2016-2 3A Reynolds PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/288687186
Deﬁning, Designing for, and Measuring " Social Constructivist Digital Literacy
" Development in Learners: A Proposed Framework
Article in Educational Technology Research and Development · January 2016

DOI: 10.1007/s11423-015-9423-4
CITATIONS READS
31 630
1 author:
Rebecca Reynolds
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
60 PUBLICATIONS 364 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Information and Learning Sciences Journal View project
ASIS&T SIG InfoLearn: Panels, Workshops, Paper Presentations, 2017-Present View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Rebecca Reynolds on 28 August 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Defining, designing for, and measuring
“social constructivist digital literacy”
development in learners: a proposed
framework
Rebecca Reynolds
Educational Technology Research

and Development
A bi-monthly publication of
the Association for Educational
Communications & Technology
ISSN 1042-1629
Education Tech Research Dev

DOI 10.1007/s11423-015-9423-4
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Association
for Educational Communications and
Technology. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived in
electronic repositories. If you wish to self-
archive your article, please use the accepted
manuscript version for posting on your own
website. You may further deposit the accepted
manuscript version in any repository,
provided it is only made publicly available 12
months after official publication or later and
provided acknowledgement is given to the
original source of publication and a link is
inserted to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.
1 23
Author's personal copy
Education Tech Research Dev
DOI 10.1007/s11423-015-9423-4
DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE
Defining, designing for, and measuring ‘‘social

constructivist digital literacy’’ development in learners:
a proposed framework
Rebecca Reynolds1
Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2016
Abstract This paper offers a newly conceptualized modular framework for digital lit-
eracy that defines this concept as a task-driven ‘‘social constructivist digital literacy,’’
comprising 6 practice domains grounded in Constructionism and social constructivism:
Create, Manage, Publish, Socialize, Research, Surf. The framework articulates possible
instructional design and research operationalizations for the concept, based upon a coor-
dinated set of activities centering on student game design. The paper then reports on results
of an implementation study involving game design drawing upon the framework,
addressing ways in which the practice domains inter-operate when the specified instruction
is offered as a coordinated intervention. The study reports change in student engagement in
activities within each of the framework’s practice domain, as a result of participating in a
comprehensive game design learning program, and reports ways in which change in
activities at school contribute to change in activities at home, when no homework is
required, suggesting transfer. Findings indicate that the 6 practice domains factor and inter-
correlate, and that for several practice domains, change in engagement at school correlates
to change in at-home engagement. The theoretical perspectives underscoring the definition
and conceptualization presented are supported by the empirical findings. Researchers may
draw upon this study’s framework approach, and specific definition for social constructivist
digital literacy, in building towards a more coordinated agenda of comparative research on
this concept.
Keywords Digital literacy Information literacy Game design Digital divide

Constructionism Social constructivism Instructional design Learning objectives
& Rebecca Reynolds

rebecca.reynolds@rutgers.edu
1
Department of Library and Information Science, School of Communication and Information,
4 Huntington St., New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
123
R. Reynolds
Introduction
In US society, digital technologies have become ubiquitous in organizational, professional,

communications, learning and personal leisure contexts, and technology uses among the
populace have been associated with cultural capital and social mobility (e.g., Hargittai
2010). Mastery of technology tools and digital practices is a barrier to entry for one’s
active participation in online cultures and contexts. Such expertise has been termed
‘‘digital literacy.’’ U.S. education leaders and policy decision-makers have exhorted
teachers to deliver digital technology interventions equitably in schools to cultivate digital
literacy among students. For instance, the National Broadband Plan of 2010 recommends
wide-reaching digital literacy efforts in schools starting at an early age to promote not just
access but greater sophistication of technology uses, and digital literacy is now often
conceptually linked to democratic participation (e.g., Hobbs 2010; Horrigan 2011; Jenkins
2009; Mossberger et al. 2007). The US Department of Education’s sweeping National
Education Technology Plan of 2010 (NETP) endorses deep integration of technologies
throughout the education system at all levels including student learning. National education
association standards frameworks such as the American Association of School Librarians
(AASL) and International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) recommend that
schools offer information and technology literacy-based programs and curriculum facili-
tating ‘‘21st century’’ skills, practices and dispositions. The Common Core State Standards
initiative has invigorated the national discussion around school curriculum reforms, with
almost all U.S. states and the District of Columbia participating. Such national frameworks
offer anchors of support for integration of digital and information technology programs and
guidelines for desired learning outcomes, but largely omit inclusion of specific, concrete
and pragmatic recommendations on how schools and teachers should achieve the digital
literacy ends they specify.
While more professional development and online learning platform options for tech-
nology integration are becoming available for deployment in schools (both for free online
and at cost to districts), educators still struggle with technology integration for a variety of
reasons, including lack of clarity on effective uses, lack of money or leadership support, and
school leaders’ prioritization of test-driven accountability goals (Norris and Soloway 2011).
Wellings and Levine (2009) further note the dilemma of innovation outpacing research as a
hurdle for education decision-makers. They note that research recommendations expressing
clear pragmatic findings for effective technology-based learning in schools are sorely needed
(2009). Meeting the digital literacy learning outcomes specified in U.S. education policy
imperatives such as those in the national association frameworks will require concentrated
efforts by researchers and curriculum development leaders, to further develop the evidence
base for effective interventions. Such effort requires clear articulation and development of
prioritized learning objectives, appropriate technology curriculum scope and sequences,
technology affordances in schools, and new modes of assessment and evaluation, supported
by rigorous research designs on effectiveness, moving more quickly forward towards
comparative research that offers insight on improved practices.
Toward these ends, this paper explicates a framework of digital practice dimensions,
instructional design affordances, and methods for measurement of the prioritized practices,
in support of student cultivation of what we call ‘‘social constructivist digital literacy.’’ The
approach specified is theoretically grounded and provides an operational definition for this
conceptualization, outlining instructional activities and research measures for each of the
six specified dimensions. The paper demonstrates how the modularity of the broader
123
Defining, designing for, and measuring…
organizing framework may be applied in structuring an empirical investigation of digital

