Accelerat ing t he world's research.

The difference between Digital

Learning and Digital Literacy?
John Turner

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Nordic Journal of Digit al Lit eracy Special Issue, 2006-2016

Michele Knobel

Preparing Fut ure Teachers t o Teach wit h ICT : An invest igat ion of digit al compet ence development in …
Fredrik Mørk Røkenes

Upt ake and Use of Digit al Technologies in Primary and Secondary Schools – a T hemat ic Review of Re…
Anders D. Olofsson, Göran Fransson
The difference between Digital Learning and Digital Literacy?
- a practical perspective

Dr John Turner
Canadian International School, Hong Kong
May 2013

Introduction

“Digital Literacy has become one of the main competencies in the 21st Century”
(Newrly & Veugelers 2009)

Last year my school finalized a plan for infusing digital technologies across the K-12 curriculum. Digital Learning
Infusion (DLI) drew on the Florida Technology Integration matrix (fcit.usf.edu/matrix), and built on a previous
plan that included the integration of 1:1 laptops from Grades 5 through 12, development of a teacher pd
program,specialist support, and various curriculum initiatives. Key elements of this new stage includes further
empowering students and teachers as learners, evaluating learning progress to inform action, and streamlining
effective communication across the school community.

One consideration emerging has been Digital Literacy up against Digital Learning. Digital literacy has taken on
increasing importance as educators look to meld 20th century structures with new digital related skills (Voogt
et al 2011). This could have important implications for broadening the learning opportunities provided for
students and teachers. With this in mind, this paper investigates the relationship between digital literacy and
digital learning in support of practical in-school use of digital technologies for teaching and learning.

Background to Digital Literacy

“Digital Literacy is ... the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range
of sources when it is presented via computers” (Gilster 1997)

Traditionally literacy was “conceived as social practices and conceptions of reading and writing” (Street 1984). This is
evident in a 3Rs curriculum with its text-focused content. More recently the OECD (2006) defined reading
literacy as “understanding, using and reflecting on written texts, in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s
knowledge and potential and to participate in society.”
It goes on to note
“definitions of reading and reading literacy have changed over time in parallel with changes in society, the
economy and culture. The concept of learning, and particularly the concept of lifelong learning, has
expanded perceptions of reading literacy and the demands made on it. Literacy is no longer considered an
ability only acquired in childhood during the early years of schooling. Instead, it is viewed as an expanding
set of knowledge, skills and strategies which individuals build on throughout life in various situations, and
through interaction with their peers and with the larger communities in which they participate.”

For many digital literacy forms part of this expansion. The OECD (2009) PISA evaluation of digital literacy
defined Digital Reading Literacy as “evaluating information on the Internet, assessing its credibility, and navigating web
pages.”

Others, though, have taken a wider perspective. Gardner’s (1983) work on multiple intelligences sought to
widen considerations of intelligence. Influenced by this Adams (2004), Eshet-Alkalai (2005) and Solez (2009)
sought to develop frameworks for digital intelligence or digital literacy.

Digital literacy has come to be viewed as everything from a basic skill for personal transformation to an inter-
connecting hydra of components (Futurelab 2010). To Thomas (2011) it comes with a need for transformative
pedagogies, while Gee (2003) sees it as a “function of social practice, social context and discourse.” To Resnick
(2002) it is analogous to learning a foreign language.

Media Literacy (or Digital Media Literacy) is another term used by some synonymously with digital literacy
(Belshaw 2011). Recently Briggs and Makice (2011) put forward Digital Fluency as a logical objective for learning
through digital technologies. They see digital literacy as a step below the required level needed to reliably
achieve desired outcomes through technology use. Meanwhile the European Joint Research Centre (JRC 2012)
is developing digital competence frameworks to link with other competencies such as “language, mathematics,
learning to learn and cultural awareness.”

Some prefer more restricted meanings, such as focusing on effective use of ICT exclusively (Koltay 2011) or on
the need to bring digital skills to the 66 million Americans deemed by the Federal Communication Commission
as lacking digital access / digital literacy (Southerland 2012). Others embrace wider contexts to take-in the
ability to make sense of and effectively utilize emerging technologies (Shapiro and Hughes 1996). Digital literacy

1
also overlaps Information Literacy, Visual Literacy and Media Literacy as the importance of visual
communication and information has taken on more influence (Koltay 2011).

