The Challenge of Digital Literacy: Beyond Narrow Skills to Critical Mindsets

Abstract

Most governments around the world are concerned about the need to increase the level of digital literacy amongst citizens. While digital skills are becoming increasing essential for successfully living, learning and working in the 21st Century this paper challenges narrow definitions of digital literacy. It compares and contrasts different understandings of digital skills, literacies or competencies and illustrates how the literature is littered with a plethora of flashy, flimsy and faddish models and frameworks often lacking explicit theoretical foundations. In critically reviewing a number of digital literacies frameworks across Europe, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) the paper identifies several inherent tensions. Firstly, it reveals a tension between fixed digital skills for today’s needs and the fluid and rapidly changing nature of digital literacies in response to new societal and technological developments. Secondly, the paper identifies a tension between the conception of universal digital skills and the highly contextualised nature of digital literacies within complex cultural and institutional contexts. A third tension is a crucial distinction between developing functional digital skills for life, work and wider societal participation, as opposed to the transformative goal of promoting critical digital mindsets capable of reimagining and reshaping the uncomfortable reality of our inequitable, socially unjust and unsustainable societies. In this respect the discussion advocates a type of double vision: on one hand it recognises the near value of specific skills for living, learning and working in the digital-era; but on the other hand the paper encourages us not to lose sight of the far goal and transformative mission of digital literacies for active citizenry to help make and reshape our societies for better futures—for all. The objective from this transformative perspective is to raise greater critical awareness of the problematic nature of digital literacies and support deeper understandings of the powerful macro-level forces at play in the drive to produce more digitally skilled learners, workers and citizens.

Keywords: digital literacy, digital skills, digital competencies, digital mindsets

1. INTRODUCTION

The simple fact is that digital literacy is now essential for successfully living, learning and working in today’s increasingly digitalized society and knowledge economy. This fact is the new reality of life in the 21st Century and is reflected in growing concerns by governments that many citizens lack basic digital skills. In the Republic of Ireland, for example, the latest European Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) reports that less than half the population has basic digital literacy and the Country ranks only 13th in the European Union for connectivity (European Commission, 2017). Moreover, the rate of participation in adult learning for Ireland at around 7% is less than the European average of 10.8%, which is still short of the modest target of 15% (European Union, 2017). The state of digital literacy and life-long learning in the developing world, including large countries like India and the Republic of China, is likely to be even more challenging as the so-called digital revolution leaves many people behind. As a recent UNSECO report states:

Digital technologies now underpin effective participation across many aspects of everyday life and work. In addition to technology access, the skills and competencies needed to make use of digital technology and benefit from its growing power and functionality have never been more essential (Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, 2017a, p.4).

Figure 1: Representation of Digital Intelligence (World Economic Forum, 2016)

The central thesis is that what we define or understand as digital literacy is messy and far more problematic than reflected in most of the current flashy, flimsy and faddish frameworks. The above model produced by the World Economic Forum (2016) is just one example (see Figure 1) of many in the popular literature which attempt to present the different dimensions of digital literacy—in this case the wider concept of digital intelligence—in a visually attractive format. However, typically most of the fancy matrixes, wheel charts and multi-dimensional diagrams that on first impressions may look easy on the eyes do not explicitly address their theoretical assumptions or foundations—let alone fundamental question of trustworthiness. We will return to this issue further in the discussion.

2. A MESSY TOPOGRAPHY

The truth is that digital literacy is a messy topography. As Lankshear and Knobel (2008) point out in their seminal book on the topic, ‘the most immediately obvious facts about accounts of digital literacy are that there are many of them and that there are significantly different kinds of concepts on offer’ (p.2). For this reason it helps to talk of digital literacies rather than limit our thinking to a singular all-inclusive definition. It also needs to be noted, as illustrated above, the language of digital literacies in both the popular and more scholarly academic literature is often described using different terms—such as, digital skills, digital fluency, digital capabilities, digital competencies, digital intelligence, and so on. Therefore, the differing nomenclature makes the search for a commonly agreed definition or understanding of digital literacies even more elusive.

