Content uploaded by Eliana Esther Gallardo-Echenique
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eliana Esther Gallardo-Echenique on Mar 24, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2015
1
Digital Competence in the Knowledge Society
Eliana E. Gallardo-Echenique
Researcher
Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology
Universitat Rovira i Virgili
Carretera de Valls s/n, 43007, Tarragona, Spain
egallardoechenique@gmail.com
Janaina Minelli de Oliveira
Lecturer
Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology
Universitat Rovira i Virgili
Carretera de Valls s/n, 43007, Tarragona, Spain
janaina.oliveira@urv.cat
Luis Marqués-Molias
Dean
Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology
Universitat Rovira i Virgili
Carretera de Valls s/n, 43007, Tarragona, Spain
luis.marques@urv.cat
Francesc Esteve-Mon
Lecturer
Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology
Universitat Rovira i Virgili
Carretera de Valls s/n, 43007, Tarragona, Spain
francescmarc.esteve@urv.cat
Abstract
New Information and Communication Technologies such as the Internet, online
gaming worlds, artificial intelligence, robotics and 3D printing require new literacies.
In recent years, digital competence has become a key concept in discussions on
the kind of skills and understanding learners need in the Knowledge Society. The
concept has been interpreted in various ways (e.g. Digital Literacy, Digital
Competence, eLiteracy, e-Skills, eCompetence, Computer literacy, and Media
literacy) in policy documents, in the academic literature, and in teaching, learning
and certification practices. In this paper we review the literature on digital
competence and related terms. This review of 73 articles published between 1990
and 2014 shows that digital competence is a multi-faceted concept that has
emerged from several backgrounds. Not yet a stable concept, there are still no
clear guidelines for evaluating it. While some perceive digital competence as the
technical use of ICT, others define it more broadly as knowledge application or 21st
century skills.
Keywords: digital literacy, digital competence, multiliteracies, literature review,
integrative review
Introduction
The word “literate” means to be “familiar with literature” or “‘well educated, learned” (UNESCO,
2006, p. 148). The term “literacy” is an evolving concept derived from conceptions of traditional
(print) literacy and related literate practices (UNESCO, 2006; Area, Gutiérrez & Vidal, 2012).
Since the late nineteenth century, it has also referred to the ability to read and write text using
traditional (print) literacy (Belshaw, 2011; UNESCO, 2006). Today, this meaning has been
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2015
2
extended to include practices mediated by new technologies – particularly computing and
communications technologies (Belshaw, 2011).
The educational landscape is changing rapidly (Kress, 2003). The Internet has a multiplicative
effect that enables the dissemination and generation of new technologies with educational,
social, and cultural consequences. New digital technologies, for example, can integrate sound
and moving images, oral and written language, and 3D objects, etc. Used in educational
contexts, each of these digital devices has specific affordances, uses, and constraints. New
information and communication technologies therefore require new literacies (Leu, Zawilinski,
Castek, Banerjee, Housand, Liu & O’Neil, 2007).
In this new educational landscape, many learners enter further and higher education without the
skills they need to apply digital technologies to education (European Commission, 2013).
Extending and improving digital competence is an essential component in the development of
employable graduates. Since 90% of new jobs will require excellent digital skills, those without
sufficient ICT skills will be at a disadvantage in the labor market and have less access to
information (European Commission, 2013; JISC, 2013).
In recent years, digital competence has become a key concept in discussions on the kind of
skills and understanding learners need in the knowledge society. However, it has been
interpreted in various ways (e.g. Digital Literacy, Digital Competence, eLiteracy, e-Skills,
eCompetence, Computer literacy, and Media literacy) in policy documents, in the academic
literature, and in teaching, learning and certification practices. All these terms highlight the need
to handle technology in the digital age (Ferrari, 2012; Gallardo-Echenique, 2012). In this paper
we analyze the range of concepts and approaches associated with digital competence and its
related terms.
Digital competence has been analyzed from several linguistic, cultural and disciplinary
backgrounds. This paper does not intend to reach a single definition in a reductionist view but to
systematically review the various definitions and to identify the connection points from a broad
and diverse vision. This will enable us not only to further advance the knowledge generation but
also to identify key aspects of this essential competence for education in the 21st century.
Method
To address our research aim, we conducted an integrative literature review (Table 1) that:
“reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way
such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated” (Torraco, 2005, p.
356). This method incorporates a wide range of empirical and research-based articles, books,
and grey literature (e.g. conference website and published proceedings) on digital competence
from databases such as the ISI Web of Knowledge, ERIC, the Social Sciences Citation Index®,
ScienceDirect, SAGE Publications, Wiley Online Library, Taylor & Francis Online, Emerald
Group Publishing, the European Union Database, the UNESDOC Database and Google
Scholar.
Table 1.
Stages of the integrative review process
Stage
Application
Problem identification
Range of terms, concepts and approaches associated with digital
competence and its affiliate terms
Literature search
Electronic databases searched
Internet search strategy
Search terms
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
Data evaluation
Empirical and theoretical publications
Data analysis
Thematic analysis to develop categories
Presentation
Summary of major findings
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2015
3
Limitation of the study
The inclusion criteria were: a) peer-reviewed journal articles, b) reports commissioned by
international organizations, and c) literature reviews, including unpublished/grey literature from
government reports, policy statements, conference proceedings, theses, dissertations, and
research reports. Only full-text articles published in English (universal language of science) or
Spanish (reviewers' mother tongue) between January 1990 and December 2014 were included.