Perhaps Belshaw’s (2011) PHD investigation provides an all embracing set of digital literacy considerations (the
eight Cs):
1. cultural: what is the context of experiences?
2. cognitive: how is the mind expanded?
3. constructive: what is new in such constructions?
4. communicative: how is communication enhanced?
5. confident: how is failure addressed constructively?
6. creative: how can we move beyond the canon?
7. critical: how are conventions critically addressed?
8. civic: how is a civil society developed?
He points to the complex, contextural nature of digital literacy requiring identification of learning objectives
achievable within specified domains. Educational researchers such as Voogt et al (2011) also see digital literacy
as requiring an understanding of the “interplay between technology and society to understand the technological
principles needed to develop relevant solutions and achieve goals”, contending that “digital literacy should not be
regarded as a separate set of skills, but instead embedded within and across the other 21st century skills and core
subjects.” This is supported by recent Horizon Reports (NMC 2009, 2012) which contend that digital literacy is
not about the tools, but thinking critically about how technologies shape identities and cultures.

The European Union views digital literacy as “an evolving agenda” within political and cultural contexts (Shapiro
2009). Beetham (2011) summarizes this through a visual map (fig 1), while Martin (2006) provided a definitive
explanation.
“Digital Literacy is the awareness, attitude and ability of individuals to appropriately use digital tools and
facilities to identify, access, manage, integrate, evaluate, analyse and synthesise digital resources, construct
new knowledge, create media expressions, and communicate with others in the context of specific life
situations, in order to enable constructive social action; and to reflect upon this process”

fig 1. Digital Literacy Elements

Digital Learning, meanwhile, appears to be often subsumed into justifications for strengthening or solving through
transformation the shortcomings of current education systems, be it graduation rates (AEE 2012) or as provision
of new learning resources. In Digital Learning Now the United States Digital Learning Council (2010)
included ten elements of High Quality Digital Learning, focusing on access, personalization, content, instruction,
provision, funding, assessment and delivery. Assessment was about test efficiency, data collection and outcome
accountability.

2
There are others, though, such as Jackson and Crawford (2008) who see digital learning as no different to
required general literacy. Finally, those advocating a more student-centered, student empowered approach to
formal education see in digital learning the potential for transformation based on social/cultural and
constructivist principles (Learning Commons 2012, Swan 2005). Digital learning remains in the eye of the
beholder.

Meanwhile, the value of digital technologies to support learning is becoming more established, with research-
backed conclusions that digital technologies do affect not only how students learn, but also how they socialize
and communicate (Knezek, Kwok-Wing Lai & Khaddage 2011). An oft heard mantra that technology can help
promote effective learning is joined with beliefs that technology has transformed, or is transforming, the teaching-
learning process (Resta 2011, Purcell et al 2012)). Within this there is a community expectation
expressed by parents, employers, and the wider community that the education system needs to produce
technologically fluent students, who can use a wide variety of digital technologies across disciplines and
professions, and who have the behaviours and knowledge that will enable them to use emerging technologies.
(Duncan-Howell 2012)

A Framework for Digital Literacy

My investigation arrived at the following subjective differentiation between the two DLs.

Digital Learning relates to the tools used and teaching and learning processes undertaken. This includes
new learning wrought by new technologies, such as processing web information, software-processing
skills, digital problem-solving skills and connected learning (digital and non-digital). It also includes
progressing more traditional processes such as redrafting, modeling and information storage/access.

Digital Literacy, while it overlaps digital learning, constitutes a series of developmental levels not unlike
reading. A basic level to satisfy would be digital competence. School has a role to play in the formal
development, while elite levels are apparent. Literacy elements go beyond particular software skills to
include extension, adaptability, problem-solving, connection and reflection. Pathways are culturally
determined and valued.

For some there may appear to be little or no difference, only a question of semantics. But once again, comparing
to reading, is having basic reading skills different from being able to apply critical thinking across a range of
texts? BAnderson and Krathwhol (2001), taking into account the impact on learning wrought by digital
technologies, updated Bloom’s taxonomy to include Creating as the new top level. Reading literacy, as with
digital literacy, is strongly connected to what one can achieve through such literacies.

