic status, will not only limit physical access to digital technology, but it will also impact users’ familiarity with, and interest in, developing digital skills (Hargittai, 2007). The higher educated have more chances of owning a computer, having high speed Internet access at home, and spending more time online (Buente and Robbin, 2008 in Van Deursen and Van Dijk, 2011). Studies conducted by Van Deursen et al. (2014) have also confirmed claims that users with higher educational levels were significantly more confident in developing all types of skills. Moreover, it has been highlighted that the formal education setting is relevant for the development of critical analysis, creativity and advocacy skills (Hobbs, 2010), which can bring added value to individuals’ attitude and activity online. Studies have confirmed that highly educated users are more likely to participate in critical types of engagement with the Internet and online social activities, as opposed to individuals with more basic education (Helsper and Eynon, 2013).

In the framework of digital skills, age and generation have always been discussed as relevant indicators. Even as the ‘digital natives’ debate (Prensky, 2001) has been found to lack sound empirical grounding (Bennett et al., 2008), the generation gap is still


24

mentioned by many digital skills models as a factor that influences users’ uptake and use of digital tools: young people grow up with technology at home and in school and get to know the Internet at an early age and are thus more skilled than seniors who lag behind in digital skills and use of the Internet (De Haan and Huysmans, 2002 in Van Deursen and Van Dijk 2011:897). Studies have found age to impact the development of all types of skills: older individuals are less confident and feel less skilled, which influences their interest and use (Helsper and Eynon, 2013:13); they also underperform in their hypermedia navigation and their ability to decode graphic user interfaces (Eshet, 2002). However, nuances in analysing the influence of age have also been considered, as some studies have concluded that different generations may excel in different types of skills. Thus, while the elderly may indeed perform more poorly than younger generations in medium-related skills, such as operational and formal ones (also linked to age-related psychomotor difficulties and impaired eyesight, which affect their use of computer input devices (Van Deursen and Van Dijk, 2014), they have been found to perform better with regards to content-related skills, such as information and strategic skills, as they are more critical in their approach towards online information (Eshet, 2002), and reflect more on their personal and professional goals when making use of digital tools (Van Deursen and Van Dijk, 2014). Even at intragenerational level, older students have shown wider diversity of usage than younger ones, having reported to visiting more types of sites on a weekly basis (Hargittai, 2010:106).

Many models also identify creativity and innovation related skills as factors that influence digital literacy. Web 2.0 Internet applications provide users with plenty of new opportunities to be creative and innovative (UNESCO, 2013:57). Many users are already involved in creative digital expressions, such as digital sampling, skinning and modding, video making, fan fiction, zines, mash-ups etc. (Jenkins, 2006:8). However, with numerous possibilities for remixing existing work, there is ‘a growing challenge regarding the use of reproduction to create original, true, and creative work, both in art and in academia, and [that] opens new horizons for discussion of originality and creativity in the era of reproduction’ (Eshet-Alkalai, 2004:97). In this context, being creative can support users in a more complex usage of their knowledge, and an innovative application of their digital skills, towards producing original work.

Finally, a fair amount of models also recognize offline problem-solving and learning skills as aspects that influence digital skills. Although offline and digital problem-solving skills are closely related, they are discussed separately as possessing problem-solving skills in the offline world can have a positive impact on the development of digital problem solving-skills. In this context, a number of relevant elements related to offline problem-solving and learning skills can be found in psychological and educational studies, namely the ability to find orientation, formulate a problem and choose an appropriate solution, as well as elements of independent learning and personal development. Similarly, a playful, trial and error attitude, discussed as a separate indicator, can also be linked to the concept of problem-solving: ‘Part of what makes play valuable as a mode of problem-solving and learning is that it lowers the emotional stakes of failing:


25

players are encouraged to suspend some of the real world consequences of the represented actions, to take risks and learn through trial and error (Jenkins, 2006:23).

While factors as (media) literacy, age, education, creativity and offline problem-solving and learning skills are mentioned by many of the analysed digital literacy models, there is a notable amount of factors that are only mentioned in a few of the analysed cases. For instance social networks and individual’s social participation and responsibility are mentioned in only a few of the models. Nevertheless, research has shown that social networks can act as support groups, providing users with much needed assistance, motivation, or even access, outside the formal education setting (Hobbs, 2010). Family members, friends, and co-workers can thus be regarded as highly influential of other people’s digital literacy (Van Dijk and Van Deursen, 2014).

Next, employment as an economic factor that influences people’s opportunities to develop digital literacy is only discussed in a few models and only in those that were developed after 2011. Yet, informal learning from the social environment is increasingly popular as a means of acquiring digital skills (Van Dijk, 2005). The working setting is not only a social environment where users can get informal assistance from colleagues; it is also an environment in which users are provided with equipment, high quality access, formal training opportunities, and technical support through a designated department or IT responsible (Van Dijk and Van Deursen, 2014). Eurostat data from 2010 show that in EU27, 52% of people who were employed used computers, and 94% enterprises had Internet access (Ala-Mutka, 2011:8), while studies conducted by Van Deursen et al. (2014) have found people who were employed full time to have the highest digital skill levels (together with students).

Other indicators related to economic factors, such as quality of access and the amount of use time are only discussed in a few digital literacy models. Yet, while Van Deursen (2010) found that Internet experience mainly contributes to the improvement of operational and formal skills (and not so much to cognitive or strategic skills), other research has found that better quality access, in the form of more access locations, faster connectivity, high processing power etc., does facilitate greater use and self-efficacy, by encouraging confidence, exploration and learning (Facer and Furlong, 2001 in Livingstone and Helsper 2009:5). Thus, users with low-quality access to technologies, especially at home, will develop less autonomy in their technology usage, and lower amounts of experience online, which negatively influences their level of digital skills (Eynon and Geniets 2015:3; Hargittai, 2010).

Next, the cross-case analysis identified many personal and psychological factors that can influence the development of digital literacy. These factors were however only mentioned in a minority of the digital literacy models. For instance, having a playful, trial and error attitude was only cited in a few models. Yet, Jenkins (2006) considers this attitude, which he defines as ‘the capacity to experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem-solving’ (p. 22) not only as a source of fun, but also a form of active engagement that encourages people to experiment and take risks (p. 24), which can be especially relevant for the uptake and use of digital technology. Gaming and playful


26

activities are also seen as valuable additions to formal curricula, as they ‘promote imagination, creativity and decision-making skills, supporting people’s reflective thinking about choices and consequences’ (Hobbs, 2010:23). Moreover, self-study has been acknowledged as one of the most popular means to acquire digital skills, as it is, among other things, fast, natural, and convenient (Van Dijk, 2005). Learning by trial and error, or discovery learning (Van Dijk and Van Deursen, 2014:113) can complement knowledge and additional support received from formal and informal environments.