Descriptors used to identify exemplars included Digital literacy, Digital competence, ICT literacy,
Computer literacy, and Media literacy. A list of conceptually similar words is used throughout the
literature.
Two Spanish/English-speaking researchers conducted the review of the articles. As the initial
search with the keyword combinations yielded thousands of publications, a staged review – first
an initial review and then an in-depth review of the abstracts (Torraco, 2005) – was conducted
to review, identify relevant publications, and assign the category of “not for review” or “for
review”. This search recorded a preliminary 682 publications. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
were applied to the papers in the “for review” category during screening. In all, 73 articles (both
qualitative and quantitative) met the inclusion criteria and matched the aims of this review. In
the final stage of the review, a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was conducted in order
to create categories. The publications were synthesized and categorized according to specific
literacies (media literacy, information literacy, computer literacy, ICT literacy, and technology
literacy) associated with digital competence.
Digital competence: a review of terms, concepts and characteristics
Recent years have seen numerous important international contributions aimed at defining digital
competence, which has become a key concept in discussions of the kind of skills and
understanding people need in the digital era. Table 2 gives an overview of the wide range of
terms used for this concept. As will be explained in greater detail, some are intrinsically
associated to digital competence and some are slightly different.
Table 2.
Terms referring to digital competence
Term
Reference
Year
Design
Type
Media literacy
Aufderheide & Firestone
1993
Theoretical
Report
Bawden
2001
Theoretical
Journal
Henry J. Kaiser Family
Foundation
2003
Theoretical
Report
New Media Consortium
2005
Theoretical
Report
Pérez-Tornero & Varis
2010
Theoretical
Book
Wilson, Grizzle, Tuazon,
Akyempong & Cheung
2011
Theoretical
Report
New literacies
Buckingham
1993
Theoretical
Journal
Leu
2000
Theoretical
Journal
Lankshear & Knobel
2003
Theoretical
Book
Leu et al.
2007
Theoretical
Book Chapter
Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear &
Leu
2008
Empirical
Book
Multimodality
Kress & Van Leeuwen
1996
Theoretical
Book
Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn &
Tsatsarelis
2001
Theoretical
Book
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2015
4
Kress & Van Leeuwen
2001
Theoretical
Book
Kress
2003
Theoretical
Book
Jewitt & Kress
2003
Theoretical
Book
Jewitt
2008
Theoretical
Journal
Walsh
2009
Theoretical
Book Chapter
Computer literacy
Hawkins & Paris
1997
Empirical
Journal
National Research Council
1999
Theoretical
Report
Digital literacy
Gilster
1997
Theoretical
Book
Bawden
2001
Theoretical
Book Chapter
Eshet
2002
Empirical
Conference
Eshet-Alkalai
2004
Theoretical
Journal
Pérez-Tornero
2004
Theoretical
Report
Martin
2005
Empirical
Journal
Jones-Kavalier & Flannigan
2006
Theoretical
Journal
Martin & Grudziecki
2006
Empirical
Journal
Buckingham
2007
Theoretical
Journal
Somerville, Lampert,
Dabbour, Harlan & Schader
2007
Theoretical
Journal
Eshet-Alkalai
2009
Theoretical
Book Chapter
Nawaz & Kundi
2010
Theoretical
Journal
Area, Gutiérrez & Vidal
2012
Theoretical
Journal
Meyers, Erickson & Small
2013
Theoretical
Journal
Media education
UNESCO
1999
Theoretical
Report
Pérez-Tornero
2004
Theoretical
Report
Hague & Williamson
2009
Theoretical
Report
Information literacy
Bawden
2001
Theoretical
Journal
Association of College and
Research Libraries
2000
Theoretical
Brochure
Jackman & Jones
2002
Theoretical
Report
Buschman
2010
Theoretical
Journal
Wilson et al.
2011
Theoretical
Report
Multiliteracies
Cope & Kalantzis
2000
Theoretical
Book
Unsworth
2001
Theoretical
Book
Jewitt
2008
Theoretical
Journal
Hepple, Sockhill, Tan & Alford
2014
Empirical
Journal
Tan & Guo
2014
Empirical
Journal
ICT Literacy
International ICT Literacy
Panel
2002
Theoretical
Report
Somerville et al.
2007
Theoretical
Journal
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2015
5
eLiteracy
Martin
2003
Position
Journal
e-Competence
European eCompetence
Initiative
2004
Theoretical
Project
Schneckenberg & Wildt
2006
Theoretical
Book Chapter
European e-Competence
Framework
2007
Theoretical
Report
Breyer, Hook & Marinoni
2007
Theoretical
Report
European e-Competence
Framework
2010
Theoretical
Report
e-Skills
European e-Skills Forum
(European Commission)
2004
Theoretical
Report
DG Enterprise and Industry
(European Commission)
2007
Theoretical
Report
Korte & Hüsing
2010
Empirical
Report
Ala-Mutka
2011
Theoretical
Report
Technology literacy
Amiel
2004
Empirical
Journal
Kahn & Kellner
2005
Theoretical
Journal
Digital competence
European Parliament and the
Council of the European
Union
2006
Position
Journal
Calvani, Cartelli, Fini &
Ranieri
2008
Theoretical
Journal
Krumsvik
2008
Theoretical
Journal
Ala-Mutka
2011
Theoretical
Report
Ilomäki, Kantosalo & Lakkala
2011
Theoretical
Project
Ferrari
2012
Theoretical
Report
Ferrari, Punie & Redecker
2012
Theoretical
Conference
Larraz
2013
Empirical
Thesis
Digital Media Literacies
Buckingham
2007
Theoretical
Journal
Media and information
literacy
Wilson et al.