In a previous investigation into digital learning (Turner 2010) I identified five areas (and four levels) relevant to
digital learning. These reflected a Threshold Concept analysis (Meyer and Land 2003).

fig 2. Digital learning framework based on threshold concept analysis

3
What is now apparent is that Digital Literacy requires widening the consideration to include cultural and social
aspects such as adaptability, reflection, entrepreneurialism and cultural relevance.

A practical starting point might be taken from Gillen and Barton’s (2010) Digital Literacies research briefing that
included a framework for contextualizing digital literacies:

Critical thinking media literacy / Digital inclusion Dig citizenship /

participatory Internet safety

Cognitive
developments

Collaboration
problem solving

Multidisciplinary tool
creation

Authenticity and
access
fig 3.TLRP-TEL project Framework for contextualising Digital Literacies

What Digital Technologies can provide

Technologies can provide new personal learning mechanisms: new literacies, new opportunities, new challenges,
and new values:

New learning from naive to empowered:

●planning
●logic-visual screen manipulation
●information organisation
●purposeful re-chunking with new software
●problemizing as a basic component of digital use
●connecting as an ecology of learners (Turner 2010)
New opportunities
●global audiences
●global connections
●creating dynamic records of learning
●design thinking
●visible learning
●learning from error
New challenges
●catering for teacher diversity through teacher learning and teamwork
●filtering skills
●personal choice of technologies integrated into common learning frameworks
●citizenship encompassing digital domains
New Values
●to what levels personal choice can be increased?
●what value collaboration and teamwork in diverse learning environments?
●how far to break down classroom walls?
●what level of personal choice for teachers?
●what value student personal interest and prior knowledge?
●what learning to value and in what ways?
Putting this all together could help develop a digitally literate learning community.

Some issues to ponder

For digital literacy in school environments several issues warrant specific consideration and provide further
evidence for not just seeing reading as synonymous with digital literacy. These include:

(1) Rates of Change

Moore’s Law, a non-scientific pronouncement that nevertheless has generally held since the
mid-1960s, contends that computing processing power doubles about every 18 months. This has
4
 underpinned revolutionary societal change with computing power impacting on every facet of human
endeavor. To keep abreast of opportunity requires a flexibility of mind and entrepreneurial mind-set.
To be digitally literate at the higher levels is as much about opportunity, aptitude and attitude as
formal education system progression.

In schools the impact of fast-changing technologies has led to ongoing interest in the frameworks
needed to add value. The International Society for Technology Education’s (ISTE) Essential Conditions
as “necessary conditions to effectively leverage technology for learning” provide 14 conditions, including
the importance of shared vision and a focus on student-centered learning. Cox et al (2011) remind
us that “rapid growth and changes in technology leave researchers, as well as teachers and learners,
struggling to keep up with functionality and educational potential.” This requires embedded effective
change management approaches (Fullan 2013).

(2) Informal learning

Jay Cross (2006) has written extensively on the impact of personal technologies on learning. This
relationship has increasingly impacted on schools. But Sutherland (2008) warns us about relying too
much on out-of-school informal learning for disadvantaged learners. Even in well-off schools diversity
of experiences beyond school, rather than generalizations or individualizations, need careful
consideration. Informal Learning, though, is increasingly recognized as affecting student learning
potential even if “nebulous and often difficult to measure” (Cox et al 2011).

Young people may be “adept at internet searching, using social networking and content download sites....
(but) much of young people’s use continues to be passive viewing of online content” (Kirkman 2012). We
need to resolve to what extent schools wish to develop digital Consumers, Curators or Creators?

(3) Diversity and Personalization of choice

With increasing rates of change and personal computing power has come a widening array of fast-
changing technologies, leading to increased individual preference by students and teachers. No longer
can schools claim to be the centre of standardizable determinants. Increasingly home and personal
computing power has in many schools out-stripped what schools can offer through centralised,
standardised approaches.

Digital literacy therefore is increasingly technology-independent with personalized pathways.

Transmission has been replaced by Connection as a cornerstone of learning, reflecting
Siemens’ (2006) advocacy of Connectionism. Learning communities have evolved into small, inter-
connected and highly-adaptable areas of common interest.