literacy, in such a way that it invites comparative research.
The proposed conceptualization of ‘‘social constructivist digital literacy’’ builds upon
theoretical perspectives that view the human as an autonomous agent who holds a pro-
ductive purpose driving technology use, for instance the design and creation of a concrete
artifact or product. This human-centered conceptualization of digital literacy offers an
alternative to technology-deterministic, skills-based models in which the definition tends to
rely on ephemeral computing activities. Skills-based definitions of digital literacy are
problematic for research due to the constant evolution of our technology and media
ecology. This particular conceptualization addresses this limitation, by centering on an
integrated set of task-driven computing activities supported by social constructivist theory.
The broader framework approach encourages interchangeability of components by other
researchers and is flexible enough to offer structure for programs offered in more for-
malized, organized educational contexts such as schools, as well as informal naturalistic
technology engagement and learning that occurs in young people’s everyday life infor-
mation seeking and technology use. The framework can also be used to organize com-
parable research on semi-structured learning contexts such as Makerspaces.
Theoretical framework
Digital literacy has been defined and operationalized in widely varying ways in the
research literature. Bawden (2001) suggests that as technologies advance, and contextual
shifts take place in the way humans must interact with and through technologically
mediated forms and environments, new literacies such as this one become necessary for
individuals to operate and navigate successfully in society. Research on digital literacy
considers the ubiquity of technology in our social world, and human proficiency to access
and use technologies in effective and productive ways (Hargittai 2010). The concept can be
seen as inextricably linked to the phenomena of the digital divide/digital inequality—the
gap between those who use computers and the internet (and use them effectively), and
those who do not. The digital divide has been identified in the literature at two levels, with
‘‘level 1’’ reflecting inequalities stemming from access to technology (due to both
infrastructure and economic cost), and ‘‘level 2’’ reflecting inequalities stemming from
variation in sophistication of use and user expertise, which is the condition of digital
literacy (Hargittai 2002, 2007; Livingstone and Helsper 2007; Jenkins 2009). Key research
measures for assessing sophistication of use include children’s home technology access
and extent of time availability within the home, their frequency of engagement, online
expertise, and self-efficacy (Livingstone and Helsper 2007).
Three models for sophistication of use offer counterpoints to the framework presented
in this paper. In the first, Barron (2004) operationalizes technological fluency to include
students’ self-reported frequency of participation in the following twelve constructive
technology activities: multimedia programming, collaborative programming or design
activity, creation of art, publication generation using a desktop publishing program,
starting a newsgroup, invention or design activity, building of robots, coding Web sites
using HTML, generating Web sites using an application, publishing a Web site, using a
computer to simulate or model phenomena, and using a CAD program to design (p. 11).
Barron’s (2004) study of high-SES, high technology access secondary school students in
California’s Silicon Valley region addresses gender differences in participants’ experience
123
R. Reynolds
with technology, and the role that various technology use interactions within students’
available learning ecologies play in found differences. Her study seeks to develop a model
of the many learning ecology factors that lead to technological fluency as an outcome. The
learning ecologies include both in-school instructional settings as well as naturalistic
engagement outside of school, in homes and community centers.
Focusing more so on informal naturalistic engagement than activity including schools,
Livingstone and Helsper (2007) identify four user types, based upon varying actions taken
by young people online: ‘‘basic users’’ use the Internet for information seeking; ‘‘mod-
erates’’ add games and email; ‘‘broad users’’ add instant messaging and downloading
music; ‘‘all-rounders’’ do everything else in the authors’ pre-specified list of technology
activities, including information uses as well as creation with technology. In some ways
similar, Ito et al.’s (2009) digital youth ethnography research specifies a typology based on
different activity groupings engaged by users (hanging out, messing around, geeking out,
or HOMAGO). The empirical research underscoring this model (2009) demonstrates that
young people informally use technology naturalistically at varying levels of breadth (types
and contexts of technology usage) and depth of expertise. Youth are also found to engage
in ‘friendship-driven’ versus ‘interest-driven’ technology uses (2009).
Barron’s model offers an ecology approach to technology fluency identifying contexts
and activities (2004); Livingstone and Helsper (2007) specify individual user types based
on computing activities, and Ito et al. (2009) propose varying activity engagement types.
All three models consider the need for learning across escalating levels of sophistication.