Set against this messy backdrop three core threads are woven throughout this critical discussion about what it means to be digitally literate in the 21st Century. Firstly, the definition of literacy in whatever form is inherently political. Secondly, the digital literacies movement is complex and most efforts to propose definitions and develop related models and frameworks are disconnected from wider socio-political debates and underestimate the importance of the situated nature of educational practice. Lastly, most models and frameworks for digital skills, literacies or competencies fail to adequately address some of the powerful macro-level forces, drivers and entangled and contradictory discourses associated with the goal of preparing more digitally skilled learners, workers and citizens. With these points in mind the overarching message to take from the discussion is that the digital literacy movement cannot be separated from deeper ideological and philosophical questions concerning the nature of the good society and the fundamental purpose of the education system. Put more simply, digital literacies have relatively little to do with mastering specific keystrokes and raise bigger questions about what it means to be an educated person in the 21st Century. 

3. WHAT ARE DIGITAL LITERACIES?

The above mentioned UNSECO report states there is no one set of agreed definitions for digital literacy, ‘with the literature referring variously to digital ‘skills’, ‘competencies’, ‘aptitudes’, ‘knowledges’, ‘understandings’, ‘dispositions’ and ‘thinking’ (Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, 2017a, p.23). In a brief review and comparison of the literature, the All Aboard (2015) project, funded by the Irish National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, identified over 100 models and frameworks which to greater or lesser extent purport to encapsulate the various dimensions of digital skills, literacies or competencies. Given the messy topography of the field it follows that there is no simple answer to the question of ‘what do we mean by the term digital literacies?’

The next section of this paper, therefore, explores this question in more depth by comparing and contrasting a handful of better-known models and frameworks from the US, UK and Europe. In challenging a number of taken for granted assumptions the intent is to show that not all frameworks are created equally as they have different strengths and weaknesses, and there is an inherent flaw or at least serious limitation in the way they frame digital literacies. Moreover, the discussion identifies inherent tensions between fixed and fluid, universal and contextual, and taker and maker definitions of digital skills, literacies or competencies. Lastly drawing on these tensions the section below presents an example of a recent Irish initiative, which illustrates why we need to metaphorically ‘get off the tracks’ and break new frontiers to develop more transformative frameworks for digital literacies.

4. REVIEW OF MODELS AND FRAMEWORKS FOR DIGITAL LITERACIES

4.1 New Media Consortium model

In 2016, the New Media Consortium (NMC) sought to address the lack of a common definition and develop a shared vision of digital literacies for higher education. Drawing on input from over 450 educators, Alexander, Adams Becker and Cummins (2016) produced a strategic brief reviewing the digital literacies landscape. This Horizon Report was predicated on the assumption that lack of agreement on what digital literacy comprises is impeding the development of adequate policies and efforts to implement appropriate programmes. In their review of the field the authors confirm the literature is ‘broad and ambiguous, making digital literacy a nebulous area that requires greater clarification and consensus’ (Alexander, Adams Becker & Cummins, 2016, p.1).

To provide more clarity in broad terms digital literacy was taken to mean both critical and practical understandings of digital technologies in socio-cultural settings, where people are creators as well as observers. The report then broke down digital literacy into three different models—Universal Literacy, Creative Literacy and Literacy Across Disciplines—in order to identify and expand on the different elements that make up the sum of the area. In brief, universal literacy involves inculcating a critical stance towards the increasingly immersive world of digital technologies; creative literacies encapsulate the producer side of the producer-consumer continuum; and the third way of thinking about digital literacy focuses on curricular infusion across the disciplines (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: The models of digital literacy (New Media Consortium, 2016)

The three different components of digital literacy involve not just understanding how new digital tools work but also why it is useful and when to use them. This conception is described as encompassing the wider notion of digital citizenship—that is, ‘the responsible and appropriate use of technology, underscoring areas including digital communication, digital etiquette, digital health and wellness, and digital rights and responsibilities’ (Alexander, Adams Becker & Cummins, 2016, p.1). Although the report is limited by reliance on previous work published in the English language and skewed a little towards U.S. centric literature, importantly it acknowledges that definitions of digital literacy are not static, and related models and frameworks will continue to evolve.