(4) Generational differences

Pretzky (2001) and Tapscott (1997) set the ball rolling with their claims that those raised in the
modern digital world, so called Digital Natives or Net Geners, possessed attributes and attitudes
that set them apart from previous generations; so called Digital Immigrants. This led to calls for new
educational paradigms to fit new needs. This is contentious and has been accused of seeking moral
panic on unsubstantiatable claims (Selwyn 2009 in Kirkman 2012). But the impact of (1) - (3) has
seen a flattening of learning environments, with educational researchers calling for more control for
students in the learning process (Knezek, Kwok-Wing Lai & Khaddage 2011).

(5) Lifelong learning

There is increasing recognition that lifelong learning, with all its challenges and opportunities,
requires formal learning considerations beyond the limiting view of school’s industrial antecedents.
Neuroscience has already established that people retain the capacity to learn through and beyond
middle age and that learning is in fact conducive to good health and a good life (Geake & Cooper
2003).

(6) The learning process

Researchers point to how new technologies are changing how knowledge is represented and
codified (Cox et al 2011). They point to knowledge that is now dynamic and unstable, where balance
is nebulous, and new relationships between formal and informal. Marshall McLuhan (1964)
exemplified this with his statement that “we shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us”.

(7) Assessment
While assessment has followed curriculum intent and cultural priorities, school systems have
nevertheless increasingly incorporated digital literacy and/or digital learning considerations. An
academic view put forward by Eshet-Alkalai (2004) identified five types of literacy - photo-visual,
reproduction, information, branching, and socio-emotional - which was used to build a basic
assessment structure for digital learning (Turner 2010).

A more systemic approach has been put forward by the Australian Curriculum Assessment and
5
 Reporting Authority in it’s National Assessment Program - ICT Literacy in Years 6
and 10 (ACARA 2011) which has reported on student interest, enjoyment and confidence.

(8) Teacher diversity

While others might veer towards digital technologies in school education as optional, perhaps even
novelty or baby-sitter; or as a variation to a traditional teacher-didactic approach, or because they
represent ‘real-world’ metaphors, some advocates take a more active line
●flattening their classroom to become co-learners with their students
●valuing learning from new sources, including students
●risking new technologies to evaluate new learning possibilities
●seeking ‘socially-based, un-tethered and digitally rich’ learning environments for themselves
and their students (Speak Up, 2012)
While, however, the value of school learning is constrained by industrially structured content linked
to a test-focused assessment, alternative values will too often have to continue to swim against the
tide or seek harbors of personal satisfaction.

Teachers, like other sections of society, represent a range of attitudes towards changing technologies,
exemplified by Rogers (1962) model of diffusion of innovations where the characteristics of “late
adopters are profoundly different from those of early adopters” (McKenzie 1999).

(9) Specialized v Generalized

There are those who will specialize in particular technologies, taking on and demonstrating advanced
features and creating advanced products. A non-systemic approach to developing teacher
specialization and broken pathways through school has hampered the role of school, the potential of
students and the priorities of teachers. A conundrum ever since Bill Gates took on programming
pre-teen as an outlier (Gladwell 2008).

Curriculum Importance

Schools are guided by their curriculum, and the level of freedom afforded can vary between systems, schools or
even teachers. For this investigation, as for any, an important consideration is curriculum structure. The practical
responsibilities of schools are not helped by calls for radical restructuring of school (Davis, Eickelmann and
Schulz-Zander 2011) with a preference for this or that (sometimes fad) technology as savior or inevitability.

The problem of obtaining worthwhile educational research support when dealing with fast developing and
changing technologies has been noted (Roblyer 2005, CERI 2012).

While there exists widespread support in education for digital technologies as an enabler (MCEETYA 2008),
how to go about maximizing value is constantly debated. A recent UK Study, International Comparison
of Computing in Schools (NFER 2012), highlighted the variability in system approaches to digital
technologies, from discrete subject studies to cross-curricular tool expectations. An absence of any reference to
digital literacy is noteworthy.