None focus squarely on didactics or instructional design supporting deliberate cultivation
of learning processes in students. The three models each situate their categorical dimen-
sions in specific pre-determined technology activities and technical tools in their framing,
and are squarely located in the historical moments and technology landscapes from which
they emerge.
In addition to the above models, another commonly cited definition of digital literacy
is presented as a free-standing composite set of quantifiable technology skills, opera-
tionalized using survey measures asking respondents about their familiarity with
specific technology-related terms (Hargittai 2005, 2009). Items are validated against a
multiple-choice knowledge assessment that largely evaluates vocabulary knowledge of
the given terms’ technical function (2005). This operationalization was found to be a
‘‘better predictor of people’s actual digital literacy based on performance tests than
measures of users’ self-perceived abilities, a proxy traditionally used in the literature on
the topic’’ (p. 371, 2005). Activities in the item list are updated in Hargittai (2009).
While the three models above build upon empirical observation of youth technology
engagement based on research conducted in the field, overall, this survey research
definition (2005, 2009) could be considered less grounded in qualitatively observed
youth technology uses.
Defining ‘‘digital literacy’’ as a social science research construct
In a review of the scholarly literature on digital literacy, Reynolds (2008) notes that
definitions of digital literacy are often skills-based, and grounded in uses of particular
technologies, thus tethering them to a given historical moment in time. Such definitions
must undergo constant revision as technology environments evolve, and for this reason
violate necessary conditions of social science research constructs, to bear consistent and
persistent definitions with distinct conceptual boundaries (2008). The historicity of
123
evolving digital literacy definitions of this type serves as a limitation towards comparative
research.
Supporting the general critique that digital literacy as a construct is under-specified, are
Aviram and Eshet-Alkalai, (2006) who posit two main skeptical hypotheses regarding the
construct and encourage its greater explication (2006). The first skeptical hypothesis states
that such literacies are, in fact, reducible to underlying factors such as specific personal-
ities, interests, learning capabilities, and types of intelligence (2006). The second skeptical
hypothesis posits that definitions of digital literacy inherently reflect the technology
landscape, as well as the values of the definer, in that it requires ascription of worth and
priority to a given knowledge domain and set of activities as this ‘‘literacy’’ (2006). The
authors present a discussion around modern vs. postmodern values in this regard and
describe this conflict as a ‘‘clash of civilizations,’’ proposing that educators must grapple
with the assumptions, values and norms underlying how they conceptualize literacy (2006).
Importantly, though, definitions previously utilized have led to studies that offer evi-
dence supporting the presence of a digital divide at the time of their publication, including
Hargittai and Hinnant’s (2008) finding that the higher the level of participants’ education,
the greater the self-reported digital skill. Those with higher levels of skill were also found
to be more likely to visit the types of websites through which their human and financial
capital may benefit (2008). College-aged students from more privileged backgrounds
report greater understanding of technology than less privileged, and self-report using Web-
based technologies for a larger number of purposeful activities, in a greater variety of
ways, highlighting the implications for social mobility (Hargittai 2010). Such cross-sec-
tional evidence for variation in digital literacy in the U.S. population is compelling.
Here we propose that continuing work on digital literacy would benefit from more
clearly explicating the rationale for inclusion of the given technology activities that
underscore operationalization of digital skills, and utilization of an approach that addresses
the research challenge of evolving definitions. The present framework is offered towards
more organized ongoing research efforts, and towards advancing educational programs
aiming to cultivate such skills. This paper calls for transparency in recognizing the sub-
jective role of the definer in assigning value to certain domains of digital practices. It also
more clearly articulates the theory underscoring the digital practices specified. The
framework addresses Aviram and Eshet-Alkalai’s (2006) skeptical hypothesis 1, by
pragmatically grounding a definition of ‘‘social constructivist digital literacy’’ in human-
driven purposes underlying technology use—rather than assuming technology skills are
discrete constructs in and of themselves. The framework approach requires anyone using it
in research, to explicate the theoretical, conceptual and pragmatic terrain underscoring
one’s definition and operationalization of digital literacy and the practices reflected in the
definition. Using this framework approach, researchers may more readily compare and/or
replicate one another’s work, for instance in varying contexts of use.
Theoretical underpinnings of ‘‘social constructivist digital literacy’’
Learning sciences is an inter-disciplinary field centered on theory-based research and