2011
Theoretical
Report
Note. Adapted from, “Competencia digital en el siglo XXI” by E. Gallardo-Echenique, 2012.
The terms “computer literacy” or “ICT literacy” are used in several contexts and have variations
such as “IT literacy” or “technology literacy”. Computer literacy, the term mainly in vogue
throughout the 1980s (Bawden, 2008), “often refers to the ability to use a spreadsheet and a
word processor and to search the World Wide Web for information” (NRC, 1999, p. 11).
According to Hawkins & Paris (1997), computer literacy denoted a level of expertise and
familiarity with computers and, especially, their applications. For the International ICT Literacy
Panel (2002, p. 2), “ICT literacy is using digital technology, communications tools, and/or
networks to access, manage, integrate, evaluate, and create information in order to function in a
knowledge society”. In response to a request from the National Academy of Sciences (United
States), the Committee on Information Technology Literacy of the National Research Council
(NRC, 1999) published the report Being Fluent with Information Technology to address the
subject of information technology literacy. In the report, the authors (NRC, 1999) used the term
fluency rather than literacy because computer literacy “has acquired a ‘skills’ connotation,
implying competency with a few of today’s computer applications, such as word processing and
e-mail. As the technology changes by leaps and bounds, existing skills become antiquated and
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2015
6
there is no migration path to new skills” (NRC, 1999, p. 2). They also suggest that the choice
also responds to a plan to adapt to changes in the technology, to acquire new skills, and to
adopt “fluency” as a term connoting a higher level of competency (NRC, 1999).
First coined in 1974, information literacy (Jackman & Jones, 2002), which is rooted in the
academic disciplines of library and information science, maintained a low volume in the
literature throughout the 1980s but expanded considerably in the 1990s (Bawden, 2001; 2008).
It is better to understand information literacy as something much broader than an enhanced
form of computer skills or bibliographic instruction (Bawden & Robinson, 2002; Bawden, 2008).
According to Jackman & Jones (2002, p. 3), information literacy is “a set of critical workplace
and educational skills, reflects the learning challenges inherent in a digital world economy,
which is dependent on a highly skilled workforce”. In 2000, the Association of College and
Research Libraries (ACRL) developed Information literacy standards for higher education and
proposed a definition for information literacy as a set of abilities requiring individuals to
“recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use
effectively the needed information” (ACRL, 2000, p. 2). For ACRL (2000, p.3), “information
literacy is related to information technology skills, but has broader implications for the individual,
the educational system, and for society”. Similar developments are being undertaken in
Australia and New Zealand. The Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy
(ANZIIL) and the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) have developed The
Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework. This Framework provides six
Information Literacy Standards that define the behaviors and learning outcomes for librarians
and educators in teaching and the assessment of information literacy. In the report, information
literacy is defined as “an understanding and set of abilities enabling individuals to recognize
when information is needed and have the capacity to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the
needed information” (Bundy, 2004, p. 3) and “is a ‘prerequisite’ and ‘essential enabler’ for
lifelong learning” (Bundy, 2004, p. 4). However, according to Allan Martin (2003), information
literacy is not as well established as computer literacy as a part of educational provision.
At the Vienna Conference Educating for the Media and the Digital Age, UNESCO (1999, pp.
273-274) defined media education as that which allows people “to gain understanding of the
communication media used in their society and the way they operate and to acquire skills in
using these media to communicate with others and addresses a wide range of texts in all media
(print, still image, audio, and moving image) which provide people with rich and diverse cultural
experiences”. According to Pérez-Tornero (2004), “media education” is a less used term that
retains the educational dimension and “refers specifically to the means of communication,
embracing both traditional media (the press, radio, television, etc.) as well as more recent
innovations (Internet, second and third generation mobile phones, etc.)” (p. 40). Hague &
Williamson (2009) use the terms “digital technology” and “new media” to refer to a wide range of
technologies that store and transmit information in digital form. These include computers, the
internet and e-mail, mobile phones and other mobile devices and cameras, video games, as
well as artificial intelligence, robotics and 3D printing.
Another term that is related to digital competence and used in the literature is media literacy
(Bawden, 2001). In the report by the National Leadership Conference (Aufderheide & Firestone,
1993), media literacy is defined as the movement to expand notions of literacy to include the
powerful post-print media that dominate our informational landscape and help people
understand, produce and negotiate meanings in a culture made up of powerful images, words
and sounds. A media-literate person can think critically about what they see, hear and read in
books, newspapers, magazines, television, radio, movies, music, advertising, video games, the
Internet, and new emerging technology (Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003). However,
McClure (as cited in Bawden, 2001), who has considered the interrelation of the concepts,
prefers to see media literacy as a component of information literacy. In addition, a new definition
– 21st century literacy – has emerged in the fields of media literacy, semiotics, iconography,
visual cognition, and the arts. The New Media Consortium (NMC) (2005) refers to the subset of
abilities and skills where aural, visual and digital literacy overlap and reinforce each other as
21st Century Literacy. These include the ability to understand the power of images and sounds,
to recognize and use that power, to manipulate and transform digital media, to distribute them
pervasively, and to adapt them easily to new forms (NMC, 2005).
