Tag Archives: digital literacy

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.

Welcome to Digital Literacies and Open Practice 2024-5

Posted on by
Reply

I can’t believe we are about to start this module again for the sixth time as the module was first created in 2018. How time flies! We have a new cohort of students, and I’ve just completed some research on the impact of teaching on this module. The findings about what staff think of their own and their students’ digital literacies are really interesting and going to be the subject of a LEaD Learning Circle event in November. We also collected data on their attitudes towards open educational practices. Watch this space as I have also just submitted the first of a few planned journal articles on this research.

Definitions and terminology are both topics for discussion in next week’s first teaching day. I am really looking forward to meeting the new cohort, as this continues to be a really fascinating area to teach (and do research) in. We’ve got some introductory reading on what are digital literacies (from AdvanceHE) and a similar short piece on what open educational practices are from University of Edinburgh. A key part of the day is also going to be learning about where understanding copyright fits in this whole process and we have a link to last year’s guest lecture from Chris Morrison as he sadly can’t join us next week. But, it’s going to be a great term and good luck to everyone taking the module!

Developing Digital Literacy Among Nurses in Critical Care Unit

Posted on by
Reply

This post is written by Reena Antony Samy who is a Practice Development Nurse and nurse educator who recently completed the module EDM122. Her essay is licensed under CC-BY NC SA and she writes about digital literacy in critical care: 

Introduction

The use of Digital Health Technologies in the healthcare sector is rapidly increasing, and the expectation is to keep up the pace, adapt and maintain a high level of Digital Literacy. Technology was thought to be more confined to technically proficient people in the past. However, now everyone must have sufficient digital literacy to perform their jobs. Moreover, since the Covid 19 pandemic, technology-enhanced learning has become integral to teaching and learning.

I work as a Practice Development Nurse (PDN) / Nurse Educator at Adult Critical Care Unit, teaching the novice staff appointed to the critical care unit. Working in the Critical Care Unit for more than 15 years, I have come across many changes both in nursing education and the clinical care aspect, the most important one being Digitalisation. Replacing paper-based documentation with the Electronic Health Record Service (EHRS) is a significant transformation to the healthcare system. As a result, nurses are expected to be digitally proficient in using Information Systems and Digital Technology. Part of my job is to ensure the Electronic Health Record Service is safely implemented in the unit by ensuring that the nurses are confident and competent in using the new system. Health Education England (HEE, 2018) emphasises that every healthcare professional should have sound digital capabilities grounded in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviours that will enable them to provide the utmost effective and high standard of compassionate care.

Digital Capabilities and Digital Literacies.

HEE (2018) proposed a Digital capability framework. However, there needed to be more clarity between Digital Capabilities and Digital Literacy. Secker J (2017) says that Digital Literacy is sometimes called Digital Capabilities. The author further argues that the term capabilities may result partly in acknowledging the problem related to digital literacy. HEE (2018) defines Digital Literacies are capabilities that fit someone for living, learning, working, participating, and thriving in a digital society. As technology evolves, the health and social care workforce should aim to be fully competent, confident, and capable of using the technology so that technology related incidents can be prevented.

Barriers

Implementation of the EHRS faced many challenges in the unit. The main barrier whilst implementing the EHRS was the human factor. Staff’s behaviours and attitudes around digital literacy posed a significant challenge in implementing this project. Lack of confidence, the fear of using the technology and unwillingness to learn can prevent or slow the technology’s pace. The staff’s current digital literacy level impacted the staff engagement in adapting to the new system. The confident and proficient staff in social and digital media embraced this change much more quicker and easier. HEE (2018) states that staff with better digital literacy tend to have more positive attitudes and behaviours in adopting new technology. Moreover, the attitude of the staff towards changes also has an impact on the staff engagement levels, which in turn can affect the safety and quality of patient care (Kuek and Hakkennes, 2020). HEE (2018) declares that organisational policy can sometimes create barriers. Like the employer’s unwillingness to use personal phones and learning devices in the workplace. Sometimes Wi-Fi and appropriate internet speed within the organisation may hinder access to digital facilities. For example, though the unit agreed for staff to use their devices, the speed of the internet posed a significant challenge, which affected the staff’s learning experience in adopting the new system.

Healthcare is said to be traditionally slow in adopting new digital tools and technologies, with some staff feeling nervous and sceptical about the digital revolution (Pearce, 2017) and sometimes due to technical factors in the organisation. It is essential to develop and improve the digital literacies of an individual and the organisation to transform how healthcare professional’s practise.