design of learning that emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In this field, researchers
investigate human learning processes as they occur in both formal and informal learning
contexts, often involving technology. Researchers tend to focus on instructional theory and
design, and how to better facilitate learning through development of instructional inno-
vations (ISLS 2014). Many learning sciences studies are grounded in social-constructivist
learning theory (e.g., Vygotsky 1978). Such approaches often employ social engagement
123
R. Reynolds
among peers, and constructive engagement with various digital innovations in problem-
and inquiry-based learning contexts in which students hold autonomy and agency in the
learning process (Hoadley 2004; Sawyer 2006). Learning sciences research lends insight to
learning theories, instructional theories, and more pragmatic instructional strategies. It
promotes building understanding of human engagement and learning with technology, and
designing technology affordances to be more effective for a given learning goal.
The framework presented below emerges out of learning sciences and design-based
research (e.g., Wang and Hannafin 2005) in that it more clearly explicates learning
objectives, design and outcomes when describing digital literacy as a learned knowledge
domain that can be deliberately cultivated using targeted instructional activities. In
essence, the framework aims to support our understanding of both broader trends in youth
digital expertise (e.g., that stemming from their experiences and sojourns with technology
in naturalistic non-school contexts), and, more pragmatic cultivation of digital expertise,
for instance that which occurs presently, and has potential to occur in greater breadth and
depth, in educational settings.
Social constructivist digital literacy as a task-driven enterprise
The framework approach and the definition offered for ‘‘social constructivist digital lit-
eracy’’ as a set of 6 practice domains emerge out of social constructivism and construc-
tionist literature. Constructionism as defined and discussed by Papert and Harel (1991) has
been described as a teaching philosophy and ‘‘framework for action’’ (as opposed to a
theory) (diSessa and Cobb 2004), in that it offers a pragmatic set of principles for
instructional design—which are theoretically built upon Vygotsky’s (1962) social con-
structivist theory and Piaget’s constructivist theory. In Constructionist learning contexts,
learners engage in conscious construction of a technologically mediated computational
artifact in a workshop-style group educational environment (Papert and Harel 1991; Kafai
1995, 2006). The Constructionist framework for action holds that individuals learn best
when mobilizing their entire selves in a personally meaningful pursuit while sensing that
their work is valued as part of a larger enterprise (Barron and Darling-Hammond 2008;
Stager 2001). It posits that learners build knowledge socially through dialogue and
interaction. Student engagement in creation of a computational digital artifact through
programming is a key element. Learning occurs through guided discovery—through peers’
inquiry with each other, an expert teacher/guide, and informational resources within a
workshop-based in-person setting (Harel and Papert 1990; Kafai 1995, 2006). The inter-
play among the learner’s development of conceptual ideas and understanding some core
curricular principles in the artifact (e.g., fractions), coupled with use of a computational
programming language to represent this idea, is a hallmark of constructionism, facilitating
metacognition, or ‘‘learning how to learn’’ (1991).
Harel (1991) found that engaging late elementary school-aged students in a Construc-
tionist class offered daily, for up to 90 min per day, in which students designed math
games about fractions using the Logo programming language on early PCs fostered deep
epistemological thinking about the fractions subject domain. Outcomes observed and
measured (1991) included: active, critical thinking; development of greater effort, per-
sistence and self-regulation; confidence and self-efficacy; design principles and aesthetic
appreciation; lessons about semiotics as a system of signs and signifiers; meta-level
thinking about the nature of semiotics, representations, and other semiotic domains; and
core domain knowledge (i.e., math). Students also performed better on knowledge tests
than a control group in math (1991).
123
The Constructionist framework for action offers one model for cultivation of digital
expertise that is rather more comprehensive than other digital literacy interventions. It is
theoretically driven, which is rare among such interventions. Its focus on design as a
primary task driving coordinated engagement in other activity dimensions creates ‘‘a need
to know’’ in students (Hmelo-Silver 2004; Salen et al. 2014), rather than offering disparate,
disconnected skills-based lessons for instance, for information search, and separately,
graphic design. In a Constructionist intervention, both graphic design and search proce-
dures occur in support of the central artifact construction goal (e.g., creation of a game).
Having task-driven purposes drive technology uses is epistemic to real-world productivity
and work settings. Seely Brown (2005, 2006) discusses the importance of digital literacy
and collaboration expertise being taught with young people in networked, evolving, par-
ticipatory technology design environments. He notes (2005) that ‘‘since nearly all of the
significant problems of tomorrow are likely to be systemic problems—problems that can’t
be addressed by any one specialty—our students will need to feel comfortable working in
cross disciplinary teams that encompass multiple ways of knowing’’ (p. 2). As such, he
emphasizes the importance of ‘‘learning to be’’ active users of technology, in contrast to
‘‘learning about’’ technology. He further states (p. 6),
Today’s students want to create and learn at the same time. They want to pull content
into use immediately. They want it situated and actionable—all aspects of learning-
to-be, which is also an identity-forming activity. This path bridges the gap between
knowledge and knowing.
Situated learning is learning that occurs in the same context as that in which is applied.
This has also been called ‘‘epistemic learning’’ or learning by role-taking experimentation
(e.g., Shaffer 2006). The task-driven nature of this definition incorporates hands-on
activities that in some ways simulate productive work environments of today.
The practice domains of social constructivist digital literacy
The ‘‘6 Contemporary Learning Practices’’ framework aims to cultivate ‘‘social con-
structivist digital literacy’’ in learners. The six practice dimensions that are proposed as
comprising this framework were originally discussed in Reynolds and Harel (2009), and
are further developed as a comprehensive framework herein, explicating and categorizing
Constructionist learning conditions and instructional activities described in brief as:
‘‘Create,’’ ‘‘Manage,’’ ‘‘Publish,’’ ‘‘Socialize/Collaborate,’’ ‘‘Research,’’ and ‘‘Surf/Play.’’
This paper also argues that such breadth of activity is epistemic and authentic to much of
our real-world purposive engagement with technology. If expertise within these practice
dimensions is cultivated in middle school and high school learners through innovative
educational interventions in a coordinated way, towards one’s productive development of a
complex digital artifact, it is proposed that this experience may better prepare students for
concurrent and future engagement and participation in digital cultures, citizenship, and
workplaces (Reynolds and Harel 2009).
The dimensions are described in greater detail below, and presented in Column 1 of
Table 1, described as ‘‘Practice Domains.’’ One can imagine a researcher drawing upon a
differing theoretical perspective to propose an alternative set of practice domains, and
proposing a definition for digital literacy of a different sort than ‘‘social constructivist.’’
Column 2 specifies a representative set of ‘‘Technology Activities/Instructional Design
Affordances’’ deployed to support the practice domains specified for social constructivist
digital literacy in particular. The activities in Column 2 also reflect the game design
123
R. Reynolds
Table 1 Six contemporary learning practices (CLPs) framework for social constructivist digital literacy
DIGITAL PRACTICE DOMAIN: TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES/ MEASUREMENT
The Six Contemporary Learning INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN OPERATIONALIZATIONS e.g.,
Practices (6-CLPs) that comprise AFFORDANCES e.g., in Pre/post Frequency survey (‘‘how
‘‘Social Constructivist Digital Globaloria, Circa 2009-2015 often do you…’’ 6-point Likert
Literacy’’ scale (1 = never, 6 = several
times a day)
1: CREATE Brainstorm, develop game and Think up idea for a creative

