Tag Archives: digital literacies

Digital Literacy in Quantitative Social Science Teaching

Posted on by
Reply
Digital Literacy Essay Word Cloud

I am Sandra Vucevic, a Visiting Lecturer at City, St George’s University of London, teaching introductory quantitative modules. This reflective essay, submitted for the EDM122 module of my MA in Academic Practice, explores my experiences navigating the complexities of digital literacy in the teaching of quantitative methods.

In preparing for this essay, I realised that my understanding of digital literacy, while frequently used, was perhaps incomplete. Therefore, I will begin by outlining what I consider to be the most comprehensive recent definition, as offered by Radovanovic (2024, p.2).

“Digital literacy encompasses the set of capabilities and skills and values; it is the ability to mindfully analyse, process, design, and produce information; to develop and employ critical thinking skills in the landscape of mis- and disinformation practices at digital platforms; to create, collaborate, engage, and communicate with others in a respectful and meaningful way; to understand the algorithms’ mechanisms and strategically interact with artificial intelligence and similar platforms; to use the internet in a responsible, safe, and ethical manner having in mind the data privacy and digital footprint; to be accountable and respectful for one’s actions online, and to be able to understand the consequences of one’s behaviour.”

I find this definition particularly compelling because it acknowledges the complex interplay of technical skills, critical thinking, and ethical considerations that constitute digital literacy. It moves beyond a simplistic understanding of digital literacy as mere tool-based competence and recognizes the broader social and cultural implications of technology use.

Early Encounters with the Digital Literacy Gap

Growing up surrounded by technology, I consider myself a digital native (Prensky, 2001), which perhaps led me to overestimate others’ digital fluency. My background in computer engineering and early coding experience have made many digital tasks feel intuitive, so it’s always a stark reminder of the digital divide when students struggle with what seem like basic operations. I recall a student who attempted to centre a title in Word by using the spacebar. It was a small thing, but that single incident highlighted the digital divide that I’ve come to realise is far more widespread than I initially thought, particularly within universities. It’s become clear that many students starting university lack the digital skills necessary to truly participate in a digital learning environment (Russo & Emtage, 2024).

My initial surprise at the mentee’s spacebar struggles was quickly reinforced by everyday teaching experiences. I remember one student emailing me with “Hi bro, where to find assessment instructions?” While that example was quite informal, it wasn’t entirely unusual. Many students were clearly unfamiliar with email etiquette. I also noticed how few of my 350 students had LinkedIn accounts when I suggested they connect with me there. Students often struggled with software installation, simple tasks like cropping screenshots, and formatting documents. Referencing proved a major hurdle for their assessments. I encountered numerous instances of students copying entire paragraphs without attribution, using unreliable sources (e.g., the Daily Mail) and referencing the same literature inconsistently. Formatting inconsistencies, like varying font sizes within paragraphs, were also commonplace.

Beyond these technical skills, I also observed a broader struggle with critical thinking and information evaluation. Some students couldn’t distinguish credible online information from ‘fake news’ or separate opinion from fact. Others struggled to interpret even simple graphs. These issues weren’t simply about a lack of knowledge; they reflected deeper gaps in digital literacy and, consequently, academic preparedness.

Teaching introductory quantitative modules for the past four years has been a steep learning curve. I initially assumed students possessed the necessary digital and academic skills to navigate university systems and engage with the material. I believed my role was simply to deliver the curriculum. How wrong I was! Students consistently faced digital challenges, from accessing university email and Moodle to navigating library resources. These recurring difficulties revealed a substantial digital literacy gap, especially concerning the digital tools crucial for quantitative data analysis. I quickly realised that simply explaining statistical concepts wasn’t enough; I had to explicitly teach the underlying digital skills they lacked. “Working with data is a cluster of competencies rather than a single skill” (Ruediger et al., 2022, p. 10), and my students needed support across the board, from file management and software proficiency to data wrangling, analysis, and discipline-specific methodologies. This often-consumed significant class time, frequently at the expense of core statistical content. I often felt, and still feel, torn between teaching essential software skills and core disciplinary knowledge – a tension Ruediger et al. (2022) identify as a common concern among instructors.

Challenging Assumptions About Digital Natives

The idea of the digital native (Prensky, 2001) – that young people, having grown up surrounded by technology, are inherently fluent with digital tools, unlike digital immigrants – is a widely held view. However, this concept has been criticised for its oversimplification (Riordan, Kreuz & Blair, 2018; Bennet, Maton & Kervin, 2008). Different studies have found no significant difference in digital skills or literacy between young people and older generations (Akcayir, Dundar & Akcayir, 2016; Guo, Dobson & Petrina, 2008). This prompts me to examine my own assumptions: have I, too, generalised about young people’s digital abilities based solely on age?

Moreover, young people’s apparent confidence with devices like smartphones often hides gaps in their ability to use technology effectively for academic work (Passey et al., 2018). I’ve seen this myself: many students who are constantly using their phones struggle with basic tasks like formatting documents, understanding data charts, or creating academic references. This highlights that familiarity with technology doesn’t equal competence. It reinforces the need for explicit instruction in digital literacy skills, even for students who appear tech-savvy. Research indicates that factors such as socio-economic status, education, and access to technology are far more influential determinants of digital competence than age (Kincl & Strach, 2021; Pangrazio, Godhe & Ledesma, 2020; Creighton, 2018; Selwyn, 2009). This is consistent with my own experience of observing varying levels of digital proficiency among students.

Another pervasive myth is that educators must be technical experts to support students’ digital learning. Assuming students’ inherent digital superiority can create undue pressure on academics (Radovanovic, Hogan & Lalic, 2015), as both staff and students often lack confidence using technology for education, despite personal comfort with it (Garcia et al., 2013). Levy (2018) rightly argues that educators don’t need to master every single tool; instead, they should focus on facilitating meaningful engagement with technology. This is something I encourage in my graduate teaching assistants – it’s about empowering effective use of technology, not just demonstrating button-pressing.

The myth that students inherently know how to learn effectively online is compounded by universities often taking digital literacy for granted (Murray and Perez, 2014). Many students lack the initiative to meaningfully explore educational technologies (Burton et al., 2015). The COVID-19 pandemic exposed this, highlighting the impact of the digital divide on educational equity (Summers, Higson & Moores, 2022; Bashir et al., 2021; Pentaris, Hanna & North, 2021). This divide, exacerbated by differing digital experiences, resources, and usage, disproportionately affects students from disadvantaged backgrounds. As Radovanovic (2024, p .5) argues, this digital poverty affects the entire learning ecosystem, becoming magnified during crises like COVID-19, where a lack of digital skills and access leads to digital exclusion. The pandemic underscored the urgent need to address this divide and abandon simplistic assumptions about digital fluency.

Prensky (2001) also described digital natives as adept multitaskers thriving on instant gratification. However, this is often just task-switching, which can negatively affect learning (Kirschner & De Bruyckere, 2017). I’ve certainly observed this myself; students constantly switching between tasks seem to overload their cognitive resources, hindering their ability to focus and process information effectively. While students may have preferred delivery modes or feel comfortable with certain technologies, I’ve found that establishing clear ground rules for classroom technology use is essential. It’s not about simply giving them free rein with devices, but about creating a conducive learning environment. Setting clear expectations for classroom technology use has been key to fostering a more focused and productive learning environment.

Beyond these myths, educators can develop more effective strategies by shifting from assumed competence to fostered competence. This is a continuous process requiring reflection and professional development. Having established the need to move beyond these misconceptions, it is imperative to consider how digital literacy can be effectively integrated into the curriculum.

Bridging the Gap: Integrating Digital Literacy into the Curriculum

Integrating digital literacies is challenging because they are not just technical skills but learned practices that build upon those skills (Bennet & Folley, 2018). This distinction, between the technical aspects of a tool (skills) and its purposeful application (practices), is crucial for effective digital literacy instruction.

Reflecting on my own practice, I’m now more confident that I was four years ago in understanding my students’ digital literacy needs but effectively addressing them requires a strategic approach. The most effective method is for academic teachers to take full responsibility for integrating digital literacy development directly into the core curriculum (Nicholls, 2018). Rather than relying solely on external support services (IT, librarians, academic skills teams), I have found it more effective to embed digital literacy instruction directly within my teaching. I’ve realised that small, targeted interventions can significantly improve students’ digital literacy. For example, a brief five-minute lecture introduction to online reference generators, while not ideal for teaching proper referencing, offers a practical way to reduce unattributed work in the assessments. Similarly, instead of simply marking down for poor grammar and spelling, I demonstrate how students can ethically use AI tools or Word’s Editor to identify and correct writing errors. This improves submissions and, more importantly, helps students recognise their own mistakes, something assessment feedback alone can’t always achieve. These small adjustments reinforce the importance of integrating practical, accessible, and empowering digital skills into the curriculum.