Motivation is another factor that is referred to in only a few models. Yet, according to Van Dijk and Van Deursen, motivation is the first stage in the appropriation of a new technology, and one of the two essential factors in determining digital media usage, alongside skills (Van Dijk, 2005; Van Dijk and Van Deursen, 2014:2). In addition, digital exclusion has also been linked to people’s lack of interest in taking up new technology, or using digital tools in a personal or professional context: ‘This relates to perception of the utility of these tools for oneself. If no need for new tools or processes is perceived, this easily leads into lack of interest in learning and in taking up new tools’ (Ala-Mutka, 2011: 43). Motivation is also important in the process of supporting others to develop digital skills; for example, parents who display high levels of interest and motivation can be of valuable assistance to their children’s development of media and digital literacy (Hobbs, 2010:21).

Next, flexibility and adaptability have received very limited attention in the models. The concepts can however be applied to a variety of contexts in which digital literacy may develop. Calvani et al. (2008) claim it is essential for users to be able to explore and face problems and new technological contexts in a flexible way (p. 187). Meanwhile, being able to adapt to different communication cultures has also been regarded as relevant for users’ level of participation; being prepared for different communication cultures in different digital environments is seen as important competence, particularly for new users (Ala-Mutka, 2011:41).

Finally, the cross-case analysis corroborates our assumption that digital skills models not (yet) fully recognize soft skills as factors that have an impact on the development of digital skills. Aspects related to autonomy, self-efficacy, self-determination and a problem-solving attitude were only identified in a limited number of digital literacy models. The cases that did mention one or more of these aspects were mainly developed after 2010.

As mentioned previously, autonomy can be discussed from different perspectives. Only very few cases integrated these perspectives in their models. Under the personal and physical well-being sub-category, autonomous access was mentioned in one model; while autonomous use in three; autonomy in decision-making was mentioned in three models, while autonomy in acting on self-selected choices only in two models. Yet, as already elaborately discussed above, these different aspects related to autonomy can have an important impact on the development of digital literacy.


27

It is also worth mentioning that the availability of tools adapted to different levels of well-being was only cited by two of the analysed digital literacy models. In this regard, very few of the analysed digital literacy models pay attention to the autonomy of users with physical or intellectual impairments. When autonomy was discussed in this context, it was done briefly (see Belshaw, 2011), or it focused more on underserved groups, rather than specifically on people with disabilities (see Hobbs, 2010). Van Dijk and Van Deursen (2014) do discuss the difficulties encountered by people with physical and intellectual impairments more in detail, however they do not focus on autonomy as such. They claim this group must overcome a series of additional barriers related to access and skills, such as lack of accessible online content, costs of expensive and difficult to use assistive technologies, like screen readers, magnifiers, and connected Braille readers, and insufficient availability of assistance in order to obtain access and skills (p. 129-130).

Self-determination was not mentioned by any of the analysed models. Yet, as discussed previously, self-determination has a significant influence on the development of digital skills. Given the multiple resources and options the Internet provides, it is important for users to have the necessary skills for self-directed and goal-oriented activities: ‘Metacognitive skills for recognizing knowledge needs, determining objectives, planning the activities, reflecting progress and evaluating outcomes are in a crucial role in benefiting from the potential of digital environments. This is supported by skills to find valid and relevant options for learning through digital means (formal courses, self-study materials, community of practice), taking into account the desired type of learning outcome and its recognition’ (Ala-Mutka, 2011:42). Jenkins (2006) discusses the notion of empowerment as a result of making meaningful decisions in our everyday lives, understanding the choices we make and the impact they may have within the wider social and civic context. Moreover, a number of models include self-assessment as a means to measure digital skills and competences. Such a method incorporates notions of self-reflection on own digital literacy and skills development, as well as attitudes and personal qualities, including the ability to plan, execute and evaluate digital actions in the solution of life tasks (Ala-Mutka, 2011).

As discussed earlier, self-efficacy is a critical factor for personal agency and the exercise of self-control (De George-Walker and Tyler, 2014:203). The concept can be correlated with motivational constructs, choices and achievements (Joshi et al., 2010:4). As such, self-efficacy can have a significant influence on the development of digital literacy. Nevertheless, the term has not been identified under this name in any of the analysed models. But Hobbs (2010) does claim that the competence to compose and generate content is a result of – among other things – confidence in self-expression.

Finally, while digital and offline problem-solving skills are recognized in a fair amount of the digital literacy models as a cognitive and underpinning skill, respectively, the concept of a problem-solving attitude is mentioned in much fewer models. Problem-solving attitudes can assist users in acquiring knowledge and developing new skills, especially when they are dealing with a new environment, such as the digital. In this context,


28

problem-solving attitudes can be linked to elements like resilience, confidence, and a positive and proactive attitude. Examples of a problem-solving attitude include: taking an active approach towards solving problems, willingness to seek advice when problems occur, or the ability to find alternatives when problems cannot be readily solved (Ferrari, 2013:32).

When applied to digital skills, we have considered problem-solving from three different perspectives: digital problem-solving as a skill that can be developed by users in the process of becoming digitally literate; having a problem-solving attitude, which can influence the uptake and development of digital competences; and problem-solving together with learning skills, discussed as underpinning competences that can help build a solid foundation for a successful application of these skills and competences.

6. Discussion and conclusion

The majority of the analysed models put emphasis on classically defined digital skills such as technical and operational skills, information skills, seen as the ability to critically engage with (digital) media content, content creation skills and strategic skills. The increased attention over time for issues such as privacy needs to be framed against the background of the new challenges that arise out of the introduction and use of social media. Societal and technological developments provide a frame that can be used to explain why certain indicators have gained more visibility over time or, on the contrary, why certain indicators are being given less attention than before. This however does not explain why only a minority of the frameworks emphasise the importance of autonomy, self-determination, self-efficacy, while problem-solving skills are mentioned more often. The cross-case analysis corroborates our hypothesis that digital skills models not (yet) fully recognise this type of personal attributes as factors that have an impact on the development of digital skills. However, the literature review on these concepts has shown that especially self-confidence and the ability to identify one’s own digital gaps, needs and wants, are crucial to making conscious choices about engaging or not engaging with specific digital media or (digital) media contents. Enabling a higher level of digital autonomy hence implies investing in the development of self-consciousness and self-esteem, self-reflexivity and the intrinsic motivation for self-development.

A shortcoming in the current models is the lack of attention to the notion of support. Only very few models highlight the importance related to giving and asking for support. In literature, the importance of support, and collaborative processes of skills development are mentioned as crucial for the development of new knowledge. It is clear that, in the future, more attention, reflection and integration into conceptual models of the notion of support networks and how to share different types of knowledge and resources is needed.