Invention, creation and simulation ideas and storylines technology project
completion of a digital project using Web2.0 tools Think up an idea for an
stemming from an original idea Generate creative ideas for interactive game
designs to express the subject of Make computer games
the game and user experience Program a computer
Write an original game narrative
and a proposal to explain it
Plan/program/complete a game
file representing the original
game design, functionality
Create the initial setup for a blog
2: MANAGE Coordinate and manage the Make graphics/animations on a
Project planning, project design/creation/programming of computer
management, teamwork (e.g., game elements Make digital music/video on a
role-taking, task delegation), Manage the project’s execution by computer
problem-solving creating/organizing a wiki and Work on digital design project
by sharing project assets and with team members in person
progress updates Use online curriculum tutorials
Manage team work by defining
and assigning team roles,
coordinating/executing tasks
Use a sequence of online
curriculum to learn
programming
3: PUBLISH Creating wiki profile page and Post digital design projects online
Publishing, distribution of self- project pages
created digital artifacts to an Posting in-progress and completed
audience, community of peers text/video/photos/audio/
programming code/animations/
digital designs on wiki pages
4: SOCIALIZE Collaborating by using social Exchange messages in email
Giving and getting feedback media tools to such as posting to about game project
about project through social wikis/blogs/open source help Exchange messages in IM/chat
interaction, participation, forums/instant messaging about a technology project
exchange Exchanging/sharing feedback and Exchange messages on sites like
resources by posting wiki, blog, Facebook about a
information/links/source code technology project
questions/answers
Reading and commenting on
others’ blogs and wiki pages
Presenting final digital projects for
others both virtually in game
galleries and in person in live
game demonstrations
123
Table 1 continued
DIGITAL PRACTICE DOMAIN: TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES/ MEASUREMENT