To address specific digital literacy gaps in relation to quantitative research methods that I teach, I create video tutorials or dedicate class time to demonstrating essential skills, tailoring instruction to student needs and module context. I supplement this by incorporating existing resources—library guides, IT support pages, academic misconduct policies—directly into the module’s Moodle page for easy access and increased engagement. However, simply providing links isn’t enough; many students need more structured support, such as platform-specific tutorials (e.g., Windows and iOS versions). To improve accessibility and promote collaboration, I’m developing my video tutorials into open educational resources. Finally, a bank of task-specific tutorials, organised by function (e.g., using SPSS), is available on the module’s Moodle page for easy reference.

As Seargeant & Tagg (2018) rightly emphasise, navigating online information is a learned skill, not an innate ability. Education plays a vital role in raising awareness of how information flows and influences engagement with opinions and values, including understanding the interplay of opinion and fact in online sources and how the creators’ aims influence this balance (Seargeant & Tagg, 2018). Finally, digital inclusion is complex. Micklethwaite (2018) points out that digital exclusion can be difficult to identify, as even frequent social media users may lack access to or confidence with other essential digital tools. Barriers to digital inclusion can stem from various factors, including financial constraints, lack of access to reliable internet connectivity, disabilities, and cultural or linguistic backgrounds. Furthermore, digital inclusion is not linear; individuals move in and out of engagement as they develop and refine their skills. As educators, we must recognise these barriers and create a supportive environment for all students to develop their digital competencies.

While the responsibility for addressing digital literacy gaps often falls on educators, it is important to acknowledge the crucial role of institutions in providing comprehensive support. This includes offering professional development opportunities and integrating digital skills training into the curriculum. As Secker (2018) suggests, if a digital literacy framework does not exist, universities should consider creating one, either across the institution or tailored to specific schools/departments, using perhaps the JISC (2024) model of digital capabilities as guidance.

Conclusion

While many of the practices I now use to support students’ digital literacies were developed organically through teaching over the past four years, the EDM122 module provided a structured lens through which to understand and enhance these efforts. Prior to the module, I had not engaged deeply with the literature on digital literacy, although my experiences had already highlighted its importance. Exposure to key readings, particularly Radovanovic (2024), Bennet and Folley (2018), and Secker (2018), encouraged me to reflect more critically on my assumptions and inspired new approaches. For example, I now plan to incorporate scaffolded digital literacy checkpoints into each module—short, embedded tasks that progressively develop students’ capabilities, from academic communication to data evaluation. I am also exploring ways to co-create digital learning resources with students, supporting both digital production skills and a greater sense of ownership over their learning.

My experiences have shaped my understanding of what it means to be an educator. It’s not simply about teaching content, but meeting students where they are and fostering their digital competence. As digital literacy evolves with technology, so too must our approaches. Like Radovanovic (2024), I believe future curricula must integrate these developments to equip students for a digital and data-driven workforce, empowering them to understand, navigate, create, and collaborate within the digital world of AI, augmented reality, robotics, algorithms, and virtual platforms. While moments of frustration or surprise are inevitable, I now see these moments as valuable growth opportunities for both my students and me as an educator.

This reflection on my journey as an educator aligns with Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle (1984), progressing through its four stages: concrete experience (observing students’ digital struggles), reflective observation (questioning my assumptions), abstract conceptualization (understanding digital literacy’s complexities), and active experimentation (implementing interventions). This cyclical process has shaped my teaching and fostered students’ digital competence.


This essay is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, enabling open sharing while ensuring proper attribution. It grants the right to copy, distribute, modify, and adapt the material, including for commercial use, as long as the original author is credited and allows re-licensing of derivative works.



References

Akcayir, M., Dundar, H. and Akcayir, G. (2016). What makes you a digital native? Is it enough to be born after 1980? Computers in Human Behaviour, 60, pp.435–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.089.

Bashir, A., Bashir, S., Rana, K., Lambert, P. and Vernallis, A. (2021). Post-COVID-19 Adaptations; the Shifts Towards Online Learning, Hybrid Course Delivery and the Implications for Biosciences Courses in the Higher Education Setting. Frontiers in Education, [online] 6(1). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.711619.  

Bennet, L. and Folley, S. (2018). D4 curriculum design workshops: a model for developing digital literacy in practice. In: K. Reedy and J. Parker, eds., Digital Literacy Unpacked. [online] Cambridge University Press, pp.111–121. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783301997.

Bennett, S., Maton, K. and Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), pp.775–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x.

Burton, L.J., Summers, J., Lawrence, J., Noble, K. and Gibbings, P. (2015). Digital Literacy in Higher Education: The Rhetoric and the Reality. In: Myths in Education, Learning and Teaching. Palgrave Macmillan London, pp.151–172. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137476982_9.

Creighton, T.B. (2018). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Digital Learners: An International Empirical Integrative Review of the Literature. Education Leadership Review, 19(1), pp.132–140.

Garcia, E., Dungay, K., Elbeltagi, I. and Gilmour, N. (2013). An Evaluation of The Impact of Academic Staff Digital Literacy on The Use of Technology: A Case Study of UK Higher Education. In: EDULEARN13 Proceedings. pp.2042–2051.

Guo, R.X., Dobson, T. and Petrina, S. (2008). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: An Analysis of Age and ICT Competency in Teacher Education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), pp.235–254. https://doi.org/10.2190/ec.38.3.a.

Jisc (2024). Individual digital capabilities. [online] JISC. Available at: https://digitalcapability.jisc.ac.uk/what-is-digital-capability/individual-digital-capabilities/ [Accessed 5 Feb. 2025].‌

Kincl, T. and Strach, P. (2021). Born digital: Is there going to be a new culture of digital natives? Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 31(1), pp.30–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2020.1808811.

Kirschner, P.A. and De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67(67), pp.135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 8(4).

Levy, L. A. (2018). 11 Digital Literacy Myths, Debunked. Available at:
https://rossieronline.usc.edu/blog/digital-literacy-myths [Accessed 25 Jan. 2025].

Micklethwaite, A. (2018). Onwards! Why the movement for digital inclusion has never been more important. In: K. Reedy and J. Parker, eds., Digital Literacy Unpacked. [online] Cambridge University Press, pp.191–201. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783301997.

Murray, M.C. and Perez, J. (2014). Unravelling the Digital Literacy Paradox: How Higher Education Fails at the Fourth Literacy. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 11, pp.85-100. https://doi.org/10.28945/1982.

Nicholls, J. (2018). Unpacking digital literacy: the potential contribution of central services to enabling the development of staff and student digital literacies. In: K. Reedy and J. Parker, eds., Digital Literacy Unpacked. [online] Cambridge University Press, pp.17–28. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783301997.

Pangrazio, L., Godhe, A.-L. and Ledesma, A.G.L. (2020). What Is Digital literacy? a Comparative Review of Publications across Three Language Contexts. E-Learning and Digital Media, 17(6), pp.442–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753020946291.

Passey, D., Shonfeld, M., Appleby, L., Judge, M., Saito, T. and Smits, A. (2018). Digital Agency: Empowering Equity in and through Education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), pp.425–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9384-x .

Pentaris, P., Hanna, S. and North, G. (2021). Digital poverty in social work education during COVID-19. Advances in Social Work, 20(3), pp.x–xii. https://doi.org/10.18060/24859.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, [online] 9(5), pp.1–6. Available at: https://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf [Accessed 5 Feb. 2025].

Radovanovic, D. (2024). Digital Literacy and Inclusion. 1st ed. Springer Cham.

Radovanovic, D., Hogan, B. and Lalic, D. (2015). Overcoming digital divides in higher education: Digital literacy beyond Facebook. New Media & Society, 17(10), pp.1733–1749. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815588323.

Riordan, M.A., Kreuz, R.J. and Blair, A.N. (2018). The digital divide: conveying subtlety in online communication. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(1), pp.49–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0100-6.

Ruediger, D., Cooper, D.M., Bardeen, A., Baum, L., Ben-Gad, S., Bennett, S., Berger, K., Bonella, L., Brazell, R. … & Yatcilla, J. (2022). Fostering Data Literacy Teaching with Quantitative Data in the Social Sciences. [online] Ithaka S+R. Available at: https://sr.ithaka.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/SR-Report-Fostering-Data-Literacy-092722.pdf [Accessed 5 Feb. 2025].