Role of the nurse educator in digital literacy

-Curriculum Change

The nurses must use technology effectively in the clinical setting to provide a high standard of patient care and decrease clinical errors. With the growing need for nurses to develop these digital skills, it is imperative to embed digital literacy in the nursing curriculum. One of the four aspects of developing digital literacies in practice (JISC, 2014) is ‘Curriculum Change’. The development of digital literacy must start with the pre-registration students. The nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) have included digital literacy in the 2018 Standards for Pre-Registration Nursing programmes and standards of Proficiency for Registered Nurses. Even though the main challenge is to overcome the financial implications (Peltonen et al ., 2019), Lokmic- Tomkins et al. (2022) emphasise targeted digital literacy education to improve nursing students’ baseline digital literacy before clinical placements. This must be scaffolded across the program to ensure a smooth transition to nursing practice. Even though most nursing curricula worldwide have endeavoured to incorporate the subject, adopting recommended curriculum change has needed to be faster (Cummings et al., 2016).

Further, Kennedy and Yaldren (2017) argue that curriculum modifications do not necessarily reflect the needs of workplace digital literacy. Therefore, in addition to the pre-registration education, continuing professional development and on-site training are needed to build the knowledge further. Brown et al. (2020) state that digitally literate nurses can better embrace and use new technology in various ways in clinical settings. The Adult Critical Care Unit’s staff ranged from brand-new graduates to well-experienced nurses. Though the newly qualified nurses with some digital literacy adopted the changes readily, others have trouble grasping the EHRS technological changes.

 

-Supporting the staff.

User engagement and training are vital in successfully implementing electronic health record services. It was evident that complex digital skills were necessary for this digitally-driven work environment. It was necessary to know the staff’s digital literacy level and attitude towards new technology to tailor training to the need (Jobst et al., 2020). Paul Gilster (1997), in the use of the term digital literacy, said it is about ‘mastering ideas – not keystrokes’. Being digitally literate is an ongoing process, and becoming more confident and proficient over time. The learning literacies and development framework (JISC, 2014) adapted from Sharpe and Beetham (2010) emphasise the development of digital literacies from access and functional skills to higher-level capabilities and identity.

Though the readiness assessment was carried out to identify the barriers and facilitate the successful adoption of EHRS, an individual’s self-assessment to assess the level of digital literacy should have been performed. Therefore, identifying the staff’s digital literacy level and customising the training according to the need was challenging. However, generalised training was provided for all the staff prior to the introduction of EHRS. As a result, some staff could accept it effortlessly while others had difficulty adapting to the new system.

It is not about introducing a new change to the system; as a nurse educator, my role was to incorporate and facilitate the changes in the best possible way and develop the staff to be more proficient. Familiarisation with the new system beforehand was initialised, which acted as an icebreaker. This enhanced the individual’s willingness, self-efficacy, and positive attitude towards the changes. Those already exposed to technology will be more confident using it than those new to digital technologies (Jobst et al., 2022). Moreover, raising awareness and engaging stakeholders in discussion is essential to develop shared understanding and goals. JISC (2013) gives a key message, ‘Involve Students’, as this will help focus on developing the technology, making the system more usable, and meeting the end user needs.

The most significant factor in achieving digital literacy and effectively implementing the EHRS is to identify digital champions who will support and develop the digital skills of the front-line staff. Digital champions were mainly enthusiastic volunteers willing to take up this role. Pearce, L. (2017) says that healthcare needs staff who are enthusiastic about technology and willing to embrace the changes. Digital champions acted as a bridge, provided feedback information, and enabled two-way conversation.

This project enhanced the digital literacy skills of the nurses. Digital literacy is a multi-layered, dynamic set of knowledge, skills and attitudes which shifts according to individual goals (HEE, 2018) that will enable them to improve the quality of care. Health Education England (2018) categorised digital literacy under the following domains.

  • Communication, collaboration and participation.
  • Teaching, learning and self-development
  • Information data and media literacies.
  • Creation, innovation and scholarship
  • Technical Proficiency
  • Digital identity and well being

Nurses are vital in introducing and implementing technology in clinical practices, such as using patient-related sensors and monitoring equipment. Though these are widely used in the critical care unit, using technology to input patient data is new. The expectation of the staff to use the technology effectively to ensure quality, safety and efficiency in health care services (Gonen et al., 2016). Therefore, technological literacy is crucial in the nursing world. The staff were exposed to a wide range of technologies like wristband scanners and were trained to use and troubleshoot when needed. Nes et al., 2021, emphasise that nurses should learn to use the technology and actively participate in developing it.