4.2 Digital Capability Framework

In the U.K. one of the most cited efforts to develop a comprehensive framework for digital literacy comes from the work of Jisc, which in recent years has funded a number of projects and published several reports on the topic. While the language of digital literacy has shifted over the years from ‘literacy’ to a wider conception of ‘literacies’, and more recently to ‘digital capabilities’, and the original proposed digital literacy framework has evolved in response to the growing complexity of the field, the underlying definition remains the same—that is:

Digital literacies are those capabilities which fit an individual for living, learning and working in a digital society (Jisc, 2014, P.1).

Anchored in this definition the originally proposed Seven Elements Model of Digital Literacies included the following dimensions: (i) media literacy, (ii) communications and collaboration, (iii) career and identity management, (iv) ICT literacy, (v) learning skills, (vi) digital scholarship, and (vii) information literacy. Building on the original work of Sharpe and Beetham (2010) this model has now evolved into a Digital Capability Framework (see Figure 3) comprising of six elements—ICT proficiency; information data and media literacies; digital creation, problem solving and innovation; digital communication, collaboration and participation; digital learning and development; and digital identity and wellbeing—with 15 sub-elements recognizing a combination of functional skills, critical use, creative production, participation, development, and self-actualizing (Jisc, 2016; cited in Beetham, 2017).

Figure 3: Digital Capability Framework (Jisc, 2016)

While they propose quite different frameworks the common feature of the work of Jisc and the NMC is that digital skills, literacies or capabilities encompass both functional and critical dimensions. Moreover, the various elements of digital literacies attempt to encapsulate a wider emphasis on digital citizenship, including the notions of identity, wellbeing and rights and responsibilities. Both frameworks also acknowledge that what it means to be digitally literate changes over time, although Jisc (2014) arguably gives greater weight to the point that the nature of these changes may vary across contexts. In recognition of this point they describe digital literacies as ‘a set of situated practices supported by diverse and changing technologies’ (Jisc, 2014, P.1). That said, despite acknowledging the changing nature of digital literacies there remains an inherent tension in both high profile U.K. and U.S. initiatives between needing to accommodate local contextual factors and striving for universality.

4.3 European Digital Competence Framework

In Europe there have also been efforts to standardize or define a universal model of digital literacies through the European Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (Vuorikari, Punie, Carretero Gomez, & Van den Brande, 2016). In 2017, the updated version of this framework, known as DigComp 2.1 (see Figure 4), identifies five key components of digital competence—information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation, safety, and problem solving—with 21 related competences and eight proficiency levels (Carretero, Vuorikari & Punie, 2017).

Figure 4: European Digital Competence Framework for Citizens

The DigComp initiative was developed by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission through a multi-layered consultation process involving active input from a wide range of stakeholders. The initiative first began in 2011 and each step in the consultation process is clearly documented on the DigComp website, with links to related reports, including the views of experts in the field (Janssen & Stoyanov, 2012) and a review of 15 existing frameworks for the development of digital competence (Ferrari, Punie, & Redecker, 2012). The basic assumption underpinning this framework, as stated in the official DigComp Infographic, is that the ‘Digital society needs digitally-competent citizens’. In this context, according to the infographic, being digitally competent is taken to mean:

Using digital technologies in a confident and safe way for various purposes such as working, getting a job, learning, shopping online, obtaining health information, being included and participating in society, entertainment, etc. (P.2).