Russo, K. and Emtage, N. (2024). The Digital Divide and Higher Education. In: Digital Literacy and Inclusion. Springer Cham, pp.81–97.

Seargeant, P. and  Tagg, C. (2018). Critical digital literacy education in the ‘fake news’ era. In: K. Reedy and J. Parker, eds., Digital Literacy Unpacked. [online] Cambridge University Press, pp.179–189. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783301997.

Secker, J. (2018). The Trouble with Terminology: Rehabilitating and Rethinking ‘Digital Literacy’. In: K. Reedy and J. Parker, eds., Digital Literacy Unpacked. [online] Cambridge University Press, pp.3–16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783301997.

Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native – myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings, 61(4), pp.364–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910973776.

Summers, R., Higson, H. and Moores, E. (2022). The impact of disadvantage on higher education engagement during different delivery modes: a pre- versus peri-pandemic comparison of learning analytics data. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(1), pp.1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2024793.

Digital health literacies: maximising service-user equity in the digitised healthcare landscape 

Posted on by
Reply

Image licensed under Creative Commons from www.FreePic.com

About me

I am a London-based Speech and Language Therapist (SLT). After starting my clinical career in the National Health Service (NHS) nearly 2 decades ago, I moved to City St George’s in 2017 where I am currently a Senior Lecturer and Doctoral Researcher. I teach pre- and post- registration SLTs in my clinical area of head and neck oncology and voice disorders. My research focuses on improving services for people with voice and swallowing difficulties on the suspected head and neck cancer pathway. The disparate digital health literacies skills among the population I work with presents clinical challenges, with a clear anecdotal impact on health and wellbeing outcomes based on Service Users’ (SU’s) abilities and motivations to connect with others online, access health information, and to use this information to make health decisions. In research, those with higher digital literacies skills are often those who become involved with patient and public involvement groups through their confidence to join online meetings, and their knowledge of the health system and the changes they would like to see. For SUs without smart phones, without email and without access to virtual meeting platforms, it is increasingly difficult for them to engage with research activity. I have therefore chosen this topic to explore how I might increase digital literacies skills in my client group and increase participation and equity for those with lower digital literacies skills in my research. I studied module EDM122 because open practices and digital literacies are vital to healthcare education, provision, and research, and I am passionate about all 3!

Digital Literacies

The term Digital Literacy was coined by Gilster1 almost 3 decades ago to describe a person’s ability to navigate, find, use, and evaluate information from various digital sources. Digital Literacies (DL) is now preferred, recognising the breadth of skills this encapsulates which originally included the three areas of cognitive, technical and socio-emotional as defined by Ng et al. in 20122.

More recently, the JISC Digital Capabilities Framework3  model included 6 components, with Health Education England (HEE) adapting the model (Figure 1) to 7 areas of capability4. HEE’s model was designed to support health professionals to develop their DL skills, with 4 levels in each domain so that levels of proficiency can be developed and evaluated in each.  

Figure 1: HEE Digital Literacy Capability Framework (2018). Licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA.

Digital Literacies in the context of Health Literacy

While the concept of health literacy emerged in the 1970’s5, the term has evolved alongside healthcare developments. Liu et al.6 defined health literacy as having 3 main components: knowledge of health, healthcare and health systems; processing and using information in various formats in relation to health and healthcare; and ability to maintain health through self-management and working in partnerships with health providers. Better health behaviours are more common among those with higher health literacy levels, which are associated statistically with higher education level and socio-economic status7. Bujnowska-Fedak and Węgierek (2020) found in their study that a high proportion of patients adopted healthier lifestyles based on internet health information8. They also found that patients were using the internet to make informed choices about whether or not to make an appointment to see a doctor, and to select a doctor to make an appointment with. In an exponentially digitised healthcare system, it is unsurprising that health literacies and digital literacies intersect greatly, a concept known as digital health literacy (DHL)9 – sometimes e-health literacy. Moreover, digital tools are commonly proposed as the method by which the population’s health literacy may be increased, including medication reminders and virtual support groups and information sources for certain conditions10. Ban et al., defined DHL as ‘the capacity to translate health knowledge acquired from digital environments into actions7’. Norman and Skinner’s11‘Lily model’ sought to illustrate the various DL encapsulated by DHL, or e-Health Literacy (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Norman and Skinner’s Lily Model of e-Health Literacy©. Image from Gilstad, H. (2014)12. Licensed with permission to copy for personal and academic use.

The 2020 SARS-CoV-2 pandemic necessitated and drove many digital solutions to be implemented at pace13. While it was assumed these developments would be embraced and retained post-pandemic, this has not always been reality. For example, while telemedicine became commonplace during the pandemic out of necessity, more than 70% of patients still preferred a face to face consultation post-pandemic14 in a study of more than 1000 patients. Of note, the largest age group of respondents was under 25 years old, and both recruitment and the survey itself were conducted via social media platforms and online. This is a significant limitation given that SUs without knowledge of the survey or the ability to respond, i.e. those with poor digital literacy skills, were unable to share their views regarding preferences for telemedicine or face to face care. Iyanna et al.15 identified DHL as a key barrier to health technology acceptance and implementation whereby healthcare professionals reported that patients found platforms and tools difficult to understand, hard to interact with or too complicated. Older patients, and those who speak English as an additional language experienced the most difficulty, with other studies reporting lower DHL skills in older populations16 due to a variety of factors. It is therefore conceivable that an even larger percentage of patients prefer face to face care if those without DHL skills and older adults were facilitated to participate in Moulaei et al.’s survey14.

Interventions have been trialled to increase older adults’ DHL skills17  with other studies across all age groups having also shown benefits in increasing DHL skills18. The studies used a variety of assessments and frameworks to increase DHL skills, usually in the context of a training programme that included topics such as how to locate health information on the internet, how to evaluate the trustworthiness of the source and how to avoid health scams. The training programmes used a variety of pedagogical methods including classroom based approaches, individual training, and peer learning. In addition to these skills, access to resources is vital to develop DHL skills. Internet access and hardware/ device availability, affordability and compatibility were cited as key barriers for patients in utilising digital health tools16. Other studies reported data security concerns and the need for digital healthcare tools that are more culturally sensitive and adaptable19. Negative feelings towards technology including mistrust and a perception that it is a further barrier to accessing healthcare have also been documented20. People with disabilities, lower educational level and lower housing tenure have also been found to have less access to the internet21 and are therefore less able to develop and use DHL skills. HL has been shown to improve functional and mental health outcomes for people with long term conditions such as stroke22. With HL becoming increasingly dependent on DL, it may be hypothesised that patients with higher DHL may experience better health outcomes. However, a systematic review recommended that more treatment studies should measure participants’ DHL to elucidate this23.

Digital Literacies as a Social Determinant of Health (SDoH)

SDoH are defined by the World Health Organisation as ‘non-medical factors that determine health outcomes’24. With the increasing digitisation of healthcare, DL are now integrated as a key SDoH25 with a growing ‘digital divide’ in health outcomes for SUs based on their DHL26. While advancements such as access to health information on the internet are improving the health of many SU’s, there is poor equity owing to the digital divide and digital exclusion often impacting people with mental health difficulties, women, people of colour, and those in social deprivation27. Van Kessel et al.28 assert that DL is not merely an additional SDoH but a ‘super determinant’ of health owing to the pervasive nature of digital literacies and their intersections with all other SDoH.

Informing my practice

With reference to Driscoll’s reflective model29, I have identified key learning points for my practice both in clinical care and in research.   

What?

Putting patients at the centre of their care and involving them in decisions about their health are core principles of all healthcare professions30. When conducting health research, it is best practice to involve patients as co-applicants or advisors regarding key decisions that directly impact patient care31. More recently, co-design methodologies involve SUs in designing improvements to their own services32. With the increasing digitisation of the health sector, and growing opportunity to impact services, patients’ involvement and empowerment are increasingly dependent on DHL skills.

So what?

SLTs frequently increase SUs’ DL skills to support their communication difficulties33, for example to use text to speech software, to communicate with family abroad using a virtual platform, or to use a smart phone to re-order medical equipment. However, as a head and neck cancer clinician, a disease affecting a large number of people experiencing social deprivation34, I am aware that digital disadvantage and low DHL skills lead to under-representation of many of my SU population in research35. Supporting people to participate in research or improve services through increasing their DHL skills is rarely a focus of therapy itself. Some of the most under-represented voices in our society owing to communication disability and difference may be silenced further by a lack of DHL and resources to develop these. Empowering patients in their care and improving services in response to patients’ needs necessitates DHL skills to ensure all views are represented given that many patient and public consultations are conducted online and involve reading electronic meeting minutes, grant proposals, study workplans, plain language summaries and so on. When research such as mine explores how services are being configured and adapted, often involving digital solutions to increase efficiency, it is vital that people of all DHL abilities can contribute their views on service accessibility. Some studies have shown the value of including patients in research that develops technological advancements to increase patients’ DHL whilst including them in the rapid advancement of health digitisation36.