It is however important to approach the results of this report with caution. The importance given to concepts such as autonomy, self-determination, self-efficacy and problem-solving in the process of developing digital skills may too easily contribute to


29

the trend of burdening the user with increased responsibility when dealing with digital media. However, the ability to deal with digital media in an intelligent, capital-enhancing and strategic way cannot and should not be the sole responsibility of the user, as technologies themselves, and the way they are designed, can create additional barriers and challenges. Moreover, not every citizen is born with the same cognitive capabilities, or benefits from a socio-economic background that allows for the same opportunities to support self-development. The emphasis on these personal attributes may also create the (false) impression that all individuals strive to improve their life condition, and are constantly eager to decide on and live according to the conditions required to achieve this. Finally, the discussion also requires a more critical view with regard to the reasons why people engage with digital media. The goal-oriented character of these personal attributes goes against a meaningless and leisure-oriented use of digital media, while it must be recognised that people’s engagement with digital media is not always rational and goal-oriented.

Designing e-inclusion solutions aimed at developing autonomy, self-determination, self-efficacy and problem-solving skills should take these different findings into account and use a highly user-centred approach that, without judgement and a predefined moral imperative, starts from personal interests, without immediately defining actual goals and capital-enhancing outcomes. Raising awareness about the potential added value of digital media, in whatever form, be it for leisure or other, is as important as stimuli for the further take-up and use of digital media. Raising awareness on what digital media might add to one’s life is a first step to raising consciousness about what one is lacking, or at a later stage, to enabling the identification of digital competence gaps.

7. Bibliography

Ala-‐Mutka, K. (2011). Mapping Digital Competence: Towards a Conceptual Understanding (Technical Note No. JRC67075 -‐ 2011). European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Alkire, S. (2005). Subjective Quantitative Studies of Human Agency. Social Indicators Research, 74(1), 217–260. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-‐005-‐6525-‐0 Ansip, A. (2015, August 4). Digital inclusion: helping the blind and people with disabilities to get the most from the online world. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-‐2019/ansip/blog/digital-‐inclusion-‐helping-‐blind-‐and-‐people-‐disabilities-‐get-‐most-‐online-‐world_en Arnone, M., Reynolds, R., & Marshall, T. (2009). The Effect of Early Adolescents’ Psychological Needs. Satisfaction upon Their Perceived Competence in Information Skills and Intrinsic Motivation for Research. School Libraries Worldwide, 15(2), 115–134. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-‐efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-‐295X.84.2.191 Bandura, A. (1982). Self-‐efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-‐066X.37.2.122 Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall.


30

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived Self-‐Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-‐efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., Solomon, J., & Schaps, E. (1989). Effects of an elementary school program to enhance prosocial behavior on children’s cognitive-‐social problem-‐solving skills and strategies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10(2), 147–169. http://doi.org/10.1016/0193-‐3973(89)90002-‐6 Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and Concepts of Digital Literacy. In C. Lankshear (Ed.), Digital literacies: concepts, policies and practices (pp. 17–32). New York, NY: Lang. Beer, D. (2009). Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media & Society, 11(6), 985–1002. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809336551 Belshaw, D. (2011). What is “digital literacy”? (Doctor of Education (Ed.D.)). United Kingdom. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-‐8535.2007.00793.x Blades, R., Fauth, B., & Gibb, J. (2012). Measuring Employability Skills. A rapid review to inform development of tools for project evaluation. National Children’s Bureau. Boyd, danah. (2010). Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites (pp. 39–58). Routledge. Brosnan, M. J. (1998). The impact of computer anxiety and self-‐efficacy upon performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14(3), 223–234. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2729.1998.143059.x Brotcorne, P., Mertens, L., & Valenduc, G. (2009). Offline jongeren en de digitale kloof. Over het risico op ongelijkheden bij 'digital natives'. Brussel: POD Maatschappelijke Integratie, Fondation Travail-‐Université (FTU), Centre de Recherche Travail & Technology. Calvani, A., Cartelli, A., Fini, A., & Ranieri, M. (2008). Models and Instruments for Assessing Digital Competence at School. Journal of E-‐Learning and Knowledge Society, 4(3), 183–193. Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. OUP Oxford. Chambers, C. (2014, July 1). Facebook fiasco: was Cornell’s study of “emotional contagion” an ethics breach? The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-‐quarters/2014/jul/01/facebook-‐cornell-‐study-‐emotional-‐contagion-‐ethics-‐breach Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-‐Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189. http://doi.org/10.2307/249688 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-‐determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-‐Determination Theory. In P. A. M. V. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Theories of social psychology. Vol. 1: [...] (pp. 416–437). Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage. De George-‐Walker, L., & Tyler, M. A. (2014). Connected Older Adults: Conceptualising their Digital Participation. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 15(2). De Wolf, R., & Heyman, R. (2015). Privacy and Social Media. In P. H. Ang & R. Mansell (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society (pp. 1–6). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Retrieved from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/9781118767771.wbiedcs118 De Wolf, R., Heyman, R., & Pierson, J. (2013). Privacy by Design Through a Social Requirements Analysis of Social Network Sites form a User Perspective. In S. Gutwirth, R. Leenes, P. de Hert, &


31

Y. Poullet (Eds.), European Data Protection: Coming of Age (pp. 241–265). Springer Netherlands. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-‐94-‐007-‐5170-‐5_11 De Wolf, R., & Pierson, J. (2014). Who’s my audience again? Understanding audience management strategies for designing privacy management technologies. Telematics and Informatics, 31(4), 607–616. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.11.004 Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation a literature review. System, 23(2), 165–174. http://doi.org/10.1016/0346-‐251X(95)00005-‐5 D’Zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving and behavior modification. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 78(1), 107–126. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0031360 Eisenman, L., Chamberlin, M., & McGahee-‐Kovac, M. (2005). A Teacher Inquiry Group on Student-‐Led IEPs: Starting Small to Make a Difference. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 28(3-‐4), 195–206. http://doi.org/10.1177/088840640502800406 Eshet-‐Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: a conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93–106. Eshet, Y. (2002). Digital Literacy: A New Terminology Framework and Its Application to the Design of Meaningful Technology-‐Based Learning Environments. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED477005 European Union. (2010). New Skills for New Jobs: Action Now. A report by the Expert Group on New Skills for New Jobs prepared for the European Commission. European Commission. Eynon, R., & Geniets, A. (2015). The digital skills paradox: how do digitally excluded youth develop skills to use the internet? Learning, Media and Technology, 1–17. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.1002845 Ferrari, A. (2013). DIGCOMP a framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office. Retrieved from http://dx.publications.europa.eu10.2788/52966 Fiedler, C., & Danneker, J. (2007). Self-‐Advocacy Instruction: Bridging the Research-‐to-‐Practice Gap. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(8), 1–20. Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer, M. (1998). Self-‐Determination for Persons With Disabilities: A Position Statement of me Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 21(2), 113–128. http://doi.org/10.1177/088572889802100202 Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York, NY: Wiley. Goodley, D. (1997). Locating Self-‐advocacy in Models of Disability: Understanding disability in the support of self-‐advocates with learning difficulties. Disability & Society, 12(3), 367–379. http://doi.org/10.1080/09687599727227 Goodley, D. (2005). Empowerment, self-‐advocacy and resilience. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 9(4), 333–343. http://doi.org/10.1177/1744629505059267 Green, A. E., Hoyos, M. de, Barnes, S.-‐A., Behle, H., Baldauf, B., Owen, D., … Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. (2013). Literature review on employability, inclusion and ICT Report 2 Report 2. Luxembourg: Publications Office. Retrieved from http://dx.publications.europa.eu/10.2791/71448 Greenwald, G., & MacAskill, E. (2013, June 7). NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-‐tech-‐giants-‐nsa-‐data Hargittai, E. (2007). A framework for studying differences in people’s digital media uses. In K. I. Bildung (Ed.), Grenzenlose Cyberwelt? (pp. 121–136). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-‐3-‐531-‐90519-‐8_7