Figure 5: Current implementation of the DigComp Framework

While the project adopts an explicit methodology, anchored initially in grounded theory and an iterative Delphi survey of almost 100 experts, the question is whether such a universal and all-encompassing digital competency framework can be applied across such a culturally and geographically diverse region like Europe. After all, each individual nation varies enormously in terms of national priorities, local education system and level of technological development. There is a risk that such a comprehensive framework, which identifies quite specific competencies and proficiency levels, will be less agile to contextual differences and the changing nature of digital literacies.

Although the DigComp Framework is relatively new and currently at various stages of implementation across Europe (see Figure 5), the jury is still out whether such a universal model can be successfully implemented in different countries and contexts and fully aligned with local initiatives. In the case of the Republic of Ireland, for example, the European Digital Competence Framework for Citizens has not figured prominently in shaping digital learning developments in this area. More to the point, in many respects efforts to develop a European framework has taken place in parallel to, and arguably even competes with, the local All Aboard initiative.

4.4 The Irish Digital Skills Framework

In Ireland, the aforementioned All Aboard (2015) project borrows and expands upon Jisc’s definition to define digital skills, literacies or competencies as ‘the capabilities which fit someone for living, learning and working in a digital society, with the knowledge that a digital society is ever evolving’ (p.18). The project then proposes a Digital Skills Framework based on a metro map comprising of six stations: (i) tools and technologies; (ii) find and use; (iii) communicate and collaborate; (iv) teach and learn; (v) create and innovate; and (vi) identity and wellbeing (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: All Aboard Metro Map

While the imagery of a connected network of train lines attempts to help people make sense of an increasingly complex digital landscape there is an important question of validity. On closer inspection the links between stops are not always apparent and the separation of the main stations (e.g., 'teach and learn' from 'tools and technologies') is potentially counter-productive to developing a more integrated approach to digital literacies. Arguably, the framework is limited by the metro metaphor, which, after all, is a 20th Century representation of a city’s transportation system. While this system may still exist even in the age of driverless cars the metaphor ignores the somewhat unpleasant traveling experience during peak times and hardly challenges us to break free of current thinking or explore new digital frontiers. A deeper understanding of the changing nature of digital literacies–for better and worse—requires us to go off the tracks and out of the metaphorical stations, as the uncomfortable reality is that further out in our deprived suburbs and neglected rural communities we increasingly live in unequal societies where not everyone has the choice or luxury of traveling by train.

This point is a common flaw in other transportation metaphors previously adopted in the literature to describe the promises and challenges of harnessing new technologies in education—for example, ‘running to catch a moving train’ (Becker, 1998, p.1), ‘getting people to fly’ (Ham  & Wenmoth, 2002, p.49) and ‘learning to fly a plane while it is still being built’ (Strudler, 2003, p.72). The key point is that analogies and metaphors we adopt with the best intentions to describe the dynamic nature of the field are not neutral, as demonstrated in the following example reported by Heppell (2001) rather prophetically just before the tragic events in the U.S. on September 11th 2001. Heppell reports how his 1955 edition of the History of the World foresaw a darker side of technology; with an eye on the future this old encyclopaedia wrote: 

When your Daddy was a boy there was no television. What will your children have tomorrow, that you have never dreamed of today? That depends on you. Every discovery has a good and bad. Aeroplanes can whisk us away on trips and holidays or they can drop bombs to blow up homes and factories and towns (cited in Heppell, 2001, p.xvi).

At a deeper level the lesson from this example is the plane as a technology is not a neutral tool as the history of aviation suggests that aircraft lend themselves to certain actions because they are designed based on certain ontological assumptions to be used in certain ways toward certain outcomes. Like the early history of the Internet, the major research and development projects in the aviation industry have strong links to the military. Moreover, not everyone has the luxury of travelling by plane for trips and holidays. Indeed most of the world's population has probably yet to experience the sensation of flight and the people in Syria are more likely to have had their house or village bombed by plane than to have flown in one.

5. CRITICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

5.1 Beyond the goal of participation

This deeper point about the non-neutrality of the metaphors we adopt is not unique to the All Aboard framework as the concern applies to most popular conceptions of digital literacies. That said, this important gap in our current conception of digital literacies is particularly apparent in the above definition originally proposed by Jisc (2014) referring to the development of capabilities which ‘fit’ an individual for the digital society. If digital literacies are core to what it means to be an educated person in the 21st Century, then our thinking needs to go beyond preparing people to fit the type of inequitable and socially unjust societies we have created over the past century. Frameworks such as All Aboard, DigComp, Digital Capability, and so on, limit our conception of digital literacies to helping people more fully participate in society; and arguably they do little to develop the type of critical knowledge and political agency to engage with, and fundamentally address, the really big issues facing humanity in the digital-era.

After all, we cannot ignore the stark reality that 52% of the world’s population still does not have access to the Internet (Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, 2017b). Moreover, according to a recent Oxfam (2017) report, eight men own the same amount of wealth as the poorest part of the world. The next part of this discussion picks up on the challenge of this very real divide by locating digital literacies in a wider socio-political context. It argues that our governments, policy-makers and educational leaders will fail to serve future generations if the definition of digital literacies does not help to promote a greater sense of moral and political agency to disrupt ‘a world where 1% of humanity controls as much wealth as the bottom 99%’ of the population (Oxfam, 2017, p.1). As a forthcoming World Bank Group (2018) report states in the context of the growing social, economic and digital divide this is ‘a moral crisis’ (p.3).

5.2 Wider socio-political context

What this crisis and the disturbing figures quoted above from Oxfam illustrate is that what we choose to define as digital literacies is inherently political and cannot be separated from issues of power and control. To quote Bruner (1993), ‘Meaning is radically plural, always open, (…) there is politics in every account’ (p.1). Put another way the wider socio-political context is crucial to defining and understanding digital literacies, and the much wider concept of critical citizenry in the digital-era. Such a conception of citizenship encompasses an understanding that our own appetite for, and uncritical consumption of, new digital technology as part of the life those of us living in the developed world have become accustom to is at the root of many of our problems, including the grand challenges of globalization, climate change and an increasingly unsustainable planet. Therefore, learning when not to use, replace or update technology needs to be an important part of critical digital citizenship for the future.

Figure 7: NMC comparison of different digital literacy frameworks

At this point of the discussion it needs to be noted that in the middle of 2017 the NMC published a follow up part II report which more fully acknowledges the socio-political context and different conceptions of digital literacies across international borders (Alexander, Adams Becker, Cummins, & Hall Giesinger, 2017). While the report claims the originally proposed model (Alexander, Adams Becker, & Cummins, 2016) holds up fairly well based on this further research, and in comparison to a handful of frameworks reviewed from other countries (see Figure 7), the authors conclude that context matters a great deal as different institutions and countries adopt different approaches to digital literacies.

The largest difference observed between the 2016 and 2017 research on the nature of digital literacies is an increasing emphasis on the role of culture and politics. Although the European framework is a notable omission from this analysis, to the authors credit this second report recognizes the ‘…need for a stronger emphasis on thinking through digital literacy in terms of unequal access to information technology, based on inequalities of economics, gender, race, and political divides’ (Alexander, Adams Becker, Cummins, & Hall Giesinger, 2017, p. 13). Having said that, there remains an inherent contradiction in the report’s call for a broader conception of digital citizenship, which encompasses political activism around the world, as very few of the identified so-called exemplars for digital literacy truly reflect a wider socio-political perspective.

5.3 Emergence of critical digital literacies

The aforementioned UNESCO report published in September 2017 by the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development (2017a) takes up the challenge of digital literacy for all. It confronts what the report describes as pronounced inequalities and disparities in terms of digital skills and makes the case for education systems to quickly and radically change to close equity gaps to better equip people to solve real world problems in their communities and beyond. In this context, digital skills, defined as a ‘combination of behaviours, expertise, know-how, work habits, character traits, dispositions and critical understandings’, are claimed to be best understood as existing on ‘a graduated continuum from basic functional skills to higher level, specialist skills’ (Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, 2017a, p.4).