NHS England’s Framework for inclusive digital healthcare37 includes 5 domains: access & connectivity, inclusive design, building skills and capability, belief & trust, and leadership & partnerships. Wilson et al.38 proposed 3 key recommendations towards such digital inclusion that address some of the barriers outlined earlier. Firstly, providing user-friendly tools that are easy and engaging to navigate and culturally appropriate. Secondly, provision of devices, opportunities to connect, and retaining non-digital options to maximise inclusivity. Lastly, they acknowledged the important role of support and education to facilitate SUs in interacting with and using digital health tools.

Now what?

Based on this framework and the recommendations, I feel my role provides opportunities to address many of these areas. Firstly I feel able to support and educate SUs to enhance and apply their DHL skills to augment their health outcomes through both clinical practice and research. For example, I plan to work with SUs to support their access to social media sites, virtual support groups and online fora and tools relevant to their healthcare conditions as part of their therapy. To retain non-digital options and maximise participation, I will budget in my research costings to support digital and non-digital participation options for SU group members. Costing for devices, connectivity, travel and ensuring adequate infrastructure and support for hybrid options will maximise participant diversity and facilitate under-represented voices to be heard, while increasing SUs’ DHL skills wherever possible. With regards to user-friendly tools that are easy to navigate and culturally sensitive, I will support SUs to disseminate our research findings to lay audiences on open access platforms to grow their DHL skills while increasing open access information for the public about my research. Through actively inviting people with lower DHL skills to my patient advisory group wherever possible, I will also ensure that any tools and information developed in my research are accessible to those with all levels of DHL.

In conclusion, rapid technological growth is changing how healthcare and health information are delivered and accessed. Health outcome gaps are widening as result of the digital divide, posing a significant equity issue. Clinicians and health researchers are well-placed to enhance service-users’ DHL in response to the increasingly digitised health landscape. 

References

  1. Gilster, P. Digital Literacy. 1997. Wiley. ↩︎
  2. Ng, W. Empowering scientific literacy through digital literacy and multiliteracies. 2012. New York: Nova Science Publishers. ↩︎
  3. Jisc. Building digital capability. 2018. Available at: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/rd/projects/building-
    digital-capability [Accessed: 08 January 2025] ↩︎
  4. Health Education England. Digital Literacy Capability Framework. (2018). Available at: Digital-Literacy-Capability-Framework-2018 [Accessed 03 February 2025]. ↩︎
  5. Simonds SK. Health education as social policy. Health Educ Monogr. 1974; 2:1–10. ↩︎
  6. Liu, C., Wang, D., Liu, C., Jiang, J., Wang, X., Chen, H., et al., What is the meaning of health literacy? A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Family Medicine and Community Health. 2020;8:e000351. ↩︎
  7. Šulinskaitė K, Zagurskienė D, Blaževičienė A. Patients’ health literacy and health behaviour assessment in primary healthcare: evidence from a cross-sectional survey. BMC Primary Care. (2022) 23(1):223. ↩︎
  8. Bujnowska-Fedak, M.M. and Węgierek P. The Impact of Online Health Information on Patient Health Behaviours and Making Decisions Concerning Health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 31;17(3):880. ↩︎
  9. Ban S, Kim Y, & Seomun G. Digital health literacy: A concept analysis. Digital Health. 2024;10. ↩︎
  10. Fitzpatrick PJ. Improving health literacy using the power of digital communications to achieve better health outcomes for patients and practitioners. Front Digit Health. 2023;17;5:1264780. ↩︎
  11. Norman C.D. & Skinner H.A. eHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. J Med Internet Res. 2006;8:0. ↩︎
  12. Jaatun, E. Brooks, K.E. Berntsen, H. Gilstad, M.G. Jaatun, E.A.A. (eds.): Proceedings of the 2nd European Workshop on Practical Aspects of Health Informatics (PAHI 2014), Trondheim Norway. (2013). Available at: http://ceur-ws.org [Accessed 5th January 2025]. ↩︎
  13. Budd, J., Miller, B.S., Manning, E.M. et al. Digital technologies in the public-health response to COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020; 26:1183–1192. ↩︎
  14. Moulaei, K., Sheikhtaheri, A., Fatehi, F., Shanbehzadeh, M., and Bahaadinbeigy K. Patients’ perspectives and preferences toward telemedicine versus in-person visits: a mixed-methods study on 1226 patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2023; 15;23(1):261. ↩︎
  15. Iyanna, S., Kaur, P., Ractham, P., Talwar, S. & Islam, A.K.M.N. Digital transformation of healthcare sector. What is impeding adoption and continued usage of technology-driven innovations by end-users?, Journal of Business Research, 2022;153:150-161. ↩︎
  16. Song, Y., Qian, C. & Pickard, S. Age-related digital divide during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:11285. ↩︎
  17. Dong Q, Liu T, Liu R, Yang H, Liu C. Effectiveness of digital health literacy interventions in older adults: single-arm meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e48166. ↩︎
  18. Barbati, C., Maranesi, E., Giammarchi, C. et al. Effectiveness of eHealth literacy interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. BMC Public Health. 2025; 25:288. ↩︎
  19. Alsahli, S., Hor S. & Lam M.K. Physicians’ acceptance and adoption of mobile health applications during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model. Health Information Management Journal. 2024;0(0). ↩︎
  20. Padalkar, T. V., Hildreth, K., Rocque, G. B., Ingram, S. A., Whitlow, O., Chu, D., et al. Understanding Multi-Level Factors Impacting Digital Health Literacy in the Deep South of the United States. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2025;22(1):41. ↩︎
  21. Ueno, A., Dennis, C., & Dafoulas, G.A. Digital exclusion and relative digital deprivation: Exploring factors and moderators of internet non-use in the UK, Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2023; 197: 122935. ↩︎
  22. Flink M, Lindblom S, von Koch L, Carlsson AC, Ytterberg C. Health literacy is associated with less depression symptoms, higher perceived recovery, higher perceived participation, and walking ability one year after stroke – a cross-sectional study. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2023 Dec;30(8):865-871. ↩︎
  23. Neter, E. & Brainin, E. Association Between Health Literacy, eHealth Literacy, and Health Outcomes Among Patients With Long-Term Conditions: A Systematic Review. European Psychologist. 2019; 24(1), 68–81. ↩︎
  24. World Health Organisation. Social Determinants of Health. Available at: Social determinants of health. [Accessed 5th January 2025]. ↩︎
  25. Arias López MdP, Ong BA, Borrat Frigola X, Fernández AL, Hicklent RS, Obeles AJT, et al. Digital literacy as a new determinant of health: A scoping review. PLOS Digit Health. 2023; 2(10): e0000279. ↩︎
  26. Badr, J., Motulsky, A. & Denis J-L. Digital health technologies and inequalities: A scoping review of potential impacts and policy recommendations, Health Policy. 2024; 146:105122. ↩︎
  27. Saeed SA, Masters RM. Disparities in Health Care and the Digital Divide. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2021;23;23(9):61. ↩︎
  28. van Kessel R, Wong BLH, Clemens T, Brand H. Digital health literacy as a super determinant of health: More than simply the sum of its parts. Internet Interv. 2022 Feb 7;27:100500. ↩︎
  29. Driscoll, J. (1994). Reflective practice for practise. Senior Nurse, 14(1), 47-50. ↩︎
  30. NHS England. Involving People in Healthcare Guidance. (No date). Available at: ppp-involving-people-health-care-guidance.pdf [Accessed 03 February 2025]. ↩︎
  31. INVOLVE. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012. Briefing notes for researchers: Involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research. 2012. ↩︎
  32. Francis-Auton, E., Cheek, C., Austin, E., Ransolin, N., Richardson, L., Safi, M., et al., Exploring and Understanding the ‘Experience’ in Experience-Based Codesign: A State-of-The-Art Review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2024;23. ↩︎
  33. Smith, M.M. Innovations for Supporting Communication: Opportunities and Challenges for People with Complex Communication Needs. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2019;71(4):156-167. ↩︎
  34. Al-Dakkak, I. Socioeconomic status and head and neck cancer. Evid Based Dent. 2010;11, 57–58. ↩︎
  35. National Institute of health Research. Available at: Improving inclusion of under-served groups in clinical research: Guidance from INCLUDE project | NIHR [Accessed 03 February 2025]. ↩︎
  36. Barony Sanchez RH, Bergeron-Drolet LA, Sasseville M, Gagnon MP. Engaging patients and citizens in digital health technology development through the virtual space. Front Med Technol. 2022 Nov 25;4:958571. ↩︎
  37. NHS England. Inclusive Digital Healthcare: A Framework for NHS Action on Digital Inclusion. (2018) Available at: NHS England » Inclusive digital healthcare: a framework for NHS action on digital inclusion. [Accessed 03 February 2025]. ↩︎
  38. Wilson, S., Tolley, C., Mc Ardle, R. et al. Recommendations to advance digital health equity: a systematic review of qualitative studies. npj Digit. Med. 2024;7:173. ↩︎

Digital Games and Digital Education Tools: Transforming Digital Literacy in Engineering Education

Posted on by
Reply

This blog post was written by Maria Livada as part of the final assignment for the module EDM122: Digital Literacies and Open Practice.