32

Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the “Net Generation.” Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92–113. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-‐682X.2009.00317.x Hargittai, E. (n.d.). How Wide a Web? Inequalities in Accessing Information Online. Princeton, NJ: Sociology Department, Princeton University. Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in Actual and Perceived Online Skills: The Role of Gender*. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 432–448. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-‐6237.2006.00389.x Hassani, S. N. (2006). Locating digital divides at home, work, and everywhere else. Poetics, 34(4-‐5), 250–272. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.007 Helsper, E., & Eynon, R. (2013). Pathways to digital literacy and engagement. European Journal of Communication, 28(6). Helsper, E. J. (2007). Internet Use by Teenagers: Processes behind Social and Digital Inclusion (unpublished PhD thesis). London School of Economics and Political Science. Helsper, E. (2008). Digital inclusion: An analysis of social disadvantage and the Information Society. London, UK: Department for Communities and Local Government. Helsper, E. (2011). Digital Disconnect: Issues of Social Exclusion, Vulnerability and Digital (Dis)engagement. European Workshop: Perspectives of Web 2.0 for Citizenship Education in Europe. Networking European Citizenship Education (NECE). Heyman, R., De Wolf, R., & Pierson, J. (2014). Evaluating social media privacy settings for personal and advertising purposes. Info, 16(4), 18–32. http://doi.org/10.1108/info-‐01-‐2014-‐0004 Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action. A White Paper on the Digital and Media Literacy Recommendations of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy. Aspen Institute. 1 Dupont Circle NW Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036. Tel: 410-‐820-‐5433; Tel: 202-‐736-‐5800; Fax: 202-‐467-‐0790; e-‐mail: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.aspeninstitute.org. Hong, B., Haefner, L., & Slekar, T. (2011). Faculty Attitudes and Knowledge Toward Promoting Self-‐Determination and Self-‐Directed Learning for College Students With and Without Disabilities. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 175–185. Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. An occasional paper on digital media and learning. (p. 72). John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Joshi, K., Kvasny, L., McPherson, S., Trauth, E., Kulturel-‐Konak, S., & Mahar, J. (2010). Choosing IT as a career: exploring the role of self-‐efficacy and perceived importance of IT skills. In ICIS 2010 Proceedings. Paper 154. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2010_submissions/154/ Koumoundourou, G. A., Kounenou, K., & Siavara, E. (2012). Core Self-‐Evaluations, Career Decision Self-‐Efficacy, and Vocational Identity Among Greek Adolescents. Journal of Career Development, 39(3), 269–286. http://doi.org/10.1177/0894845310397361 Kvasny, L., Joshi, K., & Trauth, E. (2011). The Influence of Self-‐Efficacy, Gender Stereotypes and the Importance of IT Skills on College Studentsʼ Intentions to Pursue IT Careers. In iConference 2011. Seattle, WA, USA. Lampinen, A., Lehtinen, V., Lehmuskallio, A., & Tamminen, S. (2011). We’Re in It Together: Interpersonal Management of Disclosure in Social Network Services. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3217–3226). New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979420 Little, D. (1991). Autonomy: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.


33

Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: the role of online skills and internet self-‐efficacy. New Media & Society, 12(2), 309–329. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342697 Mariën, I., Baelden, D., Bens, J., Schurmans, D., Van Audenhove, L., Smukste, K., Pierson, J., Lemal, M., Goubin, E. (2013) Van digitale naar maatschappelijke participatie: Opportuniteiten en uitdagingen. In Callens, M., Noppe, J. & Vanderleyden, L. (eds.) De sociale staat van Vlaanderen 2013. Mariën, I. (2016). De Dichotomie van de Digitale Kloof Doorprikt: Een Onderzoek naar de Oorzaken van Digitale Uitsluiting en naar Strategieën voor een Duurzaam e-‐Inclusie Beleid. Unpublished dissertation, department of Communication Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Mariën, I., & Prodnik, J. (2015) Digital inclusion and user (dis)empowerment: a critical perspective. Info, 16(6), 35–47. Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and Tools for Digital Literacy Development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(4), 249–267. http://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2006.05040249 Meier, S. T. (1985). Computer aversion. Computers in Human Behavior, 1(2), 171–179. http://doi.org/10.1016/0747-‐5632(85)90030-‐5 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. http://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816 Schurmans, D., Mariën, I. (2013) Naar gebruikersprofielen van kwetsbare jongeren: Over digitale media, sociale context en digitale ongelijkheden. Onderzoeksrapport in opdracht van Mediawijs.be, het Vlaams Kenniscentrum voor Mediawijsheid, Speerpuntproject 1, Toolkit Mediawijsheid: Methodieken en goede praktijken in samenwerking met Maks vzw. Skelton, J., & Moore, M. (1999). The role of self-‐advocacy in work for people with learning difficulties. Community, Work & Family, 2(2), 133–145. http://doi.org/10.1080/13668809908413937 Sprague, J., & Hayes, J. (2000). Self-‐Determination and Empowerment: A Feminist Standpoint Analysis of Talk about Disability. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(5), 671–695. Steyn, J., & Johanson, G. (2011). ICTs and sustainable solutions for the digital divide: Theory and Pespectives. Hershey: Information Science Reference, IGI Global. Stordy, P. (2015). Taxonomy of literacies. Journal of Documentation, 71(3), 456–476. http://doi.org/10.1108/JD-‐10-‐2013-‐0128 Stutzman, F., Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2013). Silent Listeners: The Evolution of Privacy and Disclosure on Facebook. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality, 4(2). Retrieved from http://repository.cmu.edu/jpc/vol4/iss2/2 Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Wood, W. M., Brewer, D. M., & Eddy, S. (2005). A Conceptual Framework of Self-‐Advocacy for Students with Disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 43–54. http://doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260010601 Trauth, E., Joshi, K., Kvasny, L., Chong, J., & Kulturel-‐Konak, S. (2010). Millennials and Masculinity: A Shifting Tide of Gender Typing of ICT? In AMCIS 2010 Proceedings. Paper 73. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/73 Trauth, E., Kvasny, L., Cain, C., Booth, K., & Joshi, K. (2012). Understanding Underrepresentation in IT Through Intersectionality. Presented at the iConference 2012, Toronto, ON, Canada. UNESCO. (2013). Global Media and Information Literacy Assessment Framework: Country Readiness and Competencies. Paris, France. Van Audenhove, L., D. Baelden, I. Mariën. Quick-‐Scan Analysis of Multiple Case Studies. ResearchGate, 2016. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4501.8649 Van Deursen, A. (2010). Internet skills vital assets in an information society. Enschede: University of Twente [Host].