In my school the International Baccalaureate (IB) is in place across K-12 (PYP, MYP and DP), in conjunction with
Ontario Curriculum responsibilities. This is particularly significant. An IB (2011) document, The role of ICT in the
PYP, provided a framework of outcomes that the school had used to create a scaffolded approach to digital
infusion for learning. DLI is indeed apparent in the curriculum-linked, teacher led scaffolds. In support, online
virtual learning environments that connect digital tools support digital learning landscapes, while student iFolios
linked to curriculum approaches to learning (ATL) and areas of interaction (AOI) enable Bloom’s higher order
thinking and learning approaches to be supported.

Balancing it all together

To build digital literacy beyond digital learning several elements are required

1. Teacher Support. Teachers need classroom support, be it at-hand or time to connect. Students can also
be a wonderful resource as flattened classrooms facilitate peer learning. But ownership and
commitment cannot be presumed. A positive teacher attitude to digital learning, both personal and in
the classroom, is paramount.
2. Curriculum Validity. The importance of IB curriculum direction is detailed in this paper. Curriculums
need to be clear and supportive of diversity, while balancing vision, risk and requirement.
3. Teacher Learning. While the importance of the teachers as manager of learning environments remains
crucial, it is no longer acceptable to rely just on being the unchanging central source. Pedagogical
shifts, as well as the continually changing nature of the digital age, means that new teacher learning
structures are required in schools; melding and connecting the curriculum with the informal.

6
 4. Assessment Value. Digital Literacy requires tasks to support and demonstrated development that is
valued within the school and beyond. Support for eportfolios (iFolios) and peer assessment can be
significant (Resta 2011).
5. Change Strength. The ISTE Essential Conditions can support a school’s level of digital literacy through
introspection.
6. Working with Diversity. Flattened learning environments within classrooms and beyond have been
increasing over time. As teachers gain more confidence their preferences are likely to diverge. This
impacts on leadership and support structures.

As stated previously, a digital literacy focus must include problem-solving situations to gauge fluency,
adaptability, as well as freedom for personal choice. Taking Dewey’s (1909) learning by doing philosophy, the next
step courtesy of digital technologies may be to extend this value to what can be done with such learning and
through creating learning loops advance understanding. In this way building on to what Voogt et al (2011) see as
the three knowledge types: “Foundational knowledge (what we know), Meta knowledge (what we do) and Humanistic
knowledge (what we value)”.

In-school considerations

Just as curriculum differences need to be taken into account when comparing schools, so too cultural
preferences impact on possibilities.

1. Teacher Learning
Teacher development and quality are key pointers to school effectiveness (Hattie 2009), with teacher
quality recognized as crucial to school learning improvement (McKinsey 2010, Hattie, 2009). As Senge
(1990) pointed out, “as the world becomes more inter-connected organizations that will truly excel in the
future will be (those)... that discover how to tap people's commitment and capacity to learn.”

CDNIS’s curriculum offerings are supported by digital learning opportunities for all, at hand support,
and a Digital Literacy Certificate is under development.

2. Valuing Digital Learning

Value judgements play an important part in ongoing dialogues. For example, the educational value of
Project Based Learning (PBL) provides a good example as differing value judgements (Hattie 2010,
Apple 2012,Voogt et al 2011).

A Learning Technologies Committee (LTC) was formed at CDNIS to bring together stake-holders
from across the school community, including parents; to discuss, to debate, and to arrive at shared
understandings.

Project Days have also been supported by the school; where mini-projects are undertaken by all
Middle School students to build digital literacy and design thinking as part of inter-subject approaches.

3. Assessment
As discussed previously, a narrow view of digital learning is one where use of digital technologies is
constrained to measurable test scores. To widen this requires a widening of assessment values.

At CDNIS student iFolios are created and managed by Middle School students to support their
subject and personal learning. Peer support and technical skill development are key drivers, with the
personal iFolio providing assessable media creations. Reporting avenues for student constructed work
are being explored.

4. Leadership
Finally leadership is critical. As Fullan (2011) reminds us
“the right drivers - capacity building, group work, instruction, and systemic systems - are effective because they
work directly on changing the culture of school systems, values, norms, skills, practices, relationships; by contrast
the wrong drivers alter structure, procedures and other formal attributes of the system without reaching the
internal substance of reform - and that is why they fail.”

The LTC, in conjunction with the school leadership structures, oversees a digital infusion plan ,
provides reviews and coordinates support and resourcing.