In 2011, UNESCO suggested unifying notions of media literacy and information literacy under
one umbrella term – media and information literacy (MIL) – as a way to “emphasize the
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2015
7
development of enquiry-based skills and the ability to engage meaningfully with media and
information channels in whatever form and technologies they are using” (Wilson, Grizzle,
Tuazon, Akyempong & Cheung, 2011, p. 18). UNESCO also suggested a competency
framework where various literacies (e.g. library literacy, computer literacy, and internet literacy)
associated with MIL are linked.
Another term is ‘e-literacy’, which was coined in 2003 by Allan Martin (Martin & Grudziecki,
2006). This is defined as “the assumption that there are skills, awarenesses and
understandings which will enable individuals firstly to survive and secondly to be more effective,
in their e-encounters” (Martin, 2003, p. 23). According to Martin (as cited himself in Martin 2008,
pp. 165-166), "eLiteracy for the individual consists of: a) awareness of the ICT and information
environment; b) confidence in using generic ICT and information tools; c) evaluation of
information-handling operations and products; d) reflection on one’s own eLiteracy
development; e) adaptability and willingness to meet eLiteracy challenges”. According to
Lindsey Martin (2006, p. 98), the interpretation of the term e-literacy “suggests the simple
provision of basic skills that will allow individuals to enter and survive in the e-world”. According
to Joint (2005, p. 147), the terms “eLiteracy” and “information literacy” are different but mutually
compatible concepts that are valid in specific contexts.
In 2004 the European e-Skills Forum adopted a definition of the term "e-skills" that
encompasses a wide range of capabilities (knowledge, skills and competences), covering three
main categories: ICT practitioner skills; ICT user skills, and e-business skills (European e-Skills
Forum, 2004; Korte & Hüsing, 2010; see also http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/e-
skills/index_en.htm). e-Skills is the concept used by the European Commission's DG Enterprise
and Industry and the ICT industry to respond to the growing demand for highly-skilled ICT
practitioners and users in order to ensure that every citizen is digitally literate in a context of
lifelong learning (European Commission, 2007; Ala-Mutka, 2011).
Another concept used in policy documents and initiatives when referring to skills and
competences in the information society is eCompetence (Ala-Mutka, 2011). This term,
developed by experts, focuses on individual and organizational strategies for integrating ICT in
Higher Education (http://www.ecompetence.info/). The term is also used and known from the
work of the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) on developing a European e-
Competence Framework (e-CF) for ICT practitioners (European e-Competence Framework
2010; Ala-Mutka 2011; see also http://www.ecompetences.eu/). According to The European
eCompetence Initiative, eCompetence is “one of the key, decisive factors in the full exploitation
of the potential of new media” (http://www.ecompetence.info/). According to Schneckenberg &
Wildt (2006, p. 31), eCompetence “is the ability to use ICT in teaching and learning in a
meaningful way”.
Digital literacy, a concept that is closely related to digital competence, was introduced by Paul
Gilster in his 1997 book of the same name. This concept has a longer tradition than digital
competence and is usually understood as a combination of technical-procedural, cognitive and
emotional-social skills. Gilster (1997) defines this concept as the ability to understand and use
information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers.
Digital literacy (Jones-Kavalier & Flannigan, 2006) represents a person’s ability to perform tasks
effectively in a digital environment, where “digital” means information represented in numeric
form and primarily for use by a computer. Merchant (2009, p. 39) suggested that “the central
concern of digital literacy is reading and writing with new technologies – technologies which
involve the semiotic of written representation – recognizing that on-screen texts invariably
combine writing with other modes of representation”.
According to Eshet-Alkalai (2004, p. 93), “digital literacy involves more than the mere ability to
use software or operate a digital device; it includes a large variety of complex cognitive, motor,
sociological, and emotional skills, which users need in order to function effectively in digital
environments”. In 2004, Eshet-Alkalai proposed a five-skill holistic conceptual model for this
concept, arguing that the model covers most of the cognitive skills users employ in digital
environments: (a) photovisual digital thinking; (b) reproduction digital thinking; (c) branching
digital thinking; (d) information digital thinking; and (e) socio-emotional digital thinking (Eshet-
Alkalai (2004, 2009). Because of the rapid evolution of multimedia and game technologies,
Eshet-Alkalai (2009) also added real-time digital thinking.
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2015
8
The Promoting digital literacy report requested by the European Commission defined digital
literacy as “an expression that suggests that the abilities required to use the new technologies
are similar in some respects to those required for reading and writing” (Pérez-Tornero (2004, p.
40)). In the context of the eLearning Programme of the European Commission, the DigEuLit
project – the goal of which was to develop a European Framework for Digital Literacy (EFDL) –
conceived digital literacy as a convergence of several literacies, including elements of ICT
literacy, Information Literacy, Media Literacy and Visual Literacy (Martin, 2005). Digital Literacy
is “the awareness, attitude and ability of individuals to appropriately use digital tools and
facilities to identify, access, manage, integrate, evaluate, analyze, and synthesize digital
resources, construct new knowledge, create media expressions, and communicate with others,
in the context of specific life situations, in order to enable constructive social action; and to
reflect upon this process” (Martin & Grudziecki, 2006, p. 255). Later, Allan Martin (2009, p. 8)
proposed three “levels” or stages for the development of digital literacy (see Figure 1). Martin
(2009) argued that this definition suggested discussing digital literacy only at levels II or III;
digital competence is a requirement for and a precursor of digital literacy but it cannot be
described as digital literacy.
Figure 1. Levels of Digital Literacy. From “Digital literacy for the third age: Sustaining identity in
an uncertain world”, by A. Martin, 2009, eLearning Papers, 12, p. 8.