34

Van Deursen, A., Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2014). Measuring Digital Skills. From Digital Skills to Tangible Outcomes project report. Retrieved from www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=112 Van Deursen, A., & Van Dijk, J. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 13(6), 893–911. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774 Van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening divide: inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Van Deursen, A., & Van Dijk, J. (2014). Digital skills: unlocking the information society. Wang, M. C., & Peverly, S. T. (1986). The self-‐instructive process in classroom learning contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 370–404. http://doi.org/10.1016/0361-‐476X(86)90031-‐7 Wang, N., Xu, H., & Grossklags, J. (2011). Third-‐party Apps on Facebook: Privacy and the Illusion of Control. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Symposium on Computer Human Interaction for Management of Information Technology (pp. 4:1–4:10). New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/2076444.2076448 Washington, B. H., Hughes, C., & Cosgriff, J. C. (2012). High-‐Poverty Youth: Self-‐Determination and Involvement in Educational Planning. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 35(1), 14–28. http://doi.org/10.1177/0885728811420135 Witte, J.C., & Mannon, S.E. (2010). The internet and social inequalities. New York, London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Woods, D. R., Hrymak, A. N., Marshall, R. R., Wood, P. E., Crowe, C. M., Hoffman, T. W., … Bouchard, C. G. K. (1997). Developing Problem Solving Skills: The McMaster Problem Solving Program. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(2), 75–91. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1997.tb00270.x Zillien, N., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Digital distinction: Status-‐specific types of internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 274-‐291.

8. Annex 1 – Matrix

Totals

ESHET-‐ALKALAI (2004)

JENKINS (2006)

DigEuLit (Martin & Grudziecki, 2006)

HARGITTAI (2007)

BAWDEN (2008)

CALVANI ET AL. (2008)

HOBBS (2010)

BELSHAW (2011)

ALA-‐MUTKA (2011)

DIGCOMP -‐ Anusca Ferrari (2013)

UNESCO Global Media and Information Literacy Assessment Framework (2013)

VAN DEURSEN & VAN DIJK (2014)

VAN DEURSEN, HELSPER & EYNON (2014)

INDICATORS

DIGITAL SKILLS and COMPETENCES

OPERATIONAL, TECHNICAL AND FORMAL 6 4 3 5 3 4 5 5 8 8 4 6 6Knowing and using hardware 13 x x x x x x x x x x x x xKnowing and using digital tools and software 12 x x x x x x x x x x x xKnowing and using the Internet 11 x x x x x x x x x x xKnowledge of where to seek assistance 4 x [x] x (x)Cross-‐platform navigation 3 x x xHandle digital structures 10 x x x x x x x x x xDevice safety 4 x x x xPrivacy | protection of personal data 10 x x x x x x x x x xINFORMATION | COGNITION 11 11 9 5 4 5 8 4 9 12 8 8 7Search 12 x x x x x x x x x x x xIdentify/Select 12 x x x x x x x x x x x xLocate 11 x x x x x x x x x x xAccess/Retrieve/Store 9 x x x x x x x x xOrganise 6 x x x x x x xSynthesise 5 x x x x xDisseminate | Share 11 x x x x x x x x x x xDistributed cognition 6 x x x x x xMultitasking 1 xDigital problem-‐solving skills 8 x x x x x x x xSupport others in developing digital competence 2 x xAnalyse and evaluate 13 x x x x x x x x x x x x xTransmedia navigation 4 x x x xDIGITAL COMMUNICATION 7 9 4 6 5 6 8 8 8 9 8 9 7Encode/decode messages 11 x x x x x x x x x x xConstruct messages 13 x x x x x x x x x x x x xUnderstand messages 13 x x x x x x x x x x x xExchange messages/Share content 13 x x x x x x x x x x x x xInteract/Collaborate online 12 x x x x x x x x x x x xParticipate in online comunities & networks 10 x x x x x x x x x xEfficiency in communication 6 x x x x x xManaging a digital identity 5 x x x x xNetiquette 12 x x x x x (x) x x x x x xDIGITAL CONTENT CREATION 5 5 3 1 1 2 6 4 4 7 3 6 7Create and edit new content/Construct new knowledge 12 x x x x x x x x x x x xIntegrate and remix existing content 8 x x x x x x x xProduce creative expressions 11 x x x x x x x x x x xAwareness of purpose 4 x x x xAwareness of audience 4 x x x xAwareness of composition techniques 7 x x x x x x xIPR and license awareness and management 8 x x x x x x x xSTRATEGIC 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 0Use information towards personal or professional goals 9 x x x x x x x x xIdentify digital competence gaps 3 x x xOTHER 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 3 1 0 0Personal safety 6 x x x x x xProtection of environment 1 xParticipation in digital citizenship 6 x x x x x x

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE DIGITAL LITERACY

PERSONAL | PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES 3 8 1 0 1 1 6 3 9 7 2 4 0Problem-‐solving 4 x x x xSelf-‐efficacy 0Autonomy in decision-‐making 3 x x (x)Autonomy in acting on self-‐selected choices 2 x xPlayful, trial and error attitude 3 x x xEthics 6 x x x x x xMotivation 4 x x x xSelf-‐determination 0Socio-‐emotional skills/literacy 5 x x x x xResponsibility 5 x x x x xCreativity and innovation 9 x x x x x x x x xFlexibility and adaptability 4 x x x xPERSONAL | PHYSICAL WELL BEING 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 0Availability of tools adapted to the different levels of well-‐being 2 x xAutonomous access 1 xAutonomous use 3 x x xUNDERPINNING COMPETENCIES 3 4 4 0 3 2 5 1 3 3 2 4 0Literacy 11 x x x x x x x x x x xMedia literacy 8 x x x x x x x xVisual literacy 4 x x x xOffline problem-‐solving and learning skills 8 x x x x x x x xResearch skills 3 x x xECONOMIC 0 7 0 6 1 1 5 3 5 1 6 7 4Urbanisation 2 x xEmployment 4 x x x xIncome 6 x x x x x xEducation 11 x x x x x x x x x x xEducational level of parents 3 x x x xAccess 8 x x x x x x x xQuality of access 5 x x x x x