More specifically, anchored in UNESCO’s Sustainable Development Goal for Education (SDG4) to ‘Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning’, the report identifies three broad but distinct areas of digital skills for life and work:

? Basic functional digital skills for accessing and engaging with digital technologies;

? Generic digital skills for using digital technologies in meaningful and beneficial ways;

? Higher-level skills for using digital technology in empowering and transformative ways.

Importantly, this third category of higher-level skills is couched in the language of critical digital literacy, which the report describes as:

A set of specific understandings and a disposition towards the politics of the digital society and digital economy. This foregrounds the ability of individuals to analyse the political features of digital technology and manipulate these to achieve particular outcomes. In this sense, it is argued that individuals need to be able to recognize the motivations of actors in the digital spaces (Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, 2017a, p.32).

More succinctly, this cluster of socio-political skills is discussed in terms of a critical digital mindset, which prepares individuals to be adaptable and versatile in the face of ongoing and potentially far-reaching changes to the digitalization of societies—for better and worse. Above all, the report emphasizes the need to focus on developing the ‘digital agency’ of individuals in terms of their development as digital citizens and digital workers.

5.4 Encapsulating the critical and contextual

It remains to be seen whether UNESCO chooses to develop a more explicit and detailed framework or set of international standards to advance the depth of thinking reflected in this latest report. If this is the next step, as suggested in the recommendations, then any follow up project and proposed framework faces at least three challenges:

?     To retain a core focus on developing agency and critical mindsets for better futures for all rather than promoting narrow digital skillsets for the more immediate demands of today’s knowledge economy;

?     To avoid the trap of over-specifying the type of digital skills required and the levels of proficiency, especially given the contextual and rapidly evolving nature of new digital technologies;

?     To recognise and strike an appropriate balance between universal frameworks and the highly situated and contextualised nature of digital literacies.

To some degree the above points are reflected in Doug Belshaw’s (2015) eight essential elements of digital literacies—culture, cognitive, constructive, communicative, confident, creative, critical and civic—as they attempt to encapsulate both a strong critical and contextual flavour (see Figure 8). Notably, this framework, as illustrated by the darker shades of colour in the latest comparison undertaken by the NMC (see Figure 7), is one of the few that explicitly recognises the importance of learning how to use digital technologies for public engagement, global citizenship and the enhancement of democracy—for better lives and more sustainable futures. That said, Belshaw is wary of efforts to present digital literacies in relatively simplistic frameworks and reports in the quote below that he has tried to resist requests to do so:

I’ve been asked many times for a diagram of the eight essential elements, something that will fit nicely on a PowerPoint slide. While I can do so—and have done on occasion—I feel that this perpetuates a problem I’ve seen time and time again in my research. People over-specify an answer to a question that differs massively according to the context. This is why you won’t see a definition of ‘digital literacy’ in this book (Belshaw, 2015, p.58).

Figure 8: The 8 Essential Elements of Digital Literacies

As Bhatt (2017) reminds us, context is the starting point of the now well-established tradition of research often referred to as the New Literacy Studies. Any attempt to define [digital] literacies need to be ‘…located as part of social practices and occur within culturally constructed instances or literacy events’ (Bhatt, 2017, p.1). Gillen and Barton (2010) point out that ‘Learning is always connected to specific domains of activity–the settings, participants, discourses and dynamics of participation’ (p.5). For this reason, despite good intentions, as mentioned at the outset of this discussion, there is a risk that many current digital literacies models and frameworks lack contextual validity, which is fully cognizant of the complexity of situated practice.