According to Nawaz & Kundi (2010), there are two paradigms to digital literacy and two broader
theories about the nature and role of ICT in the learning process: Instrumental/Behaviorist and
Substantive/Constructivist. The instrumental view considers technology as a ‘tool’ with no
inherent value, while the substantive view argues that technology is not neutral and has positive
or negative impacts (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010). Taking this reflective and critical approach, some
authors suggest that digital literacy cannot be limited to a purely utilitarian and reductive view of
certain digital skills but is linked to a broader, more critical view of society in an era of
technological revolution (Buschman, 2010; Kahn & Kellner, 2005).
In 1993, the term "new literacies" was coined by David Buckingham, and his definition has been
conceptualized in different ways by different groups of scholars. According to Buckingham
(2007), this proliferation of literacies may be fashionable and carries a degree of social status.
Buckingham (2011) suggests that the meaning attributed to digital literacy tends to be narrower,
relates to the technology itself and demands a much broader reconceptualization of what
literacy means in a world increasingly dominated by electronic media. According to Leu (2000),
literacy is increasingly deictic, continually and rapidly changing as new technologies emerge in
an age of information. Becoming literate is seen not in terms of “acquiring the ability to take
advantage of the literacy potential inherent in a single, static, technology of literacy (e.g.
traditional print technology), but rather by a larger mindset and the ability to continuously adapt
to the new literacies required by the new technologies that rapidly and continuously spread,
Level III: DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION (innovation/creativity)
Level II: DIGITAL USAGE (professional/discipline application, etc.)
Level I: DIGITAL COMPETENCE (skills, concepts, approaches, attitudes, etc.)
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2015
9
particularly through the Internet” (Coiro, J., Knobel, Lankshear & Leu, 2008, p. 5). According to
Coiro et al. (2008), new literacies are identified with an epochal change in technologies and
associated changes in social and cultural ways of doing things, ways of being, and ways of
viewing the world.
In an age of increased digital communication, the terms ‘multiliteracies’, ‘new literacies’,
‘multimodal texts’, ‘multimodal discourse’ and ‘multimodality’ represent attempts to describe the
textual shift that has occurred and to conceptualize the changed learning paradigm that is
fundamental to literacy and learning (Walsh, 2009). According to Jewitt (2008, p. 242) “the
concept of multiple literacies has emerged in response to the theorizations of the new
conditions of contemporary society”. Rejecting the plural form “literacies”, multimodality or
multimodal literacy was initially developed by researchers at the Institute of Education of
London University (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996; Kress, 2003; 2006; Jewitt & Kress, 2003;
Jewitt, 2006; 2008). A basic assumption of multimodal theory is that “both learning and sign-
making are dynamic processes which change the resources through which the processes take
place – whether as concepts in psychology or as signs in semiotics – and change those who
are involved in the processes” (Kress, 2003, p. 40). Jewitt claims that the way knowledge is
represented, as well as the mode and media chosen, is a crucial aspect of knowledge
construction, making the form of representation integral to meaning and learning more generally
(Jewitt, 2008).
An institutional definition comes from the European Commission. Digital competence, as
defined in the European Parliament and the Recommendation on Key Competences for Lifelong
Learning of the Council of the European Union (2006, p. 13), “involves the confident and critical
use of Information Society Technology (IST) for work, leisure and communication. It is
underpinned by basic skills in ICT: the use of computers to retrieve, assess, store, produce,
present and exchange information, and to communicate and participate in collaborative
networks via the Internet”.
Another way to define the concept, provided by Calvani, Cartelli, Fini & Ranieri (2008, p. 186),
suggests that digital competence involves “being able to explore and face new technological
situations in a flexible way, to analyze, select and critically evaluate data and information, to
exploit technological potentials in order to represent and solve problems and build shared and
collaborative knowledge, while fostering awareness of one’s own personal responsibilities and
the respect of reciprocal rights/obligations”. Also, the definition proposed by Calvani, Fini and
Ranieri (2010), emphasizes the co-existence of dimensions that are characterized both on the
technological, cognitive and ethical levels and by their integration. The chart below (Calvani et
al., 2010) summarizes this model.
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2015
10
Figure 2.Digital Competence Framework. From “Digital Competence in K-12: theoretical
models, assessment tools and empirical research”, by A. Calvani, A. Fini, and M. Ranieri, 2010,
Analisi: Quaderns de Comunicació i Cultura, 40, p. 163.
A recent study that aimed to identify, select and analyze current frameworks, identified the
following competences: Information management, collaboration, communication and sharing,
creation of content and knowledge, ethics and responsibility, evaluation and problem-solving,
and technical operations (Ferrari 2012). Ferrari (2012) proposes the following definition:
Digital Competence is the set of knowledge, skills, attitudes (thus including abilities,
strategies, values and awareness) that are required when using ICT and digital media
to perform tasks; solve problems; communicate; manage information; collaborate;
create and share content; and build knowledge effectively, efficiently, appropriately,
critically, creatively, autonomously, flexibly, ethically, reflectively for work, leisure,
participation, learning, socializing, consuming, and empowerment (p. 43).
According to Ferrari, Punie and Redecker (2012), there are two main approaches to the
concepts of digital literacy and digital competence. The first understands digital competence at
the convergence of multiple literacies; the second understands digital competence as a new
literacy that goes beyond the sum of the various literacies (internet literacy, ICT literacy,
information literacy and media literacy) and involves other components that come into the
framework of digital competence.