Another significant learning curve for the nurses in implementing the EHRS  is information and data literacy. The nurses are to input the patient’s data, collate, and analyse the information and formulate a nursing care plan for the patient. Bergren and Maughan (2020) argue that nurses should be able to use computers and information systems and apply data and evidence to inform practice. Though the staff are so used to the paper system, this project paved the way to acquire the knowledge to collect and analyse the data digitally. Furthermore, Li et al. (2022) state that Information literacy is an essential foundation for evidence-based nursing, which is imperative in health and social care to provide the best possible patient outcome.

In addition, implementing the EHRS enabled the nurses to communicate and collaborate with many people using the digital platform. Therefore nurses should also be able to recognise and act on situations that might compromise personal, professional and organisational security. HEE (2018) states that nurses must develop the ability to develop, promote and safeguard appropriate digital identities to support both personal and organisational reputations. Digital identity is one of the aspects nurses should take on as they enter into this digital age.

Moreover, nurse educators must be digitally competent and confident to impart knowledge to learners. The competencies nurse educators must impart to their students are highly significant, and the nurse educator should remain abreast of this new technology. Developing the clinical educator’s digital literacy is equally important so that they can support students more effectively. In implementing this project, the nurse educators were given the ‘Train the Trainer’ (TTT) sessions, so that nurse educators would act as a champion in promoting the new technology. HEE (2018) recommends that digital champions must be able to teach confidently and proficiently, coach, mentor, and train using different technologies.

Commencing on this Digital Literacy and Open Practice module revealed the importance of being digitally literate. It empowered me to implement EHRS in our critical care unit, which enhanced my digital literacy skills. I learnt to use different types of technologies to train the staff. We were constantly participating in online meetings and discussion forums, sharing files, and sometimes working online with others.  Though the TTT was thoughtfully arranged, some nurse educators needed more help acquiring the knowledge and skills. Jobst et al. (2022) state that nurse educators must be digitally competent to promote learning among nurses. This project served as a base to scaffold digital literacy not only for the nurses but also for the nurse educators at different levels of digital literacy.

 

Conclusion

Implementing Electronic Health Record service is a significant aspect of the digital health and social care transformation. The necessity for current and future nurses to be digitally literate is eminent. This essay explored the importance of nurses’ digital literacy in safely caring for patients using different technologies. It also identifies that equally; nurse educators must be competent to embed the knowledge among the nurses. Assessing the digital literacy knowledge among the staff before the training is crucial so the training can be customised to the need. Therefore, a self-assessment tool and a comprehensive digital Literacy training programme for the nurses are highly recommended as the way forward for the safer implementation of EHRS.

 

Reference

 

Bergren, M.D. and Maughan, E.D. (2020) ‘Data and Information Literacy- A fundamental Nursing Competency’, NASN School Nurse, 35(3), pp: 140.

 

Brown, J., Pope, N., Bosc,A.M., Mason,J. and Morgan, A. (2020) ‘Issues affecting nurses’ capability to use digital technology at work : An integrative review’, Journal of Clinical Nursing,  29, pp: 2801- 2819.

 

Cummings, E., Shin, E., Mather, C.,  and  Hovenga, E. (2016) ‘Embedding nursing informatics education into an Australian undergraduate nursing degree’, Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 225, pp: 329–333.

 

Developing Digital Literacies (2014) https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/developing-digital-literacies

accessed on 07/01/2023

 

Gilster, P. (1997) Digital Literacy. New York,NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

 

Gonen,A., Sharon,D., Offir,A. and Lev-Ari, L. (2014) ‘How to enhance nursing students’ intention to use information technology: The first step before integrating it in nursing curriculum’, Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 32 (6), pp. 286-293.

 

Health Education England (2018) ‘Digital literacy Capability Framework’, https://www.hee.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Digital%20Literacy%20Capability%20Framework%202018.pdf Accessed on 8/1/2023

 

Jobst,S., Lindwedel,U., Marx, H., Pazouki, R, Ziegler, S., Konig,P., Kugler, C and Feuchtinger, J. (2022) ‘Competencies and needs of nurse educators and clinical mentors for teaching in the digital age – a multi-institutional, cross-sectional study’ BMC Nursing, 21(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-22-01018-6   Accessed on 10/01/2023

 

Kennedy, S., and  Yaldren, J. (2017) ‘A look at digital literacy in health and social care’, British Journal of Cardiac Nursing, 12(9), pp. 428–432.