The Six Contemporary Learning INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN OPERATIONALIZATIONS e.g.,
Practices (6-CLPs) that comprise AFFORDANCES e.g., in Pre/post Frequency survey (‘‘how
‘‘Social Constructivist Digital Globaloria, Circa 2009-2015 often do you…’’ 6-point Likert
Literacy’’ scale (1 = never, 6 = several
times a day)
5: RESEARCH Searching the Web for answers Use Wikipedia

Inquiry, information seeking, and help on specific issues Search online when you have a
agentive use of resources), to related to programming games question
support the artifact’s topic, Searching and finding resources Search online when you need
message, design, execution on MyGLife.org network, technology help
website, and wiki
Searching the Web for new Flash
design, animation and
programming resources
Searching for information in
support of the game’s
educational subject and storyline
6: SURF/PLAY Surfing to MyGLife.org starter kit Surf online to find new websites
Surfing, experimentation and play site and other game sites and Play internet games, Play
with existing networked Web playing games online software games
applications and tools Keeping track of and Play games on a video game
bookmarking surfing results that console
are relevant to projects Play multiplayer games with
Browsing Web2.0 content sites others on internet
such as YouTube, Flickr, blogs,
Google tools
instructional intervention (called Globaloria) that is implemented and tested in this study’s
empirical results, presented later. Here again, one might imagine a researcher inter-
changing varying activity components to meet a similar set of ‘‘social constructivist digital
literacy’’ practice domains, or different activities meeting an alternatively defined practice
domain set altogether. Column 3 of Table 1 represents the ‘‘Measurement Operational-
ization,’’ which invites researcher specification of the given measurement technique to be
utilized for (a) the practice domain, and (b) the aligning instructional design affordances.
Measurement details included in Table 1 are those utilized in the given empirical research
study below. One might decide to only specify practice domains (column 1) and research
measurements (column 3), if studying individuals’ naturalistic technology engagement
involving no instruction. One might also add a fourth column for ‘‘student assessment,’’ if
applying the framework as an education practitioner, towards evaluation.
Game design as exemplified in the Globaloria program curriculum described below
serves as a model type of instructional intervention representing ‘‘social constructivist
digital literacy,’’ in that it is a task-driven learning endeavor that requires students to
engage in discovery-based learning and a coordinated set of activities, to purposefully
develop a fully functioning digital artifact by the end of their experience. In the process,
they utilize a range of resources to complete this central task, and engage in a number of
coinciding practices, including graphic design, information resource uses, social media
communication, posting/publishing, and reviewing and deconstructing existing games and
other worked examples.
123
R. Reynolds
In-depth discussion of 6-CLPs
The first practice domain, CLP 1—Create, denotes the invention of an original idea for a
digital product, and a student’s transformation of that idea into an executable project
design and artifact of their own authoring. This dimension includes brainstorming the
original idea, developing a subject topic, narrative, theme or message, and developing the
computational mechanics of a digital artifact, with an audience in mind. CLP 1 has
potential to be linked to the educational core curriculum, such that students create [game]
artifacts about a core curricular subject domain (e.g., science).
Game design, which is the central computational creative task employed in instructional
design affordances investigated herein, has been described and studied as a high potential
approach for cultivating computational thinking (CT) knowledge, as well as subject area
learning such as math or science in earlier grade levels (e.g., Harel 2010; Reppening, Webb
and Ioannidou 2010). In summarizing the state of the field in computational thinking (CT),
Grover and Pea (2013) note that game design is ‘‘ideal not only for motivating and
engaging school children but for introducing them to computer science,’’ offering a means
for active student exploration of CT. Game design approaches make thinking visible and
create a ‘‘need to know’’ among students (Hmelo-Silver 2004; Salen et al. 2014). Ways of
knowing in game design learning environments include systems-based thinking, interdis-
ciplinary thinking, user-centered design, specialist language, meta-level reflection, network
literacy, productive/tool literacy (Salen et al. 2010). Game design and other creative
computational artifact production have been found to enable learning and participatory
engagement in digital culture, through the input of the individual, group collaboration, and
the mediation of the shared artifact itself (Peppler and Kafai 2007).
Further, students’ self-reported content creation activities such as these, and sharing of
files online were found in cross-sectional research to be positively correlated with youth
socioeconomic status as measured by parental schooling, indicating that socioeconomic
resources allow for engagement in more sophisticated types of technology uses and their
associated cultural benefits (Hargittai and Walejko 2008). The Create dimension can be
adapted for use in cross-sectional research to reflect other purposeful complex digital
artifact creation one engages in informally, which could include for example, creating a
digital video documentary of one’s family, or developing a multimedia rich website for a
social justice cause of importance. If maintaining this study’s definition of ‘‘social con-
structivist digital literacy’’ though, one would need to adhere to the coordination of the 6
Practice Domains, looking at creation in the context of the other practices, to follow.
CLP 2 (Manage) focuses on design process. It denotes individual and team level project
management of the artifact creation, including managing and negotiating artifact design
process and teamwork to meet timelines, organizing and delegating tasks. In informal
contexts, this process could include any organization, planning, role-taking, and task
delegation that occurs to support purposeful creation. In addition to the foundational work
in constructionism and more recent work on game design (e.g., Papert and Harel 1991;
Reppening et al. 2010), as noted above, Seely Brown (2005) discusses the benefits of
student engagement in processes such as these, when engaged in learning in workshop
settings and conditions encouraging sharing, teamwork, and design.
CLP 3 (Publish) refers to archiving and sharing of the computational code and artifact
design elements that are being developed by the learner, in a shared online platform, to
support participants’ review and feedback on each other’s in-progress work. In the
instructional design context we investigate in this paper, the artifact is a web game that
123
students develop by learning introductory computational programming in Actionscript.