As a lecturer in Engineering, I’ve spent years oscillating between excitement and anxiety about technology’s role in education. Excitement because tools like simulations and AI-driven platforms can unlock creativity in ways whiteboards never could. Anxiety, because the pace of digital change demands that we rethink how we teach – not just what we teach. Industries now demand engineers who aren’t just technically skilled but digitally literate: thinkers who can collaborate virtually, critically evaluate digital systems and innovate with tools that didn’t exist a decade ago. But how do we prepare students for this reality?

This question led me to explore digital games and educational tools – not as plain activities but as transformative bridges between theory and practice. In this post, I’ll share how these tools are reshaping my teaching, what the research says (and where it falls short), and how we can tackle the challenges of integrating them meaningfully. First, I will provide some context and valuable statistics on digital literacy.

Digital literacy consists of the ability to effectively communicate and create using digital tools and the development of skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving and collaboration (JISC, 2022).

According to the 2023/24 UK HE Students’ Digital Experience Insights Survey by JISC, although 85% of students perceived their university’s digital learning environment as above average, only 37% believed they had adequate opportunities to build digital skills needed for future employment (JISC, 2023).

When I started teaching, I focused on ensuring students were fluent with software like MATLAB and Simulink. But I soon realised this wasn’t enough. One student, for example, could model a control system in Simulink but struggled to troubleshoot why it failed under real-world constraints. At the same time, another had difficulties translating their findings into a collaborative report using shared digital platforms.

This disconnection reflects broader concerns in the literature. As Aoun (2017) and Chakrabarti et al. (2021) argue, automation and AI aren’t just changing what engineers do – they’re redefining their thinking. Technical proficiency alone won’t cut it; students need resilience, creativity, and the ability to “learn how to learn” in a digital ecosystem. For me, this means using digital tools like virtual labs and digital games not just to simulate experiments but to push students to ask: Why a system does or does not behave differently in simulation and reality? What assumptions used to build this software?

For instance, using Falstad’s circuit simulator, an MSc student a few years back helped me redesign a lab experiment – an exercise that I currently use in my Electronics I class to test students’ understanding of that concept.

But digital literacy isn’t just about tools; it’s about mindset. I’ve noticed that current students (who grow up with technology) often assume they’re “digitally literate” simply because they can navigate apps or social media. Yet, when asked to evaluate the reliability of an online source or adjust the parameters of a system designed using a digital tool according to a set of specifications, many hesitate. This aligns with Caratozzolo et al.’s (2021) observation that digital literacy requires not just technical skills but also critical thinking and adaptability.

Let’s address the elephant in the room: many of us still see games as distractions. One of my most memorable teaching moments was when I introduced Kahoot, an educational platform for designing quizzes, to my Probability and Statistics class. With Kahoot, you can experiment with gamification features, introducing social learning into your teaching practice. My main goal at the time was to validate if students had met the learning outcomes of that lecture. Hence, I introduced the game at the end of the class, and I asked them to split into teams of 3 people. A member from each team would use a smartphone to answer the questions. The game was timed, so the team that answered most of the questions in less time would be the winning team. The game allows to create a leader board and keep track of a team’s progress for quite some time. At first, students were quite hesitant with this approach, and I thought they felt that it would be a waste of their time. But I was mistaken. Students enjoyed it a lot and the attendance didn’t drop as much for the remaining teaching weeks.

Research backs this up. Educational games have been shown to strengthen specific aspects of digital literacy, including information finding, critical thinking, and social understanding (Rohmani and Pambudi, 2023). These outcomes align closely with constructivist learning principles, which emphasise the importance of active, learner-centred experiences. Likewise, Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory highlights how digital tools can support practical exercises, reflection, and the process of building to improvements. Games like SimCity or Bridge Constructor create “authentic” learning environments where students confront trade-offs (e.g., cost vs. safety in engineering design) that mirror real-world challenges (Udeozor et al., 2023). But here’s my critique: most studies focus on what games teach, not how they foster critical digital literacy. But it is not just that, when students are playing a digital game, they’re not just learning systems thinking – they’re also navigating the game’s interface, modding tools, and online forums. These “hidden” skills—troubleshooting, collaborating in digital spaces, and evaluating user-generated content are where true literacy develops.

Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) tools take this further. Tang et al. (2010) highlight how VR games improve decision-making under pressure, like managing a virtual disaster scenario. But in my experience, the real magic happens after the simulation. When students debrief in Microsoft Teams, sharing screenshots and debating choices, they’re practising the kind of digital collaboration they’ll need in remote engineering teams.

Yet, games aren’t the answer to all problems. Students can become so fixated on “winning” that they can overlook crucial features, like safety margins or certain specifications (in an engineering setting). According to Kilgore et al. (2007) gamification can sometimes prioritise competition over critical reflection. To address this, I am thinking of pairing gameplay with reflective journals. After each game, students will be asked to write about ethical dilemmas they encounter (e.g., cutting costs vs. risking safety) and how they would apply these in real engineering contexts.

Beyond games, collaborative platforms like Microsoft Teams, Miro, and Notion play a vital role in engineering education. These tools support project-based learning, enabling students to collaborate on designs, manage workflows, and communicate effectively. AI-powered systems further enhance learning by offering personalised feedback and recommendations, empowering students to take control of their progress.

Virtual labs, such as Labster, are another game-changer. For example, students can simulate fluid dynamics experiments, exploring theoretical principles without needing physical lab equipment. This not only makes learning more accessible but also ensures that students from diverse backgrounds can engage with high-quality STEM education.

But here is where I see a gap in the literature. While studies like Gilliot et al. (2010) emphasise the importance of digital tools in fostering 21st-century skills, they often overlook the emotional and social dimensions of learning. For instance, when students use Miro to brainstorm ideas, they’re not just collaborating – they’re building trust, negotiating roles, and managing conflicts. These “soft” skills are just as critical as technical ones, yet they’re rarely measured or discussed in research. Consider AI-driven feedback systems. While they can easily identify coding errors or structural flaws, they can’t replicate the mentorship of a professor who notices a student’s frustration and offers encouragement. This tension between efficiency and humanity is something I tackle with daily. As Pool et al. (2019) note, emotional intelligence is a cornerstone of adaptability – but how do we teach it in a digital-first world?

Of course, integrating these tools isn’t easy. Early on, I assumed students would naturally adapt to digital collaboration. Then I assigned a Miro whiteboard exercise – only to watch one group dominate the board while other groups waited passively. This taught me that digital literacy isn’t just about access; it’s about equity in participation.

Another problem is accessibility. While in my teaching practice I try to use lightweight tools like Falstad, not every student has reliable internet or a capable device. This aligns with Gilliot et al.’s (2010) warning that tech-heavy curricula risk excluding marginalised learners. My solution? Pair high-tech and low-tech tasks. For example, students might design a system in a virtual lab but present their findings via a video recorded on a smartphone which aligns with Frydenberg’s (2015) emphasis on creativity over specs.

Teaching staff resistance is another barrier. Instructors may feel unprepared to integrate digital tools effectively due to a lack of training or familiarity. Institutions must provide professional development programs that equip educators with the necessary skills and confidence. Peer-led workshops and open access to resources can further support staff in embracing digital tools.

Assessment is perhaps the trickiest challenge. Traditional exams often fail to capture the creativity and collaboration nurtured by digital tools. Inspired by Craifaleanu and Craifaleanu (2022), I now use “gamified group assessments” where students as part of a group solve engineering problems within simulations imitating real-world remote teamwork.