A new definition has recently been developed by Larraz (2013), who theorizes digital
competence as the capacity to mobilize different "literacies" to manage the information and
communicate knowledge and solve issues in an evolving society. According to Larraz (2013),
digital competence requires the presence of four literacies: a) information literacy, for managing
digital information; b) computer literacy, for treating data in different formats; c) media literacy,
for analyzing and creating multimedia messages; and d) communication literacy, for
participating in a safe, ethical and civic manner from a digital identity.
To be in line with the European Recommendation, we decided to adopt the term “digital
competence” proposed by Larraz. We believe it is important to bring together academics,
policymakers and practitioners from numerous backgrounds in order to enable people to make
informed decisions in response to the new challenges presented by the knowledge society in all
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2015
11
areas of their learning system (personal, professional and social), and, most importantly, to
learn how to learn throughout their lives.
Conclusion
This study has identified the extensive theoretical and literary diversity surrounding the term
"digital competence". We have shown that authors and researchers, in attempting to coin new
concepts, have provided multiple definitions: some are similar, others are quite differentiated,
and many are redundant. Our review shows that digital competence and digital literacy are
closely related but not identical. Table 3 provides a summary of the nuances and subtleties
identified in the literature that are helpful for distinguishing between digital competence and
digital literacy.
Table 3.
Differences between digital competence and digital literacy
Digital competence
Digital literacy
An employability requirement of the digital
age
Conceptualizations of the changing learning
paradigm in the digital age
A ‘skills’ connotation, implying
competency with some of today’s
computer applications, including word
processing and e-mail, etc.
Deictic approaches to learning and
communication
Set of abilities needed to apply digital
technologies to work, leisure and
education
Set of understandings needed in the digital
era to understand, produce and negotiate
meaning in a culture made up of powerful
images, words and sounds
Skills people should have in the digital era
An assumption that skills, awarenesses and
understandings exist that will enable
individuals first to survive and second to be
more effective in their e-encounters
Skills to communicate with others and
address a wide range of texts in all media
A combination of technical-procedural,
cognitive and emotional-social skills
A range of capabilities (knowledge, skills
and competences) covering three main
categories: ICT practitioner skills; ICT
user skills, and e-business skills
Processes of awareness, confidence,
evaluation, reflection, adaptability and
willingness to meet the digital age challenges
Demonstrated ability to apply knowledge,
skills and attitudes to achieve observable
results; measurable performance through
rubrics
Ability to understand and use information in
multiple formats from a wide range of
sources when this is presented via
computers
Confident and critical use of Information
Society Technology (IST) for work, leisure
and communication
Complex cognitive, motor, sociological, and
emotional skills that users need in order to
function effectively in digital environments
Underpinned by basic skills in ICT: the
use of computers to retrieve, assess,
store, produce, present and exchange
information, and to communicate and
participate in collaborative networks via
the Internet
Awareness, attitude and underling abilities
needed to use digital tools appropriately and
to reflect upon this process
Although the concept of digital literacy seems to be the one most widely used internationally,
the term digital competence is often used synonymously, especially in the European context
(Ferrari, 2012; Krumsvik, 2008). However, the two terms do not always have the same
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2015
12
connotations or the same level of abstraction depending on the linguistic context and the
perspective in which they are implemented (Meyers et al., 2013).
On the basis of this literature review, digital competence may be considered a multi-faceted
concept that emerges from several backgrounds (Ala-Mutka, 2011; Ilomäki, Kantosalo &
Lakkala, 2011b; Gallardo-Echenique, 2012; Ferrari, 2012). It is closely related to literacy
approaches but is not identical. Digital competence is regarded as a core competence in policy
papers but it is not yet a stable concept (Ilomäki, Kantosalo & Lakkala, 2011a; Gallardo-
Echenique, 2012). These different notions mean there are still no clear assessment guidelines
for digital competence (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009). While some perceive digital competence as
the technical use of ICT, others define it more broadly as knowledge application or as 21st-
century skills.
The Information and Knowledge Society highlights the need for “an educated citizenry capable
of accessing, evaluating, organizing, interpreting, and disseminating information in increasingly
digital formats exchanged over enabling technologies” (Somerville, Lampert, Dabbour, Harlan &
Schader, 2007, p. 9). It is essential that people develop a new sense of self-confidence to
master technology and digital services. As educators and researchers, our goals should be to
encourage citizens to develop the skills, knowledge, ethical frameworks, and self-confidence
that will serve them well in the future (Jenkins, 2006; Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robison &
Weigel, 2006).
Given these challenges, institutions and policymakers should set out their current educational
priorities for an effective response to the changing needs of 21st-century learners. Proper
acquisition of digital competence or digital literacy, understood from the holistic and
emancipatory perspective, is key to active and functional participation in contemporary society.
This challenge, in addition to the initial and continuing digital training of teachers, is just one of
the relevant issues that will need to be addressed in future research.
Limitation of the study
The search was limited to English and Spanish language sources. Relevant publications
containing important and useful information may also exist in other languages.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the blind reviewers of this paper for their thorough and
invaluable feedback.
References
Ala-Mutka, K. (2011). Mapping digital competence: Towards a conceptual understanding.
Seville: European Commission, JRC-IPTS.
Amiel, T. (2006). Mistaking computers for technology: Technology literacy and the digital divide.
AACE Journal, 14(3), 235–256.