Students learn game design and manage their process using a wiki-based learning man-
agement system (LMS) as a platform for publishing and sharing, wherein the LMS serves
the role of what Larussen and Alterman (2009) describe as a ‘coordinating representation.’
Students manage their work practices, and post and publish game artifact files (both. FLAs
and.SWFs) in the LMS as conversation pieces and artifacts enabling others to cross-
reference and learn from the published and shared design ideas and code. While in the
educational intervention being investigated, the platform is a customized learning man-
agement system, in other contexts this might include a Dropbox folder, GoogleDocs, or
email for file sharing and archiving. The publishing dimension holds linkages to Jenkins’
conceptualization of participatory culture (2009), offering students an experience in
sharing of cultural texts, knowledge and expertise in productive ways that build meaning.
The fourth CLP (Socialize) involves student engagement in social interactions and
dialogue with peers, to exchange ideas, give help to one another, and provide feedback on
their original creative ideas. It is distinguished from CLP 2 (Manage) in which teamwork is
centered on process planning and delegation. CLP 4 is focused more on communication for
advancing the depth of one’s ideas, and problem-solving. Greenhow et al. (2015) find that
high school and college students can become engaged in vigorous, intelligent debate about
scientific issues in a voluntary Facebook forum, suggesting the promise of productive,
constructive social engagement for knowledge building through use of social media tools.
The array of available tools online that may be adapted for such use are myriad (e.g.,
popular social media such as Facebook and Twitter, blog or wiki platforms, web confer-
encing, other web content management platforms and the dialogue/discussion affordances
offered in free courseware).
The fifth CLP (Research) centers on inquiry and information seeking online, in which
students seek out helpful resources to investigate (a) their artifact creation ideas, and (b) in
the area of computational thinking and programming, and design. In the discipline of
information science, one prominent model for information seeking is described as ‘‘ELIS,’’
or everyday life information seeking (Savolainen 2010). This concept refers to the
acquisition of both cognitive and expressive informational elements, which people employ
to orient themselves in daily life or to solve problems not directly connected with the
performance of professional tasks or full-time study (2010, p. 1781). Agosto and Hughes-
Hassell (2006) describe seven developmental tasks as essential to all adolescents, which
drive their naturalistic information-seeking in every-day life: fostering of the social self,
establishment of an independent emotional self, nurturing of a reflective self, adjustment to
the physical self, expression of the creative self, understanding of the cognitive self, and
recognition and development of the sexual self. These authors identify twenty-eight
common information needs among these seven tasks (2006). While Savolainen (2010) and
Agosto and Hughes-Hassell (2006) focus more so on naturalistic engagement, their work
(among many others in information science) shows that information-seeking behavior is
part and parcel to the human condition. In education settings, Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s
Big6 model for information literacy (e.g., 2011), and Kuhlthau’s ‘‘guided inquiry design’’
frameworks (2012) are prominent, both of which outline pragmatic pedagogies for culti-
vating information literacy. Reynolds (2016) identifies ways in which such process models
for learning relate in part to Constructionism, however pointing out that they largely center
on information uses towards a research topic and largely omit a digital design task as the
primary task driving inquiry. These models are less focused on creation with technology
and thus are distinguished from a more broadly spanning digital literacy.
123
R. Reynolds
The sixth CLP (Surf/Play) is about experimentation and play with existing resources, to
gain ideas for the artifact. This includes student consideration of sample games and digital
artifacts as they imagine and plan their own. Provision of such ‘‘worked examples’’ (Paas
et al. 2003; Sweller 2006) offers them the opportunity to imagine design possibilities.
Further, by exploring actual deconstructed games in a coordinated educational program
embodying social constructivist digital literacy (e.g., through a sequence of curriculum),
students have potential to learn and better understand the computer programming as well as
garnering ideas for game mechanics.
The CLPs defined as categories 4–6 (Socialize, Research, Surf/Play) serve to more
secondarily support the primary task-driven creative design activities described in CLPs
1–3. That is, collaboration, research, and surfing/playing occur in the service of concep-
tualizing, designing, creating and posting/publishing the artifact and its components. This
social constructivist definition of digital literacy draws upon learning sciences and edu-
cational technology research literatures on constructionism. Most existing digital literacy
standards frameworks share the same dimensions as those specified in the CLP practice
domains (e.g., P21, 2009; UNESCO 2012; American Association of School Librarians
[AASL] 2007; International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] 2007; National
Education Technology Plan [NETP] 2010; CCSS 2010). However, such models do not
specify best practices for pedagogy, creating difficulty for the educators who are exhorted
to meet these aims. Our framework’s column 2 ‘‘technology activities/instructional design
affordances’’ dimension requires the explication of activities that align with more abstract
practices that are not as subject to the vicissitudes of technology evolution. Rather the
practices are grounded in social constructivism more broadly. We propose the greater
stability of this theoretical grounding as an advantage over previous definitions.
Empirical investigation of a social constructivist digital literacy intervention
The framework of practice domains, instructional affordances and measures aims to