Looking ahead, I’m excited and cautious. Tools like AI-driven analytics promise personalised learning, but I worry about over-reliance on algorithms. Instead, I would like to further explore co-creation, i.e., students to build their own simulations, then evaluate each other’s designs. It’s messy, but as one student said, “Building a game taught me more about user bias than any lecture.”

I’m also hopeful for institutional support for OER. I hope that my department will adopt openly licensed textbooks. This helps to overcome barriers and guarantee that all students have access to good materials. By implementing these measures, we can make the learning environment more inclusive and efficient. This aligns with Niño and Evans’ (2015) vision of students as active knowledge producers, not passive consumers.

But perhaps the most transformative step is fostering critical pedagogy, a term associated with educational theorist Paulo Freire (Freire, 2005). It’s about acknowledging the challenges of digital inequality and algorithmic bias while empowering students to reshape the tools they inherit.

Digital literacy isn’t just about keeping up with technology – it’s about empowering students to question, adapt, and reshape the tools they’ll inherit. Games and simulations are powerful, but their true value lies in initiating conversations: Who decides what a “valid” simulation result is? How do we design inclusive digital spaces? As educators, we’re not just teaching engineers. We’re fostering citizens of a digital world. And that’s a challenge worth playing for.

I have chosen to publish this blog post under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA) license. I think this kind of licence aligns with my values of openness, accessibility, collaboration, inclusivity and, finally, knowledge sharing. It enables people to share, adapt, and build on this work for non-commercial purposes if they attribute the original author and any derivative works released under the same citation. This hopefully will contribute to the discussion on digital literacy and will urge educators to use open approaches to help all students have a fair chance to learn. Digital games and digital educational tools can be great tools in transforming engineering education, enhancing digital literacy, and preparing students for a world that is increasingly dependent on technology. They offer ways of learning by doing, critical problem solving and teamwork and provide a solution to the problems of accessibility and equity. Digital literacy is not just a skill; it is a skill for life in the modern world.

References

Aoun, J.E. (2017) ‘Robot-proof’, MIT Press.

Caratozzolo, P., Alvarez-Delgado, A. & Sirkis, G. (2021) ‘Fostering digital literacy through active learning in engineering education’, 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), pp. 1–6.

Chakrabarti, S. et al. (2021) ‘Preparing engineers for lifelong learning in the era of industry 4.0’, 2021 World Engineering Education Forum/Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF/GEDC), pp. 518–523.

Craifaleanu, A. and Craifaleanu, I.G. (2022). ‘A co‐creation experiment for virtual laboratories of mechanics in engineering education’, Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30(4), pp.991-1008.

Dacre Pool, L., Gurbutt, D. and Houston, K. (2019) ‘Developing employable, emotionally intelligent, and resilient graduate citizens of the future’, Employability via Higher Education: Sustainability as Scholarship, pp. 83–97. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-26342-3_6.

Freire, P. (2005). ‘Pedagogy Of The Oppressed: 30Th Anniversary Edition’, Trans. By Myra Bergman Ramos. Editorial: New York Continuum.

Frydenberg, M. (2015) ‘Achieving digital literacy through game development: An authentic learning experience’, Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 12, pp. 256–269.

Gilliot, J.M., Garlatti, S. & Simon, G. (2010) ‘Impact of digital literacy on the engineering curriculum’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEE), pp. 1–6.

JISC. (2022). Individual digital capabilities. [online] Available at: https://digitalcapability.jisc.ac.uk/what-is-digital-capability/individual-digital-capabilities/.

JISC (2023). 2023/24 UK higher education students digital experience insights survey findings. [online] Available at: https://digitalinsights.jisc.ac.uk/reports-and-briefings/our-reports/2023-24-uk-higher-education-students-digital-experience-insights-survey-findings/.

Kilgore, D. et al. (2007) ‘Creative, contextual, and engaged: Are women the engineers of 2020?’, 2007 Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings [Preprint].

Kolb, D. A. (1984) ‘Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Niño, M. & Evans, M.A. (2015) ‘Fostering 21st-century skills in constructivist engineering classrooms with digital game-based learning’, IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, 10, pp. 143–149.

Rohmani, R. & Pambudi, N. (2023) ‘A critical review of educational games as a tool for strengthening digital literacy’, International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 4(1), pp. 23–36.

Tang, Y., Shetty, S.S. & Chen, X. (2010) ‘Empowering students with engineering literacy and problem-solving through interactive virtual reality games’, 2010 2nd International IEEE Consumer Electronics Society’s Games Innovations Conference, pp. 1–6.

Udeozor, C., Russo-Abegão, F. & Glassey, J. (2023) ‘Perceptions and factors affecting the adoption of digital games for engineering education: A mixed-method research’, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), p. 45.

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Library and Digital Literacy in Indonesia: A reflective essay

Posted on by
Reply

This blog post was written by Khosyi Maulana as part of the final assignment for the module EDM122 at City, University of London and licensed under CC BY-ND-SA 

Introduction

Digital literacy is important for me as a librarian in Indonesia, particularly if we talk about today’s world, where technology continues to be more advanced, and it creates a“tsunami” of information, something that people cannot avoid. The ability to access, understand, and utilise digital information and technologies has become more crucial for individuals to survive in this era. This is particularly relevant to Indonesia because, by 2035, Indonesia is expected to benefit from a demographic bonus, as around 70% of its population will be within the working age range. According to some experts, this demographic shift can be a crucial turning point for Indonesia to emerge as a developed country. To make the most of this demographic bonus, the Indonesian government has implemented numerous strategies to enhance the quality of Indonesian people. One of the strategies is developing digital literacy skills because it can make people understand and use the information in the digital world to their benefit (Republic of Indonesia, 2020).

As a part of the Indonesian government, the National Library of Indonesia (NLI) has a significant role in promoting digital literacy in Indonesia. In the National mid-term development plan (2020-2024), the library sector is considered a social institution that drives literacy and innovation. As a social institution, it is the library’s duty to improve society through knowledge creation, and promoting digital literacy is one of the actions the library should take. Digital literacy is essential not only for library patrons but also for the librarian. It is a prerequisite competency before promoting digital literacy to the users.

Undoubtedly, digital literacy is a critical skill that people should have in this century. Digital literacy encompasses a range of skills and knowledge required to effectively use digital technologies for various purposes, including reading, writing, and critical thinking. It is not merely about the functional ability to use technology but also involves a deeper understanding and critical evaluation of digital content and environments (Secker, 2018; Bawden and Robinson, 2022). Secker also highlights the importance of digital literacy in navigating the complexities of the digital world, emphasising that it is more than just technical skills. In shorter words, digital literacy is the capability required to thrive, i.e. be effective and responsible in a digital society, and these abilities allow individuals to adjust to the ever-changing digital environment (Radovanović, 2024; Advance HE, no date). Digital literacy is also related to other literacy, such as information, media, and data literacy.

Fig.1 Digital capabilities framework: the Six Elements (JISC, 2024)

One of the digital capabilities is digital proficiency and productivity. Digital productivity is how individuals use digital skills to accomplish tasks, and it is related to how digital technology is changing practices such as the business (JISC, 2024). Libraries in Indonesia are concerned about developing these skills; for instance, Endang, a micro-entrepreneur from Ponorogo (Indonesia), attended the online business training conducted by the Ponorogo public library-bukalapak (e-commerce platform) and increased her sales and income through the social media (Alfatih, 2021). In this training, Endang learns how to create a” store” in e-commerce, use the right keywords for the products, promote her online store on social media and manage the content, which is all needed to sell products digitally. This fact proves that digital literacy could improve the quality of people’s lives. Furthermore, the impact of digital literacy on people’s income also happened in Pucheng County (China). Digital activities related to work and learning are identified as significant contributors to the increase in household wealth and field (Yao, Qin and Gao, 2022).

Digital literacy is a must-have skill for librarians to serve library users in a digital environment. In the digital age, information is not only limited to physical forms but extends to digital resources such as databases, e-books and online journals. Therefore, librarians must be proficient in navigating these digital resources to provide accurate information and support to library users (Bawden and Robinson, 2022).  As a librarian at the Center of Librarian Development, National Library of Indonesia, I did not directly serve the library users, but I was involved in ensuring the quality of librarians’ services through development programs such as training, workshops and seminars. The expected outcomes from the programs are to improve the librarians’ digital literacy skills and promote digital literacy to the patrons, as exemplified by Ponorogo Public Library.

Indonesian library community in promoting digital literacy

The library community is not a single player in developing digital literacy skills within society. In Indonesia, several institutions play a role in developing digital literacy, such as the National Library of Indonesia, the Ministry of Education and Culture, and the Ministry of Communication and Informatics. As a part of the government, the National Library of Indonesia is a leading institution in developing digital literacy through library services. A notable effort that NLI has made is to develop a digital library platform called iPusnas (https://ipusnas.id/). iPusnas enable Indonesian citizens to access digital books and comment or share their thoughts about the book.