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium
learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, (41).
doi:10.1787/218525261154
Area, M., Gutiérrez, A., & Vidal, F. (2012). Alfabetización digital y competencias informacionales
(p. 225). Madrid/Barcelona: Editorial Ariel, S.A., Fundación Telefónica y Fundación
Encuentro.
Aufderheide, P. & Firestone, C.M. (1993) Media literacy: a report of the National Leadership
Conference on media literacy, Aspen Institute, Washington, DC.
Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts. Journal of
Documentation, 57(2), 218–259. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000007083
Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2002). Promoting literacy in a digital age: approaches to training
for information literacy. Learned Publishing, 15(4), 297–301.
Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.),
Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 17–32). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Belshaw, D. A. J. (2011). What is 'digital literacy'? A pragmatic investigation (Doctoral
dissertation). Durham University.
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2015
13
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Breyer, J., Hook, T., & Marinoni, C. (2007). Towards a European e-Competence Framework –
Interim report. CEN – European Committee for Standardization.
Buckingham, D. (1993). Towards new literacies, information technology, English and media
education. The English and Media Magazine, 20-25.
Buckingham, D. (2007). Digital media literacies: rethinking media education in the age of the
Internet. Research in Comparative and International Education, 2(1), 43–55.
doi:10.2304/rcie.2007.2.1.43
Bundy, A. (2004). Australian and New Zealand information literacy framework: Principles,
standards and practice (2nd. ed.). Adelaide: Australian and New Zealand Institute for
Information Literacy (ANZIIL).
Buschman, J. (2010). Alfabetización informacional, "nuevas" alfabetizaciones y alfabetización.
Boletín de la Asociación Andaluza de Bibliotecarios, 98-99, 155-18. Málaga: Asociación
Andaluza de Bibliotecarios (AAB).
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.
Calvani, A., Fini, A., & Ranieri, M. (2010). Digital Competence In K-12: Theoretical models,
assessment tools and empirical research. Anàlisi: quaderns de comunicació i cultura, 40,
157–171.
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (2008) Handbook of research on new
literacies. New York/London: Routledge.
Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social
futures? Melbourne: Macmillan.
European Commission. (2007). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the
European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions - E-skills for the 21st century: Fostering competitiveness, growth and jobs
(COM/2007/0496 final). Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
European Commission (2013). Digital Agenda for Europe: A Europe 2020 Initiative. Retrieved
from http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en
European e-Competence Framework (2007). Towards a European e-Competence Framework:
A Guideline for its development. EU: European e-Competence Framework (e-CF).
European e-Competence Framework. (2010). Building the e-CF - a combination of sound
methodology and expert contribution (e-CF 2.0 CWA Part III September 2010). EU:
European e-Competence Framework (e-CF).
European eCompetence Initiative (s/f). Retrieved from http://www.ecompetence.info/
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2006). Recommendation of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for
lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European Union, L394, 10-18.
European e-Skills Forum. (2010). E-skills for Europe: Towards 2010 and beyond (Synthesis
report). Brussels: European Commission.
Eshet, Y. (2002). Digital literacy: A new terminology framework and its application to the design
of meaningful technology-based learning environments. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.),
Proceedings of ED-Media 2002 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia
and Telecommunications (pp. 493–498). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE).
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.
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2015
14
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2009). Real-time thinking in the digital era. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology (2nd ed., pp. 3219–3223). USA:
Information Resources Management Association. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-026-4.ch514
Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks (p. 92).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2791/82116
Ferrari, A., Punie, Y., & Redecker, C. (2012). Understanding Digital Competence in the 21st
Century: An Analysis of Current Frameworks. In A. Ravenscroft, S. Lindstaedt, C. Delgado
Kloos, & D. Hernández-Leo (Eds.), Proceedings 7th European Conference on Technology
Enhanced Learning,EC-TEL2012 (pp. 79–92). New York: Springer.
Gallardo-Echenique, E. (2012). Competencia digital en el siglo XXI. Paper presented at II
Congreso Internacional de Educación Superior: La formación por competencias. Chiapas,
México: Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas.
Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley.
Hague, C., & Williamson, B. (2009). Digital participation, digital literacy and school subjects: A
review of the policies, literature and evidence (p. 30). Bristol, UK: Futurelab.
Hawkins, R., & Paris, A. E. (1997). Computer literacy and computer use among college
students: Differences in Black and White. The Journal of Negro Education, 66(2), 147–158.
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2003). Key facts: Media literacy. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J.
Kaiser Family Foundation.
Hepple, E., Sockhill, M., Tan, A., & Alford, J. (2014). Multiliteracies Pedagogy: Creating
claymations with adolescent, post-beginner English language learners. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(3), 219–229. doi:10.1002/jaal.339
Hüsing, T., & Korte, W. B. (2010). Evaluation of the implementation of the communication on e-
Skills for the 21st century (p. 322). Bonn, Germany: European Commission and the
European e-Skills Steering Committee.
Ilomäki, L., Kantosalo, A., & Lakkala, M. (2011). What is digital competence? Brussels: EUN
Partnership AISBL.
International ICT Literacy Panel. (2002). Digital Transformation: A Framework for ICT Literacy.
A Report of the International ICT Literacy Panel. Educational Testing (p. 42). Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Jackman, L. W., & Jones, L. D. (2002). Information Literacy, Information Communications
Technologies (ICT) and the Nongovermental Organization (NGO)/non profit world: as
practitioner’s perspective. In Information Literacy Meeting of Experts. Prague, The Czech
Republic: UNESCO, the U.S National Commission on Libraries and Information Science,
and the National Forum on Information Literacy.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New
York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the
Challenges of Participatory Culture!: Media Education for the 21 Century. Program (The
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning).