5.5 Danger of deskilling

Unfortunately, some of the more flashy, flimsy and faddish frameworks for digital literacies may even be guilty of promoting false clarity of what still remains a messy construct. Indeed, efforts to provide relatively simple and visually attractive models and frameworks, without a stated or explicit theoretical foundation, and divorced from social, cultural, political and institutional contexts, may inadvertently deskill educators from critically reading some of the deeper forces at work in the drive to produce more digitally skilled learners, workers and citizens.

With the notable exception of the European DigComp project, very few frameworks for digital literacies explicitly document and report the methodologies they adopt in their development process, and how they sought to address the question of trustworthiness–that is, reliability (i.e., does everyone agree and consistently assign specific digital skills and competencies to the same proposed category?); and validity (i.e., do proposed categories for digital literacies and related skills truly reflect the concept?). In other words can we trust the particular representation of digital literacies, especially since there are so many competing models and frameworks?

From a pedagogical perspective, moreover, there is a danger of promoting narrow instrumentalist approaches to digital skills development, as evidenced by the growing trend to map and issue digital badges for completion of specific competencies. In so doing there is a risk of reifying the validity of the specific framework without inviting critique of underlying assumptions. Arguably, one of the takeaway lessons from the latest UNESCO report is that the sum of the whole is greater than the individual parts in efforts to cultivate and support critical digital mindsets.

The key point is that the emergence of the digital literacies movement is not neutral and must be seen as part of wider social practice. The concept of social practice recognizes that different conceptions of digital literacies are not on an independent trajectory and cannot be uncoupled from wider debates over issues of power and privilege and the struggle to exert control over the education system (Brown, 2016). In this respect, efforts to foster digital mindsets and promote critical conceptions of digital literacies need to strike a balance between a focus on the development of important skills for today anchored in the language of opportunity and deeper levels of critique framed in the longer-term mission of promoting access, equity and education for all. Such critique needs to go beyond a focus on individuals developing their digital identity, safety and wellbeing by helping to unravel some of the entangled arguments and competing macro-level discourses often imbued in the language of globalization, neo-liberalism, and technological determinism. From this critical transformative perspective the goal of developing digital literacies is inextricably linked to enabling a greater sense of both personal and collective agency to help address some of the bigger issues confronting the future of humanity in an uncertain world.

6. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the digital literacies movement is complex. While the latest UNESCO report with its emphasis on promoting critical digital mindsets is an important move in the right direction this paper shows there is no single overarching model or framework for digital literacies, which fully addresses all of the points raised in the discussion. Accordingly, to explore some of the tensions and wider socio-political practices underlying the concept of digital literacies we need a type of double vision which helps us to ask who is shaping the current movement and for what purpose? What is missing in the discourse? What assumptions, theories and research evidence underpin specific frameworks? Whose interests are being served when particular frameworks are being promoted? Beyond efforts to produce flashy and visually attractive models how might we reimagine digital literacies to promote critical mindsets and active citizenry in order to reshape our societies for new ways of living, learning and working for a better future—for all?

Importantly, this last overarching question reminds us that local, national and global initiatives must go beyond a narrow focus on mastering keystrokes and even the wider goal of promoting greater participation in the digital society. There is a bigger picture at stake. If we fail to frame digital literacies in a wider socio-political context then we limit our efforts to better understand the relative strengths and weakness of different models and frameworks. To this end, the paper hopefully offers useful insights for the academic and wider educational community to engage in more informed debate. From my vantage point in the Republic of Ireland such debate should heed the salient advice of George Bernard Shaw—the great Irish critic, playwright and polemicist:

Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.

7. REFERENCES

Alexander, B., Adams Becker, S., & Cummins, M. (2016). Digital literacy: An NMC Horizon project strategic brief. Volume 3.3, October 2016. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Alexander, B., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., & Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). Digital literacy in higher education, Part II: An NMC Horizon project strategic brief. Volume 3.4. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

All Aboard. (2015). Towards a National digital skills framework for Irish higher education: Review and comparison of existing frameworks and models. Available at https://allaboardhe.org/DSFramework2015.pdf

Becker , H.J. (1998). Running to catch a moving train: Schools and information technologies. Theory in Practice 37 (1), 20-30.