Figure 2. iPusnas interface

Besides providing digital books, one of the NLI’s duties is to ensure the libraries in Indonesia deliver the services and meet users’ information needs. This task is carried out through several things, such as composing regulations, creating practical guides and training for librarian development. In 2022, I was involved in a team that organised online workshops about technology-based information literacy for librarians. 3,400 library staff from 34 provinces in Indonesia attended this series of workshops.

This workshop was held in partnership between NLI and the Indonesia Academic Library Association. I represented NLI in that collaboration, and my tasks included drawing up the budget, setting technical details of the event (zoom), being involved in training materials preparation, and giving a report to the Head of the Center of Librarian Development. The main focus of this workshop was to enhance information literacy skills in a digital environment by combining accessible advanced technology with five critical parts of information literacy skills: identifying information needs, finding information, evaluating sources, analysing the information and disseminating information. It will help the librarians to be agile in providing information or resources to the users in digital landscape. For instance, using Vos viewer as a tool to draw a correlation between subjects related to the users’ information needs and determine sources that have the most influence on a particular subject.

Besides NLI, various libraries, particularly public libraries, promoted digital literacy. Numerous public libraries in Indonesia have done tremendous activity in promoting digital literacy. Digital infrastructure and digital skills in Indonesia are quite varied, some regions are advanced, and others are behind. These circumstances affect the variety of digital literacy promotion. For example, Cukangkawu Village Library (West Java) provide access to the internet and trains local people to use it for their own benefit. Intan, one of the participants, used the skills that she had from the training to develop her “online shop” (Alfatih, 2021). Basic computer skills are needed to be digitally literate, so Pulang Pisau Public Library (Central Borneo) provides basic computer training for local people who have never learned computers before.

School libraries in Indonesia are also involved in promoting digital literacy. In Yogyakarta province, even though it was limited, elementary school librarians engaged with students in teaching specific information literacy skills. On rare occasions, classroom teachers may invite librarians to teach students internet exploration skills to find references and differentiate between trusted and untrusted websites or digital resources (Suwarto, Setiawan and Machmiyah, 2022)

Library institutions are not the only players who promote digital literacy in the library field. Information professional organizations such as the Indonesian Library and Information Science Scholars Associations (ISIPII) also promoted digital literacy through many seminars. One of the notable seminars was about the Creative Commons license, which was held in partnership with Creative Common Indonesia. The seminar successfully informed the Indonesian library community about open access and licensing in digital content.

Despite all the efforts and activities to promote digital literacy through the library, there is much room for improvement and development.

Further Improvement

I think learning digital literacy is related to learning or understanding human beings because digital literacy skills are not only about hard skills or technical skills in handling information in a digital environment. The side of digital literacy that only a few people are concerned about is the value within it. It is related to inclusivity, ethics, freedom of expression, intellectual property and data privacy or, in a single word, “humanity”. Librarians should be more concerned and efforts to address these issues, particularly in developing countries like Indonesia. Why is this important? The purpose or intention of using technology depends on the people, not the technology itself. The nature of technology is neutral, neither inherently good nor bad. Various entities, including governments, financial institutions, and parents, are responsible for determining the most ethical and sensible ways of utilising it (Schmid and Cohen, 2013).

One of the issues in finding information or resources in the digital environment is copyright. Legal and ethical considerations in using information as a core component of the digital literacy (Morrison and Secker, 2017). Moreover, Awareness of copyright and its implications is essential when creating, interacting with, or sharing content using digital technologies, making it intertwined with all critical aspects of digital literacies and capabilities, especially in the context of the ethics of sharing (Morrison, 2018). The first thing I want to develop as an Indonesian librarian is an awareness of copyright, not only for librarians but also for library patrons. It is ironic if library users use an internet connection in the library to access illegal streaming websites. Undeniably, the website owner is the bad guy, but people who access it, also violate copyright. Do they have digital literacy skills (technical skills)? There is no research about it, but some of them may have digital skills. Librarians should uphold and educate their users about copyright as professionals who work for knowledge and society. A society that upholds the copyright creates a better environment for creativity and innovation and contributes to the people involved in the works. Other than that, violating copyrights in the digital world leads users to a worse problem like online gambling, data scamming and pornography as illegal website streaming sets a lot of banners that directly to online gambling sites and pornography.

Preserving and digitising ancient manuscripts is mandatory for the National Library of Indonesia. Over the last decade, NLI has digitised many ancient manuscripts, old newspapers, and old literature, and understanding copyright and how it is implemented in those digitised files become more important. When libraries and institutions digitise copyrighted materials, they must ensure that their actions comply with copyright laws to avoid legal repercussions (Morrison and Secker, 2017). Besides that, understanding copyright is also needed in cataloguing digitised materials, the digital license of the materials must be clear.

The communication gap between generations did happen in NLI, and it started with the discussion in the WhatsApp group. Since I am in the middle of those generations, unofficially, my boss asked me to bridge the gap. I frequently communicated with senior group librarians and tried to understand what they were thinking about younger librarians and expect. The elder group knew that the younger generation had more talent and skill but needed to learn how to express their criticism and think in the right manner. Besides that, in social media like X, Instagram, and TikTok, many lecturers, teachers and HR professionals tell the story about how badly the millennial generation, Generation Z, and the next generation communicate through personal messages. For instance, they usually use “P” “P” P” at the beginning of the chat. P means Ping. In Indonesia, we usually use it to get immediate responses, but only for our peers.  That is why “Digital etiquette” in digital literacy training for librarians/library users is the other thing I want to put in. Digital etiquette might seem a little problem, but at a certain point, it will impact their (younger generation) future.

Last, when I was involved in creating workshops and training for librarians, people who were involved sometimes did not think about the habits of the librarians, especially in online learning. I will propose to the training or workshop organiser to assess librarian habits in the digital world. It can be done using David White’s visitor and resident concept. A Visitor uses the web only to get what they need, taking care to leave no trace of themselves, whilst the Resident lives a portion of their life online, leaving behind a visible form of self on the web (White, 2012). With a better understanding of librarian habits in the digital world, the organiser could choose the right methods to deliver training or materials and ensure every training participant will gain new knowledge and skills.

 

To meet the required assessment criteria, this essay will be shared on the EDM122 Blog platform under the Commons Creative Licence. This licence will grant complete copyright permission for both academic and creative work. We appreciate your cooperation and look forward to your contribution.

 

 

References

Advance HE (no date) Digital literacies | Advance HE. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/digital-literacies.

Alfatih, M.I. (2021) Impact stories of library transformation based on social inclusion. National Library of Indonesia. Available at: https://oer.perpusnas.go.id/items/fdcb921f-7297-4d8b-8592-bd1e57159d65.

Bawden, D. and Robinson, L. (2022) Introduction to Information Science. Second Edition. London: Facet Publishing.

JISC (2024) ‘Building digital capabilities framework – the six elements’. Available at: https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/8846/1/2022_Jisc_BDC_Individual_Framework.pdf.

Morrison, C. (2018) ‘Copyright and digital literacy: rules, risk and creativity’, in K. Reedy and J. Parker (eds) Digital literacy unpacked. London: Facet Publishing.

Morrison, C. and Secker, J. (2017) ‘Understanding librarians’ experiences of copyright: Findings from a phenomenographic study of UK information professionals’, Library Management, 38(6/7), pp. 354–368. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-01-2017-0011.

Radovanović, D. (ed.) (2024) Digital Literacy and Inclusion: Stories, Platforms, Communities. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30808-6.

Republic of Indonesia (2020) ‘The National medium-term development plan for 2020-2024’. Ministry of National Development Planning. Available at: https://perpustakaan.bappenas.go.id/e-library/file_upload/koleksi/migrasi-data-publikasi/file/RP_RKP/Narasi-RPJMN-2020-2024-versi-Bahasa-Inggris.pdf.

Schmid, E. and Cohen, J. (2013) The New Digital Age: Transforming Nations, Businesses, and Our Lives. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

Secker, J. (2018) ‘The Trouble With Terminology: Rehabilitating and Rethinking “Digital Literacy”’, in K. Reedy and J. Parker (eds) Digital Literacy Unpacked. 1st edn. Facet, pp. 3–16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783301997.003.

Suwarto, D.H., Setiawan, B. and Machmiyah, S. (2022) ‘Developing Digital Literacy Practices in Yogyakarta Elementary Schools’, Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 20(2), pp. pp101-111. Available at: https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.2.2602.