Amount of use time 6 x x x x x xCULTURAL 1 6 0 0 1 0 5 3 6 4 5 5 2Ethnicity 6 x x x x x xGender 5 x x x xGeneration/age 9 x x x x x x x x xLanguage 4 x x x xInterculturality 5 x x x x xCultural participation 4 x x x x xNorms and values 6 x x x x xSOCIAL 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 0Social networks 7 x x x x x x xSocial participation and responsibility 6 x x x x x xPOLITICAL 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 0Political participation 2 x xCivic participation 6 x x x x x x

9. Annex 2 – Indicators

DEFINITION OF SKILL/COMPETENCE REMARKS

Operational, technical and formal

Knowing and using hardwareKnowing about and using the necessary hardware, such as computers and mobile devices, together with their auxiliary equipment.

This category also refers to alternative terms used in literature, such as computer literacy, technology literacy, ICT literacy etc.

Knowing and using digital tools and software

Knowing about and using an Internet connection on different devices; knowing about and using digital tools and software: being able to use a modem, and the different types of hardware, being able to download, install and uninstall software onto computers or mobile devices.

Knowing and using the Internet

Using the Internet efficiently towards achieving one's goals and finding the sought information: using browsers, search engines, keyboard shortcuts, basic commands (new webage, next webpage, previous webpage, bookmarks, donwload/upload files etc.) (after Van Deursen and Van Dijk 2010).

Also Internet or network literacy.The competence of managing and benefiting from the overwhelming amount of information and resources available in internet (Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 24).

Knowledge of where to seek assistanceKnowing where to seek assistance should a technical problem occur when using the Internet (Van Deursen and Van Dijk 2010).

Cross-‐platform navigation The ability to easily alternate between different media platforms using digital technology.

More technical skill, different from Transmedia navigation, which is more focused on information and content.

Handle digital structuresThe skills to handle the special structures of digital media such as menus and hyperlinks (Van Deursen & Van Dijk 2010)

Hypermedia and branching literacy in Eshet-‐Alkalai 2004.

Device safetyThe ability to protect own devices and to understand online risks and threats, to know about safety and security measures (Ferrari 2013).

Privacy | protection of personal data

To understand common terms of service, active protection of personal data, understanding other people's privacy, to protect self from online fraud and threats and cyber bullying (Ferrari 2013).

Information | Cognition

Search The skills to search for information in digital media, with a focus on efficiently using a search engine.

Hargittai also discusses the knowledge of what is already available online, before seaching, from open access software to free information and content (2007: 6).

Identify/SelectThe skills to identify and select the relevant, or sought after, information in digital media. (What is the information needed?)

Locate The skills to locate the relevant information in the online domain. (Where is the information needed?)

Access/Retrieve/StoreThe ability to access/retrieve/store the information found online: by downloading, loading, streaming, saving etc.

Organise

The ability to organise information and data for easier retrieval (Ferrari 2013)To organise and set out digital resources in a way that will enable the solution of the problem or successful achievement of the task (Martin and Grudziecki 2006: 257).

Synthesise

The ability to combine information in order to obtain a more complex result.To recombine digital resources in new ways which will enable solution of the problem or successful achievement of the task (Martin and Grudziecki 2006: 257).

Disseminate | Share

The ability to efficiently share and disseminate information with different publics (friends, friends of friends, public) in the online domain.To present the solutions or outputs to relevant others (Martin and Grudziecki 2006: 257).

Distributed cognition The ability to interact meaningfully with tools that expand our mental capacities' (Jenkins 2006: 37).

Belshaw's cognitive element: 'A psychological phenomenon in which an individual interacts with an objectively-‐defined form of literacy (literacy is about ‘expanding the mind’) (Belshaw 2011)

Multitasking

The ability to execute more than one program or task simultaneously.In a rich media environment: 'scanning for relevant shifts in the information flow while simultaneously taking in multiple stimuli' (Jenkins 2006: 35).

Includes the importance of attention as a cognitive ability (Jenkins 2006: 34).

Digital problem-‐solving skills

Identify digital needs and resources, make informed decisions on most appropriate digital tools according to the purpose or need, solve conceptual problems through digital means, creatively use technologies, solve technical problems, update own and other's competence (Ferrari 2013: 32).

Support others in developing digital competence The ability, (willingness) and confidence to assist others in developing various digital skills and competences.

Analyse and evaluate

Comprehending messages and using critical thinking to analyse message quality, veracity, credibility and point of view, while considering potential effects and consequences of messages (Hobbs 2010: 19).Judgment -‐ the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sources (Jenkins 2006: 43).

Includes the ability to reflect on own use (DigEuLit, Belshaw, Ferrari etc.)

Brouwer (1997) sees information literacy as centred around critical thinking with five components:• distinguishing between information and knowledge;• asking key questions about information, what the source is and what assumptions are contained within information;• assessing the usefulness, timeliness, accuracy and integrity ofinformation;• nor being content with the first six ‘hits’ on a search;• questioning/checking answers provided by technology tools (Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 26).

Moved from under operational/technical/formal Transmedia navigation

The ability to deal with the flow of stories and informa-‐ tion across multiple media paltforms (cartoons, films, video games, comics and trading cards on the same topic). It involves the ability to both read and write across all available modes of expression (Jenkins 2006: 46-‐48).

Multimodality (Kress 2003) -‐ recognising the same character across different media and a diversity of representations (Spider-‐Man in cartoon, films, comics etc.).

Understanding the potential and limitations of ICT (Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 23).

Communication

Encode/decode messages The ability to encode and decode messages using digital media.

Construct messages The skill to produce content in different formats, platforms, and environments (Ferrari 2012).

Understand messages The ability to understand messages received using digital media. Photo-‐visual literacy' (Eshet-‐Alkalai 2004).

Exchange messages/Share content

The ability to exchange meaning with other humans using message systems such as e-‐mail, chat boxes, or instant messaging (Van Deursen and Van Dijk 2014).To share with others the location and content of information found, to be willing and able to share knowledge, content and resources, to act as an intermediary to be proactive in the spreading of news, content and resources (Ferrari 2013)

(1) commenting in response to material created and shared by others (blogs, social media); and (2) posting one’s own content for others to access (editing a wiki page, joining mailing lists, forums etc.) (Hargittai 2007).