The importance of balancing all this within the cultural opportunities and constraints of a particular school,
while catering for diversity of aptitude and attitude, is messy. But to fall back on superficial advocacy sells
everyone short. Essential Conditions for an effective approach need to include diversity and acknowledgement
of value judgments as part of the ongoing dialogue in changing times.

7
Practical Steps

As part of the teacher professional learning approach at CDNIS a Digital Literacy Certification is being
developed. This will include

1. CDNISu
Using online videos (such as TED talks) to bring teachers up-to-date with issues affecting their use of
digital technologies in school, particularly to consider pedagogy and learning values.

2. Teacher Digital Skills

To ensure teachers have what is accepted as basic digital tools for effective teaching within the school.

3. Digital Literacy
Evaluating the level of Digital Literacy (adaptability, connection, cognitive development, problem-
solving, practical applicability) to provide feedback and support for effective classroom use of digital
technologies.

4. Classroom Evidence
Collecting evidence of practical applications to confirm use of digital literacy attributes to support
high standards of teaching and learning. Opening up channels for sharing and risk-taking.

5. Issues
Active involvement in issues affecting the school as a learning community, from Digital Citizenship to
Global Connections to Informal Learning, and a whole lot in-between.

Using the Gillen and Barton (2010) framework, not only can we see where digital literacy certification can
contribute, but also which areas need further work.

Student
Critical media Digital Dig
thinking literacy / inclusion citizenship /
participatory Internet safety
Cognitive IB MYP AOI MYP Design IB MYP AOI
developments Role of ICT in PYP Thinking Role of ICT in PYP
Collaboration Flattened pedagogy Media Lab Digital LT Guidelines
problem solving 707 Media Power Ambassadors
Multidisciplinary Moodle/ Vimeo, Personal Software
tool creation WordPress/Google Voicethread, Choice
Adobe Suite
Authenticity and iFolios (MYP, DP) Media Lab personal 1:1 LT Guidelines
access 707 Media Power
Teacher
Critical media Digital Dig
thinking literacy / inclusion citizenship /
participatory Internet safety
Cognitive PD: Infobytes, dept/ Infobytes Moodle Mentors RUA Review
developments level, SUNY DigLit certificate
Collaboration US Double Dayz Media Room LTC LTC
problem solving LTT support LT Guidelines
Multidisciplinary Moodle/WordPress Infobytes
tool creation

Authenticity and LTT access Parent portal access personal laptop CISPA sessions
access LTT open-door Social Media strategy
fig. 4 One school’s analysis
A Final Point

I could have written this twenty years ago and many of the discussion points would be as relevant and debatable
as they are today. But the ongoing nature of discourse means this remains a fresh yet ongoing discussion. What
happens in any particular school or school system is a cultural question. But Digital Literacy provides an avenue
8
to build on the digital learning that at times has been haphazardly addressed in schools. Embedding Digital
Literacy is a dynamic, required undertaking (Voogt et al 2011).

As Stanford Education Professor Emeritus Larry Cuban (http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/) notes, schools have
only changed for the better where teachers chose to embrace technology and schools have chosen to adapt
within existing requirements (2012). He is right within the constraints of contemporary traditional school
values. If Digital Literacy matters for school it not only needs to be seen to matter, but also supported and
strongly linked to school learning that endures and grows.

References

Adams, N. 2004. Digital intelligence fostered by technology. Downloaded from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/