Beetham, H. (2017; 9th March). Digital capability framework: An update. Blog post in Jisc Digital Capability Codesign Challenge. Available at https://digitalcapability.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2017/03/09/digital-capabilities-framework-an-update

Belshaw, D. (2015). The essential elements of digital literacies. [Self-published through Gumroad Inc]. Available at https://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2016/01/02/digilit-ebook-199/

Bhatt, I. (2017). Assignments as controversies: Digital literacy and writing in classroom practice. New York and London: Routledge.

Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development. (2017a). Working group on education: Digital skills for life and work. Available from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002590/259013e.pdf

Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development. (2017b). The state of broadband 2017: Broadband catalyzing sustainable development. Available from https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/opb/pol/S-POL-BROADBAND.18-2017-PDF-E.pdf

Brown, M. (2016). MOOCs as social practice: A kaleidoscope of perspectives (pp.31-41). In E. De Corte, L. Enwall, & U. Teichler (Eds.). From Books to MOOCs? Emerging models of learning and teaching in higher education. Wenner-Gren International Series, 88. London: Portland Press.

Bruner, J.S. (1993). Introduction: The ethnographic self the personal self. In P. Bensen (Ed.), Anthropology and literature. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1 The digital competence framework for citizens. Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), European Commission.

European Commission. (2017). European Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI). Available from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi

European Union. (2017). Education and training monitor 2017. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, Available from https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/monitor2017_en.pdf

European Union. (2017). Education and training monitor 2017. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, Available from https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/monitor2017_en.pdf

Ferrari A., Punie Y., & Redecker C. (2012). Understanding digital competence in the 21st Century: An analysis of current frameworks. In: Ravenscroft A., Lindstaedt S., Kloos C.D., Hernández-Leo D. (eds.), 21st Century learning for 21st Century skills. EC-TEL 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7563. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Gillen, J., & Barton, D. (2010). Digital literacies: Research briefing for the TLRP-TEL (Teaching and Learning Research Programme – Technology Enhanced Learning). London: ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme.

Ham, V., & Wenmoth, D. (2002). Educator’s use of the Online Learning Centre (Te Kete Ipurangi) 1999-2001. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Heppell, S. (2001). Preface. In A. Loveless & V. Ellis (Eds.). ICT, pedagogy and the curriculum (pp.xv- xix). London: Routledge.

Janssen, J., & Stoyanov, S. (2012). Online consultation on experts’ views on digital competence. Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available from https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC73694/final%20online%20consultation%20report%20and%20cover.pdf

Jisc. (2014). Developing digital literacies. Available at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/developing-digital-literacies

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

Oxfam. (2017). An economy for the 99%. Oxfam briefing paper. Available at https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp-economy-for-99-percent-160117-en.pdf

Sharpe, R., & Beetham, H. (2010). Understanding students’ uses of technology for learning: towards creative appropriation. In R. Sharpe, H. Beetham & S. De Freitas (Eds.), Rethinking learning for a digital age: How learners are shaping their own experiences (pp. 85-99). London and New York: Routledge.

Strudler, N. (2003). Answering the call: A response to Roblyer and Knezek. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (1), 72-75.

Vuorikari, R., Punie, Y., Carretero Gomez S., & Van den Brande, G. (2016). DigComp 2.0: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens. Update Phase 1: The Conceptual Reference Model. Luxembourg Publication Office of the European Union.

World Bank Group. (2018). World development report 2018: Learning to realize education’s promise. Available from https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2017/09/26/world-bank-warns-of-learning-crisis-in-global-education

World Economic Forum. (2016). 8 digital skills we must teach our children. Available from https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/8-digital-skills-we-must-teach-our-children-f37853d7221e