Chicago: The MacArthur Foundation.
Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and Literacy in School Classrooms. Review of Research in
Education, 32(1), 241–267. doi:10.3102/0091732X07310586
Jewitt, C. & Kress, G. (Cords.) (2003). Multimodal Literacy. New York: Peter Lang.
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). (2013). Developing Digital Literacies (JISC
report). UK: Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC).
Joint, N. (2005). eLiteracy versus information literacy at eLit2005: What’s the difference, which
should we prefer? Journal of eLiteracy, 2(2), 144–147.
Jones-kavalier, B. B. R., & Flannigan, S. L. (2006). Connecting the Digital Dots: Literacy of the
21st Century. Educase Quartely, 2, 8–10.
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2015
15
Kahn, R., & Kellner, D. (2005). Reconstructing technoliteracy: A multiple literacies approach. E-
Learning and Digital Media, 2(3), 238-251.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2006). Meaning, learning and representation in a social semiotic approach to
multimodal communication, In A. McCabe, M. O’Donnell & R. Whittaker (Ed.) Advances in
Language and Education, London: Continuum.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: a social semiotic approach to contemporary communication.
NY: Routledge.
Kress, G., Jewitt C., Ogborn, J. & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: the
rhetorics of the science classroom. London/New York: Continuum.
Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996, 2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design.
London, UK: Routledge.
Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The modes and media of
contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
Krumsvik, R. J. (2008). Situated learning and teachers’ digital competence. Education and
Information Technologies, 13(13), 279-290. doi:10.1007/s10639-008-9069-5
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2008). Digital literacies: concepts, policies and practices. New
York, NY: Peter Lang.
Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an
information age. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of
Reading Research (vol. III, pp. 743–770). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leu, D. (2001). Literacy on the Internet: Internet project: Preparing students for new literacies in
a global village. Reading Teacher, 54(6), 568–572.
Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., Banerjee, M., Housand, B. C., Liu, Y., & O’Neil, M. (2007).
What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension? In L. Rush, A. J.
Eakle, & A. Berger (Eds.), Secondary school literacy: What research reveals for classroom
practice (pp. 37–68). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Martin, A. (2003). Essential E-literacy. Connected, 9, 22–24.
Martin, A. (2005). DigEuLit – a European framework for digital literacy: A progress report.
Journal of eLiteracy, 2, 130–136.
Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy
development. ITALICS, Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer
Sciences, 5(4), 249–267.
Martin, A. (2008). Digital literacy and the digital society. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.),
Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (vol. 30, pp. 151-176). New York: Peter
Lang.
Martin, A. (2009). Digital literacy for the third age: Sustaining identity in an uncertain world.
eLearning Papers, (12), 1–15.
Martin, L. (2006). Enabling eLiteracy: Providing non-technical support for online learners.
ITALICS, Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(4),
97–108.
Merchant, G. (2009). Literacy in virtual worlds. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(1), 38–56.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01380.x
Meyers, E. M., Erickson, I., & Small, R. V. (2013). Digital literacy and informal learning
environments: An introduction. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4), 355-367.
doi:10.1080/17439884.2013.78359
National Research Council (1999). Being fluent with information technology. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2015
16
Nawaz, A., & Kundi, G. M. (2010). Digital literacy: An analysis of the contemporary paradigms.
Journal of Science and Technology Education Research, 1(2), 19-29.
New Media Consortium (NMC) (2005). A global imperative: The report of the 21st century
literacy summit. Austin, TX: NMC.
Pérez-Tornero, J. M. (2004). Promoting digital literacy: Understanding digital literacy (Final
report. EAC/76/03). Brussels: European Commission.
Pérez Tornero, J. M., & Varis, T. (2010). Media Literacy and New Humanism. (J. M. Pérez
Tornero & T. Varis, Eds.). Moscow: UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in
Education.
Schneckenberg, D. & Wildt, J. (2006). Understanding the concept of eCompetence for
academic staff. In I. MacLabhrainn, C. McDonald Legg, D. Schneckenberg & J. Wildt (Eds.),
The challenge of eCompetence in academic staff development. Galway, Ireland:
CELT/eCompInt Publications.
Somerville, M. M., Lampert, L. D., Dabbour, K. S., Harlan, S., & Schader, B. (2007). Toward
large scale assessment of information and communication technology literacy:
Implementation considerations for the ETS ICT literacy instrument. Reference Services
Review, 35(1), 8-20. doi:10.1108/00907320710729337
Tan, L., & Guo, L. (2014). Multiliteracies in an outcome-driven curriculum: Where is its fit? The
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(1), 29–36. doi:10.1007/s40299-013-0082-0
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1999). Educating
for the Media and the Digital Age. (S. Krucsay, Ed.). Vienna: Austrian Federal Ministry of
Education and Cultural Affairs & UNESCO.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2006). Education
for All: Literacy for life (Global Monitoring Report). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text
and image in classroom practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Walsh, M. (2009). Pedagogic Potentials of Multimodal Literacy. In L. Tan Wee Hin, & R.
Subramanian (Eds.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K~12 level: Issues
and challenges (vol. I, pp. 32–47). U.S: IGI Global.
Wilson, C., Grizzle, A., Tuazon, R., Akyempong, K., & Cheung, C.-K. (2011). Media and
Information Literacy Curriculum for Teachers. Paris, France: UNESCO.
This work is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike License
For details please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/