JOTS/v30/v30n2/pdf/ 8 September 2012
AEE. 2010. Digital learning now. Alliance for Excellent Education. Downloaded from http://www.all4ed.org/
blog_categories/digital_learning_now 13 July 2012
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A
revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition, New York : Longman.
Apple. 2012. Engaging students one challenge at a time. Downloaded from http://www.apple.com/education/
challenge-based-learning/ 21 August 2012.
Beetham, H. 2011. Digital literacy anatomised: access, skills, and practices. Available at: http://
jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/file/40474828/Digital%20literacies%20anatomy.pdf [Accessed 3 August 2011]..
Briggs, C., and Makice, K. 2011. Digital fluency. Downloaded from http://socialens.com/fluencybook.php on 12
August 2012
Belshaw, D. 2011. What is ‘digital literacy’? A Pragmatic investigation. The Never Ending Thesis, accessed September 17
2012, http://neverendingthesis.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
CERI 2012. New millennium learners: Initial findings on the effects of digital technologies on school-age learners.
OECD/CERI International Conference Learning in the 21st Century: research, innovation
and practice. Downloaded from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/39/51/40554230.pdf 21 August 2012
Cox, M, Sakamoto, T, McDougall, A, Castillo, Rosvik , S and Niederhauser, D. 2011. Researching IT in Education
EduSummIT 2011. Downloaded from http://edusummit.nl/res2011/calltoaction2011/briefpapers2011 28
August 2012
Cross, J. 2006 Informal Learning: Rediscovering the Natural Pathways That Inspire Innovation and Performance.
San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Cuban, L. 2012. As teacher use of new technologies has spread, have most teachers changed how they teach?
Downloaded from http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/as-teacher-use-of-new-technologies-has-
spread-have-most-teachers-changed-how-they-teach/ on 1 October 2012.
Davis, N.E., Eickelmann, B. and Schulz-Zander, R. 2011. TWG1: Restructuring educational systems to move into the
digital age. Edusummit. Edusummit. Downloaded from http://edusummit.nl/res2011/calltoaction2011/
briefpapers2011 28 August 2012
Dewey, J. 1909. Moral principles in education. Houghton Miffin: Boston.
Digital Learning Commons. 2012. Digital Learning Commons. Accessed 17 September 2012 from http://
www.learningcommons.org/
Duncan-Howell, J. 2012. Digital mismatch: Expectation and realities of digital competency amongst pre-service
education students. Australian Journal of Educational Technology. 28(5) p827-840
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. 2005. Thinking skills in the digital era. In: Haward, C., Bottcher, J. V., Justice, L., Schenk, K., Rogers, P.
L., Berg, G, A. (eds.) 2005. Encyclopaedia of Distance Learning, Vol. I. London, Idea Group Inc.,
(pp. 1840-1845).
Fullan, M. 2011 Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. Downloaded from dpi.wi.gov/tepdl/pdf/
FullanSeminarPaper204.pdf Accessed on 21 August 2012.
Fullan, M. 2013. Stratosphere: integrating technology, pedagogy and change knowledge.
Pearson: New York
Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books: New York
Geake, J., and Cooper, P., 2003. Cognitive neuroscience: implications for education? Downloaded from http://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0140672030260102#preview on 28 August 2012.
Gillen, J. & Barton, D. 2010. Digital Literacies. Research briefing for the TLRP-TEL (Teaching and Learning Research
Programme - Technology Enhanced Learning. London: London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education.
Gilster, P. 1997 Digital Literacy. New York: Wiley
Gladwell, M. 2008. Outliers: The Story of Success. New York: Little, Brown And Company
Hattie, J. 2009. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement.  London &
New York:  Routledge
Jackson, S., and Crawford, D. 2008. Digital Learners: How Are They Expanding the Horizon of Learning? Downloaded
from http://cnx.org/content/m17218/latest/ on 24 August 2012
JRC. 2012. Online consultation on experts view on digital competence. Downloaded from http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
publications/pub.cfm?id=5339 12 October 2012
Knezek, G., Lai, K., Khaddage, F., and Kaer, R. 2011. TWG2: Student technology experiences in formal and informal
learning. EduSummIT 2011. Downloaded from http://edusummit.nl/res2011/calltoaction2011/briefpapers2011
28 August 2012
9
Koltay, T. 2011. The media and the literacies: media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy. In Media, Culture
and Society. 33(2) p211-221
Kirkman, J. 2012. Don’t panic! A hitch-hiker’s guide to teaching the digital native. Professional Educator. May
McKinsey 2010. How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. Downloaded from http://
mckinseyonsociety.com/how-the-worlds-most-improved-school-systems-keep-getting-better/ 21 August
2012.
McLuhan, M. 1964. Understanding media. The extension of man. New York: McGraw-Hill