Interact/Collaborate online

The social ability to pool knowledge and exchange meaning with others in peer-‐to-‐peer networking and the ability to exchange meaning to reach decisions and realize transactions while understanding the meanings of others/partners (Van Deursen and Van Dijk 2014).To use technologies and media for team work, collaborative processes and co-‐construction and co-‐creation of resources, knowledge and content (Ferrari 2013)

Potential concerns range from writing a clear subject line that maximizes chances of receiving a response to not divulging too much information in certain types of interactions (knowledge and use of the BCC sending option in email use) (Hargittai 2007: 5).Also includes online collaboration which Jenkins refers to as 'Collective Intelligence' (2006: 39).

An awareness of other people and our expanded ability [throughnetworks] to contact them to discuss issues and get help (Bawden 2001 in Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 28).

Participate in online comunities & networksThe ability to participate in online communities and social media networks: accessing, building networks of friends or followers, joining discussions etc.

Includes Jenkins' Networking -‐ the ability to navigate across different social communities (2006: 50).

Efficiency in communication The ability to communicate the desired message to the right online audience in an efficient and confident way.

Includes confidence in creating content, communications and expressions (Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 47).

Managing a digital identity

To create, adapt and manage one or multiple digital identities, to be able to protect one's e-‐reputation, to deal with the data that one produces through several accounts and applications (Ferrari 2013).

Explore and develop a digital identity (Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 42).

NetiquetteKnowing and following the rules on the appropriate and respectful way of communicating with others when using computer networks and the Internet.

Includes Belshaw's Cultural skills -‐ The need to understand the various digital contexts an individual may experience, different codes and ways of operating, things that are accepted and encouraged as well as those that are frowned upon and rejected (2011: 207).

Content-‐creation

Create and edit new content//Construct new knowledge

The skills to create content of acceptable quality to be published on the Internet. It is about textual, music and video, photo or image, multimedia and remixed content (Van Deursen and Van Dijk 2014).

Integrate and remix existing contentThe ability to modify, refine and mash-‐up existing resources to create new, original and relevant content and knowledge (Ferrari 2013).

Digital reproduction literacy is the ability to create a meaningful, authentic, and creative work or interpretation, by integrating existing independent pieces of information (Gilster, 1997; Labbo, Reinking, & McKenna, 1998) (Eshet-‐Alkalai 2004).Jenkins' Appropriation — the ability to meaningfully sample and remix media content (2006: 32).Belshaw's Constructive element (2011: 208).

Includes Responsible and ethical attitude for digital reproduction: "This requires multi-‐dimensional synthetic thinking for creating new combinations from existing materials, but at the same time competence to consider originality, legitimacy and creativity when using other people’s work for creating one’s own expressions" (Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 41).

Produce creative expressions

To express oneself creatively through digital media and technologies (Ferrari 2013).The Creative element of digital literacies is about doing new things in new ways, using technologies to perform tasks and achieve things that were previously either impossible or out-‐of-‐reach of the average person (Belshaw 2011: 212).

Awareness of purpose Composing and generating content with awareness of the purpose of communication (Hobbs 2010: 19).

Awareness of audience Composing and generating content with awareness of the audience of communication (Hobbs 2010: 19).

Awareness of composition techniquesComposing and generating content with awareness of the composition techniques of communication (Hobbs 2010: 19).

IPR and license awareness and managementKnowledge about legal and ethical issues (copyright, licences and citation practices) for information and content (Ala-‐Mutka 2011:43 ).

Strategic

Use information towards personal or professional goals

The skills to employ the information contained in digital media as a means to reach a particular personal or professional goal (Van Deursen & Van Dijk 2010).Benefit from ICT for personal life tasks and objectives (Ala-‐mutka 211: 28).

Digital literacy also includes the ability to be aware of oneself as a digitally literate person and to reflect on one’s own digital literacy development (Martin 2006 in Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 29).

Identify digital competence gaps To understand where own competence needs to be improved or updated, to support others in the development of their digital competence, to keep up-‐to-‐date with new developments (Ferrari 2013).

Other

Personal safety

The knowledge and ability to avoid unwanted content or behaviours, such as cyber-‐bullying.The ability to avoid health risks related with the use of technology in terms of threats to physical and psychological well-‐being (Ferrari 2013).

Ferrari (2013) included this under Netiquette

Protection of environment To be aware of the impact of ICT on the envionment (Ferrari 2013).

Participation in digital citizenship

To participate in society through online engagement, to seek opportunities for self-‐development and empowerment using technologies and digital environments, to be aware of the potential of technologies for citizen participation (Ferrari 2013)

Personal/psychological attributes

Problem-‐solvingTo demonstrate a problem-‐solving attitude towards identified problems; often linked to resilience, confidence, a positive and proactive attitude.

Self-‐efficacy

Belief in one’s ability to succeed in a particular situation (Blades et al. 2012: 12), often used in studies of digital inclusion as a measure of overall confidence (Cheong, 2008; Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008; Broos & Roe, 2006) (Helsper and Eynon 2013: 7)."Beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Proactive behaviour | Initiative

Includes initiative and self-‐direction (Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 40). Plan, execute and evaluate goal-‐oriented activities (p. 42).Self-‐efficacy is a belief about capability rather than actual skills (De George-‐Walker and Tyler 2014: 203).

Autonomy in decision-‐making The ability to make autonomous decisions in a given situation.

"One must always be conscious of one’s own objectives (nobody else will do it for you) and strive towards them in order to get the most benefit from the internet. This means having the interest and perseverance to search for the best digital tools and media for one’s tasks, keeping one’s goals clear, and also adapting to and reflecting new circumstances when necessary, in the continuously changing technical environments and social practices for their usage." (Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 52).

Autonomy in acting on self-‐selected choices

Ability to autonomously take action on self-‐selected choices and control decisions.Opportunities to take action based on self-‐selected choice (i.e. volition) (Fiedler and Danneker 2007: 2).

Self-‐organising communities provide opportunities to collaborative knowledge construction on almost any topic, but benefiting from it requires skills for personal reflection and autonomy together with collaboration skills (Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 42).

Playful, trial and error attitude

The capacity to experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem-‐solving' (Jenkins 2006: 22). Engagement through taking risks and discovering through trial and error, in order to apply what they've learned to new contexts (Jenkins 2006: 24).

Also Belshaw's Confident element -‐ a confidence based on the understanding that the digital environment can be more forgiving in regards to experimentation than physical environments (knowledge and use of the Undo button) (2011: 210).

EthicsApplying social responsibility and ethical principles to one's own identity and lived experience, communication behaviour and conduct (Hobbs 2010: 19).

Motivation The process that initiates, guides, and maintains goal-‐oriented behaviours.