White, D. (2012) ‘Visitors and residents and learner-owned literacies.pdf’, Multimedia & Information Technology, 38(1). Available at: https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=e070828a-27d5-4f97-aaa1-e7f03d40e37b%40redis.

Yao, Y., Qin, S. and Gao, Y. (2022) ‘Research on the Impact of Digital Literacy on the Overall Income of Rural Households: A Case Study of 410 Questionnaires in Pucheng County, Shaanxi Province’, Highlights in Business, Economics and Management, 1, pp. 285–292. Available at: https://doi.org/10.54097/hbem.v1i.2589.

 

Heading to the European Conference on Information Literacy

Posted on by
Reply

Sign saying come in we are open

Photo by Richard Balog on Unsplash

Next week I will be in Krakow, Poland for the European Conference on Information Literacy and I am really excited to be speaking about the impact that this module has on staff attitudes and their academic practices. My session takes place on Monday afternoon and is part of a series of papers about Information Literacy Education. The module primarily focuses on digital literacy and open educational practices, but in my view these are both very much part of information literacy teaching and I am really looking forward to sharing my experiences with the conference delegates. I’ve not been to ECIL for a few years but it’s a fantastic supportive community of educators.

I’m really looking forward to sharing my experience of teaching this module over the past 6 years and also reporting on some of the research I have been undertaking over the summer with my colleague Dr Luis Pereira. We’ve been investigating staff attitudes to both digital literacy and open practices and particularly have been focusing on the impact that the pandemic has had on staff. I’ll be sharing my slides soon, but this builds on research I undertook in 2019 and presented at the Inted 2020 conference in Valencia. This was written up for the conference proceedings and is available on open access.

I’m also looking forward to the module starting again on 20th October 2023, when I have a new cohort joining the course including students from the Masters in Academic Practice at City and Library and Information Science students. I’m so grateful to all the fantastic guest speakers that join me each year and a list of these is available from the webinar page. I wish you all the best for the new academic year!

Welcome to EDM122: Digital Literacies and Open Practice 2021/2022

Posted on by
Reply

Jane at INTED in ValenciaI’m really delighted to be running this 15 credit module  as part of the Masters in Academic Practice for the fourth year running, so welcome to my new cohort at City University. This year I am delighted to be joined by a new member of the academic team at City, Dr Julie Voce, who is also Head of Digital Education. For those who are not at City, but who would like a taste of the module you are very welcome to join the webinar series. I have also made information available about the teaching days and the reading list from the blog.

Digital Literacies and Open Practice is an opportunity for staff and LIS students to explore two important and inter-related issues, that are central to the role that technology plays in education. It has been particularly interesting to discuss these issues in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the shift to online learning. The importance of considering your own, but also your students’ digital literacies has been only too apparent over the past 18 months. I have regularly had discussions with staff who made assumptions about what students might already know, about how to use technology and how to behave online. I think the need to embed digital literacies into the curriculum are now more important than ever before.

And the crisis has also highlighted the value of open practice, whether it’s about sharing teaching resources, helping students get access to digitised or electronic key readings, and the need for open access research. Last year I signed the Open COVID pledge, to try and be open in the work I write and publish.  I’ve also been running regular webinars for the education community on copyright and online learning, with my research partner, Chris Morrison. Chris will once again be delivering the first webinar in the series associate with this module.

I hope you can join some of this module and if you would like to understand a bit more about the rationale behind it and the feedback from the first cohorts, then I have published the paper I presented just a few weeks before lockdown at the INTED Conference in Valencia in March 2020.  I am looking forward to this module starting again and to sharing my passion for digital literacies and open practice with anyone interested, wherever they might be in the world.

Embedding Digital Literacies in the Curriculum with Katharine Reedy and Hossam Kassem

Posted on by
2

 

Hossam Kassem

Katharine and Jo at the book launch for Digital Literacy Unpacked

I’m hosting a webinar on Thursday 3rd December from 11am-12pm with Katharine Reedy and Hossam Kassem from the Open University. They will be talking about embedding digital literacy in the curriculum. The webinar is open to all and going to be run in MS Teams.

If you would like to join then do drop me a line, so I have an idea of numbers as it’s open to those not taking the module as well. I will send you the link to the meeting.

The Open University has a strong, and lengthy, track record, both in developing digital and information literacy products and services, and embedding the skills into the curriculum. We have been using learning design approaches to embed the skills, working in partnership with others across the university, including curriculum teams, Librarians and Learning Designers. During 2020 we have continued to evolve our approach and share it with colleagues in the wider sector to support the move to online learning.

Join Katharine  (editor along with Jo Parker of Digital Literacy Unpacked, from Facet publishing) and Hossam (a member of the Library Live Engagement team and Accessibility Lead) to hear about the OU experience.

 

Webinar 3: approaches to developing staff and students’ digital capabilities

Posted on by
Reply

Next week I have my third webinar, this time delivered by Sarah Knight and Lisa Gray who work for Jisc. As with other sessions please do let me know by registering if you would like to attend and you are not taking my module. The session is open to all. Sarah and Lisa tell us more about their session:

We are experiencing unprecedented times with the changes the pandemic has brought to every aspect of our lives and the experience for all our staff and students.  The fact that the skills needed to thrive in an increasingly digital world will continue to evolve with each new technological innovation presents challenges for universities.

The speed of change and the widescale adoption of new technologies by businesses, governments and daily living means that the future workforce not only needs to be digitally capable but digitally confident and resilient.

At Jisc we have been tackling these challenges since 2008 through our research to better understand and support the development of digital capability for students and staff – the skills needed to live, learn and work in a digital society (Jisc, 2014). Work has included: the development of our digital capabilities framework (Jisc, 2017) which has provided a shared vocabulary to describe digital capabilities; a series of profiles that breakdown of the capabilities relevant to particular educational roles; a ‘discovery tool’ a first step for staff and students to reflect on their digital skills which generates a personalised report suggesting next steps and developmental resources; organisational models; and curriculum resources.

This session will provide an overview of our research and how universities are developing the digital capabilities of their staff and students in the UK.

Kicking off Digital Literacies and Open Practice 2019-2020

Posted on by
Reply

Photo by Leyre Labarga on Unsplash

I’m delighted that this module kicks off again on Thursday 17th October with a new cohort of keen participants. This year the module has also been offered to LIS Students at City and a few have opted to take the course, so they will be joining students on our MA in Academic Practice. I’m really looking forward to having their perspective and contributions. The one thing I really liked last year was allowing people to focus on the aspects of digital literacy and open practice that really appealed to them and to dig into the literature to inform their thinking. You could probably base an entire module on each concept, so trying to cover everything is really difficult, but I found myself wanting to add in more to my teaching materials and not take anything out when reviewing the slides last week!

Feedback last year for the module was really positive, so the pressure is on to keep the standard as high as before. I’ve had a really useful chat with colleagues Sam Aston and Chris Millson at University of Manchester, who teach their module Open Knowing in Higher Education. It was being invited to give a guest workshop as part of their module that really inspired me to create this module, so I hope I have been able to share some of my ideas with them as well.

I’ve also been overwhelmed with the support I’ve received from external colleagues who agreed to once again give up their time to be part of the webinar series. The webinars are open to everyone and the first of these will be on Tuesday 22nd October and given by copyright games enthusiast and policy expert Chris Morrison from the University of Kent – I’ll share a link to the Adobe Connect classroom next week on the blog again but here it is.

The full line up of webinars are on the website now and also you can still access the recordings from last year if you missed them. I’m using the hashtag #CityDLOP if anyone wants to tweet about the module and I have just about got my Moodle site up and running. So wish me luck!

Networked values in hierarchical contexts – webinar by Dave White

Posted on by
Reply

I was delighted to host two webinars this week, the second which was given by Dave White, Head of Digital Learning at the University of the Arts, London. A recording of the webinar is now available and the slides.

Dave’s work on Visitors and Residents has been explored as part of this course, as a way of reconceptualising how we think about our relationship with technology. It’s also a different way of thinking about the now debunked notion of Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants.

In the webinar Dave talked to us about Networked value in Hierarchical Contexts and there were some great opportunities for participants to take part in online activities using a Padlet, which worked really well. Dave drew on the work of George Siemens and Stephen Downes on Connectivism. I was really interested in the work he has been doing recently at the University of the Arts around Open Values and this blog post provides an overview of his work and thinking to date. I’m excited to see that Catherine Cronin was involved in the work, as she will be giving a webinar to us in January.  Once again we saw a lot of connections between the two themes of the module and I hope people will enjoy watching the recording from this session.