 

Kuek,A . and Hakkennes, S. (2020), ‘Healthcare staff digital literacy levels and their attitudes towards information systems’ Health Informatics Journal, 26(1), pp: 592-612.

 

Li,X., Zhang,J., Zheng,Y., Wang,Y and Hao,W. (2022) ‘Factors associated with information literacy of nursing undergraduates in China’, BMC Nursing, 21:81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00855-9 Accessed on 15/01/2023

 

Nes, A.A.G., Steindal, S.A., Larsen, M.H., Heer, H.C.,Laerum-Onsager, E. and Gjevjon,E.R. (2021) ‘ Technology Literacy in Nursing education’,  Journal of professional Nursing, 37(2), pp: 320 -334 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2021.01.008  Accessed on 15/01/2023

 

NMC (2018) ‘Standards framework for nursing and midwifery education’ https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/standards-of-proficiency/standards-framework-for-nursing-and-midwifery-education/education-framework.pdf

Accessed on 10/01/2023

 

Pearce L. (2017), ‘Digital Literacy’, Nursing Standard, 31(48), pp: 18-20.

 

Peltonen,L.M., Nibber,R., Lewis,A., Block,L., Pruinelli,L., Topaz,M., Perezmitre,E.L. and Ronquillo, C. (2019) ‘Emerging professionals’ observations of opportunities and challenges in nursing informatics’ Nurse Leadership , 32, pp. 8-18.

 

Secker, J. (2017) ‘The trouble with terminology: Rehabilitating and Rethinking Digital Literacy’. In Reedy, K. & Parker, J. (eds.) Digital Literacy Unpacked. London: Facet Publishing, pp. 3-16.

 

Sharpe, R. & Beetham, H. (2010) ‘ Understanding students’ uses of technology for learning: Towards creative appropriation’. In Sharpe,R., Beetham,H.  and de Freitas,S. (eds.), Rethinking learning for a digital age: how learners shape their experiences. Routledge Falmer, London and New York, pp. 85-99.

 

 

This essay is published under common creative licence ‘Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

Two webinars now available

Posted on by
Reply

Katharine and Jo at the book launch for Digital Literacy Unpacked

We now have two more recorded webinars available from the module Digital Literacies and Open Practice. The first was a bonus webinar given a few weeks ago by Sam Aston and Chris Millson from the University of Manchester. Sam and Chris teach on the module ‘Open Knowledge in Higher Education‘ which inspired me to set up this course after I was a guest lecturer on it a few years ago running a session with Chris Morrison. Their webinar has a number of activities you can take part in to help you think about what open practice means and how to make small changes in your own teaching. A recording is available here.

The second webinar is from the editors of one of the set readings for this course, Jo Parker and Katharine Reedy who wrote Digital Literacies Unpacked. They talk about the approach to learning design at the Open University and how digital literacies, (but also employability and other skills) are embedded into the curriculum. A recording and the slides are available.

Embedding Digital Literacies in the Curriculum webinar on Friday!

Posted on by
Reply

Katharine and Jo at the book launch for Digital Literacy Unpacked

I’m hosting a webinar on Friday 6th December from 11am-12pm with Katharine Reedy and Jo Parker 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 Adobe Connect – no password required.

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

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 in our work both within the Library service to embed the skills but also in wider work across the university working with curriculum teams. Join Katharine and Jo (editors of Digital Literacy Unpacked, from Facet publishing) to hear about the OU experience.

Slides and recording from Catherine Cronin now available

Posted on by
Reply

The slides and recording from today’s webinar on critical digital literacies, data literacies and open practice, given by Catherine Cronin are now available. I was really thrilled that Catherine agreed to give our final webinar in the series, because of how important her work on open educational practices has been. Catherine and I have a lot of shared interests and she is going to be Co-Chair of the OER19 Conference, which is taking place in Galway Ireland in April. I will be seeing her then, as I have had a paper accepted to discuss my experiences of running this module, and I am delighted that three of my webinar presenters, Chris, Dave and Lorna are hoping to join me to share their reflections.

The slides, a recording and a set of resources from Catherine are available. Thank you to everyone who joined the recording. We did have a couple of technical issues, with Catherine not being able to hear me, so we used the chat box. It just goes to show that there is no such thing as digital competence, even for those of us who think we are fairly good at this stuff! And Catherine’s advice at the end of our chat with me, was you just have to keep dancing! I hope you’ve all enjoyed these webinars and this one is a real treat! Thank you to all my webinar presenters – there is now a full list of them on the webinar page.