Digital divides come sometimes from the non-‐interest of people or groups to take up and use digital technologies. This relates to perception of the utility of these tools for oneself. If no need for new tools or processes is perceived, this easily leads into lack of interest in learning and in taking up new tools (Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 43).

Self-‐determination

A combination of skills, knowledge, and beliefs that enable a person to engage in goal-‐directed, self-‐regulated, autonomous behaviour (Field, Martin, Miller, Ward and Wehmeyer 1988: 2) (Fiedler and Danneker 2007: 3).The ability to define and achieve goals based on a foundation of knowing and valuing oneself (Cross, Cooke, Wood, and Test 1999: 46) (Fiedler and Danneker 2007: 3).

Self-‐development and self-‐empowerment, self-‐advocacy

These definitions share several common characteristics including: -‐ the importance of self-‐knowledge, identifying one’s own likes, dislikes, wants, needs, strengths and limitations;-‐ the need for autonomy and control in decision making;-‐ the significance of having opportunities to express one’s needs and interests (Fiedler and Danneker 2007: 3).

Socio-‐emotional skills/literacy

The ability to form and sustain positive relationships, experience, manage, and express emotions, explore and engage with the environment.Willingness for sharing and collaboration. Negotiation and task management (Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 41).

In order to acquire this skill, users must be very critical, analytical, and mature, and must have a high degree of information literacy and branching literacy. Socio-‐emotionally-‐literate users can be described as those who are willing to share data and knowledge with others, capable of information evaluation and abstract thinking, and able to collaboratively construct knowledge (Eshet-‐Alkalai 2004).

Responsibility Acting responsibly and being conscious and accountable for one's own actions and behaviour.

In an online environment, safety and ethical issues need to be considered, especially when they can publicly affect or concern other people (Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 52).

Creativity and innovation Creative and innovative attitutde (Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 40).

Flexibility and adaptability Taking a flexible attitude and easily adapting to new situations and behaviours.

Personal / physical well-‐being

Availability of tools adapted to the different levels of well-‐beingThe availability of tools/equipment that can be used for ICT and digital access, adapted to various levels of physical or mental well-‐being.

Autonomous access The physical and mental ability to access ICT and the Internet in an autonomous way.

Autonomous use The degree to which use is controlled by the user, without requiring help from peers or external support.

Underpinning competences

Literacy Traditional' forms of literacy related to print media, such as reading and writing.

Media literacy "The ability to access, analyze, evaluate and create media in a variety of forms" (Aufderheide et al. 1993) .

Mostly implies an ability to deal withinformation formats “pushed” at the user, so accounts for more traditional media including print and audio-‐visual media like radio and television (but can also include the Internet) (Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 26).

Visual literacy

"...has developed out of art criticism and art education, and was initially concerned with perception, and the way in which artists and designers have used perspective, ratio, light, colour and other techniques of visual communication" (Martin and Grudziecki 2006: 252).

People with photo-‐visual literacy have good visual memory and strong intuitive-‐associative thinking, which help them decode and understand visual messages easily and fluently (Eshet-‐Alkalai 2004).

Problem-‐solving and learning skills

People should be able to effectively find and evaluate learning opportunities for their current needs, in both the professional and personal sphere. Furthermore, they should have the skills to determine learning goals, plan and carry out activities and achieve desired results in a self-‐regulated process in the multitude of possible digital paths (Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 51).

Research skills

Among other things, students need to know how to access books and articles through a library; to take notes on and integrate secondary sources; to assess the reliability of data; to read maps and charts; to make sense of scientific visualizations; to grasp what kinds of information are being conveyed by various systems of repre-‐ sentation; to distinguish between fact and fiction, fact and opinion; to construct arguments and marshal evidence (Jenkins 2006: 19).

Economic

Urbanisation Population shift from rural to urban areas, urbanisation of society

Employment State of employment.Income Level of income.Education Level of education.

Educational level of parents Level of parents' education. Young people with parents who are more highly educated have higher levels of digital skills themselves (Gui and Argentin 2011).

Access

The freedom to use the technology when and where one wants to (Hargittai 2003). Access restrictions determine a targeted approach to using the internet, in order to achieve specific goals, with very limited exploration or experimentation (Eynon and Geniets 2015: 11).

Those with more access points to the Internet are more likely to engage in capital-‐enhancing online activities such as health-‐information seeking and online banking compared with those who have fewer locations at which they can use the Web (Hargittai, 2010: 96).

Quality of access

A high quality of access enables greater autonomy over using technology and amount of experience of being online, which has a positive influence on their level of digital skills (Hargittai 2010) (Eynon and Geniets 2015: 2).

Frustrations caused by poor quality of access to the internet made people feel quite negatively about the internet in general (Eynon and Geniets 2015: 7).

Amount of use timeDirectly linked to access, the amount of use time and online experience can impact the development of digital skills and competences.

People who spend more time online will acquire more knowledge about the internet and thus develop better online skills (Hargittai, 2002, 2005). Moreover, people who have been internet users for a longer period of time are expected to be better at finding information online because they have more experience to draw upon (Hargittai, 2002, 2005).

The hypothesis that with internet experience an increasing number of people show a higher level of internet skills – is only supported for the operational internet skills. It appears that formal, information, and strategic internet skills do not grow with years of internet experience (Van Deursen and Van Dijk 2011: 905).

CulturalEthnicity Ethnic background.Gender Gender.Generation/age Age.Language Mother tongue and foreign languages spoken.

Interculturality

The ability to interpret and use reading and writing ascommunication means situated to a specific culture and context (Bawden 2001 in Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 41).Flexibility and adaptation to different digital communications cultures (Ala-‐Mutka 2011: 41); acceptance and appreciation of diversity (p. 47).

Includes Jenkins' Negotiation — the ability to travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative sets of norms (2006: 52).

Cultural participation Active participation cultural events and manifestations.Norms and values Cultural norms and values one adheres to.

Social

Social networks To benefit from participation and interaction with social networks, in day-‐to-‐day life.

Social participation and responsibility To assume a certain degree of social responsibility and participate in socially relevant matters.

Political

Political participation Taking part in activities that shape, affect, or involve the political sphere.

Civic participation

Working towards making e a difference in the civil life of communities and developing the combination of skills, knowledge, values, and motivation in order to make that difference.Civic participation, a sense of social justice and civic responsibility (Belshaw 2011:212).

In the context of the digital literacy debate, this involves the ability for the literacy practices resulting from new technologies and tools to support the development of Civil Society (the ability for people to use digital environments to self-‐organise into social movements) (Belshaw 2011:213).

D.1.2. Reconsidering digital skills - VUB · Reconsidering!digital!skills! ......

Documents

Transcript of D.1.2. Reconsidering digital skills - VUB · Reconsidering!digital!skills! ......