Martin, A. 2006. Towards a Framework for Digital Literacy Glasgow. DigEuLit Project. Downloaded from htttp://
www.digeulit.ec 2 September 2012
McKenzie, J. 1999. Reaching the reluctant teacher. From Now On: The Education Technology Journal,
Special Summer Issue. Accessed October 1, 2012 from http://www.fno.org/sum99/reluctant.html.
Meyer, J.H.F. and Land, R. 2003. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and
practising, In: Rust, C. (ed.) Improving Student Learning - Theory and Practice Ten Years
On. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development (OCSLD) pp 412-424
MCEETYA 2008. Digital education - making change happen. Downloaded from www.det.wa.edu.au 21 August 2012
NMC. 2012. NMC Horizon report. New Media Consortium. Downloaded from http://www.nmc.org/horizon-
project 2 July 2012
NFER 2011. International comparison of computing in schools. Downloaded from http://www.nfer.ac.uk 21 August
2012.
Newrly, P., and Veugeleus, M. 2009. How to strengthen digital literacy. downloaded from
www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media18513.pdf on 31 August 2012.
OECD. 2006. Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy. Downloaded from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/
pisaproducts/pisa2006/assessingscientificreadingandmathematicalliteracy.htm 20 August 2012
OECD. 2009. Education: Korea tops new OECD PISA survey of digital literacy. Downloaded from http://
www.oecd.org/hungary/educationkoreatopsnewoecdpisasurveyofdigitalliteracy.htm 22 August 2012
Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., Friedrich, L., Jacklin, A., Chen, C., and Zickuhr, K. 2012. How Teens Do
Research in the Digital World. Pew Research Centre. Downloaded from
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Student-Research on 7 November 2012
Reznick, M. 2002. Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age. Downloaded from Southerland, A. 2012 Digital Literacy is
Good, but Fluency is Better. http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/workforce-of-tomorrow/archive/2012/06/digital-
literacy-is-good-but-fluency-is-better/259143/ on 12 September 2012
Resta, P. 2011. TWG 4: Global awareness. EduSummIT 2011. Downloaded from http://edusummit.nl/res2011/
calltoaction2011/briefpapers2011 28 August 2012
Roblyer, M. D. 2005. Educational technology research that makes a difference: Series introduction. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 192-201.
Rogers, E. 1962.. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Selwyn, N. 2009. The digital native - myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings, 61(4), 364-379.
Shapiro, J., and Hughes, S. 1996. Information literacy as a liberal art. Enlightenment proposals for a new curriculum.
Educom Review 31(2)
Shapiro, H. 2009. Supporting Digital Literacy: Public Policies and Stakeholder Initiatives. Final Report: Topic Report 4:
Conclusions and recommendations based on reviews and findings. Danish Technological Institute. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/dl_topic_report_4.pdf 22
September 2012
Siemens, G. 2005. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Downloaded from http://
www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm on 12 August 2012
Solez, K. 2009. Human digital intelligence. Downloaded from http://www.cyber-medicine.org/FeaturesNews/
digital.html on 2 April 2010
Southerland, A. 2012. Getting past the catch-22 of digital literacy. Downloaded from http://
www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/workforce-of-tomorrow/archive/2012/07/getting-past-the-catch-22-of-
digital-literacy/260195/ on on 23 August 2012
Street, B. 1984. Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Speak-Up. 2011. Mapping a Personalized Learning Journey - K-12 Students and Parents Connect the Dots with Digital
Learning. Downloaded from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/SU11_April_Report.html on 23 August
2012.
Sutherland, R. 2008. Introduction. In Livingstone, S (Ed) The educational and social impact of new
technologies on young people in Britain. ESRC Seminar Series Report Three.
Swan, K. 2005. A constructivist model for thinking about learning online. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds), Elements
of Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities. Needham, MA: Sloan-C. Downloaded from
www.rcet.org/research/publications/constructivist_theory.pdf on 27 August 2012
Thomas, A. 2011. Towards a transformative digital literacy pedagogy.
Turner, J. 2010. Threshold concepts and digital learning. Available at http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/
thresholds.html
United States Digital Learning Council. 2010. Digital learning now. Downloaded from http://
digitallearningnow.com on 14 August 2012
Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Mishra, P., and Dede, C. 2011. TWG6: 21st century learning - expanded brief paper. EduSummIT
2011. Downloaded from http://edusummit.nl/res2011/calltoaction2011/briefpapers2011 28 August 2012

10