encourage comparative research. Now we discuss an empirical study that investigates
student engagement in an educational intervention in which the instructional design
affordances represent this study’s explication of constructivist digital literacy. The study
explores how student technology practices (both at home and at school) change across time
as a result of their participation in a daily game design class that is undertaken for credit in
a grade in school. The study also investigates how the coordinated practices interoperate,
and may augment each other.
Research questions
• RQ1: In what ways does students’ engagement in the practice activities representing
each of the six proposed CLP dimensions contribute and relate to one another?
• RQ2: To what extent do changes in students’ frequency of engagement in school-based
activities representing the CLP dimensions relate to changes in their engagement in the
activities at home?
Investigating these questions empirically offers support for the validity of the theoretical
derivation of the definition. Further, by investigating both at-school and at-home change, in
a context in which homework is not assigned, the empirical study may offer evidence of
technology practices’ greater internalization, transfer and extension beyond school among
students. Such evidence would support student motivation and appropriation of their
123
engagement, lending further credence to the claims of the instructional design effective-
ness. The study invites the reader to consider a) the usefulness of the framework approach
to structuring a definition and operationalization of digital literacy, and b) the extent to
which the empirical evidence presented in the implementation study offers support for both
the framework approach, and, for the effectiveness of the instructional design features
utilized to meet the specified goals.
Methods
Intervention
In the program under investigation, called Globaloria, students learn to develop an edu-
cational interactive computer game as part of an in-school class in which the primary goal
from the students’ perspective is the successful completion of a functioning web game,
using Adobe Flash software. In-school classes followed a blended learning curriculum
daily, for up to 90 min per session, across either a semester or a full year.
While they learn game design, students also participate in several integrated technol-
ogy-supported activities that contribute to this primary activity. Students and teachers use a
wiki learning management system (LMS) platform developed by the organization that runs
Globaloria, containing the game design curriculum, syllabi, a host of video- and text-based
tutorial resources, profile and project pages for individual students and teams, and social
media features that enable student project management, file-sharing, communication,
documentation and presentation of in-progress and final work. The platform was built upon
MediaWiki architecture. In this context, autonomous and collaborative inquiry and
resource use by students are particularly emphasized. The program includes teacher pro-
fessional development trainings, on-location and virtual instruction from industry experts,
and a virtual help desk available during school hours. Students chose their own teams and
largely self-organized, delegating tasks and roles.
Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and Table 1 demonstrate several instructional units of the game design
curriculum through which students in Globaloria proceed. For a full-year implementation,
there are a total of six units. During the first two units, working as individuals, students
learn introductory programming by creating a simplified ‘‘hidden object game’’ which
teaches some basic programming fundamentals. They then segue into teamwork in Units
3–6, choosing a more complex game idea in a particular genre such as a platform jumper
game, adventure game or maze. Students are encouraged to develop game themes and a
message through online research. At some locations, they may create a game about a
particular school subject such as math.
Participants
According to the 2010 U.S. census, the state of West Virginia has a lower median
household, a lower per capita income and a higher proportion of persons living in poverty
compared to the United States overall ($41,043 \ $53,046; $22, 966 \ $28,155; 17.9 %
[15.4 %; respectively). As a rural and mountainous state with high poverty, residential
broadband diffusion is limited in some areas because of access and cost, so many homes do
not have broadband. The participating schools self-selected into the program. Schools
elected to participate through the West Virginia Department of Education’s and nonprofit’s
recruiting initiatives. Criteria for school involvement included teacher interest and time
123
R. Reynolds
Fig. 1 Three out of the Six Curriculum Units for the ‘‘Intro to Game Design’’ course (Unit 2 out of 6
emphasized)
Fig. 2 Screenshot example of Unit 2 of the learning module
availability, school administration approval, and requisite hardware infrastructure in a

computer lab enabling 1:1 student/computer ratio. The non-profit organization that offers
the program to schools provided the needed software through grant funding support and
discounted software licenses from Adobe. All participating schools were located in
counties that had lower household income and proportionately more households in poverty
compared to the United States overall.
While the sample of schools that participated was not random but self-selected vol-
untarily, there were no particular distinguishing characteristics of those schools opting in,
except the interest of the school administrator and/or teachers themselves in participating.
123
Fig. 3 Screenshot example of Unit 2 ‘‘Learning Objective 1,’’ and adjacent information resource
screenshots
Fig. 4 Screenshot example of Unit 2’s ‘‘Learning Objective 5’’ and adjacent information resource
screenshots
These factors do not affect student baseline levels of technology engagement prior to
participating. We have little reason to expect that the sample of students in participating
schools were different from students in other WV schools in comparable socio-economic
brackets.
Teachers, who come from a variety of disciplines and backgrounds, are trained col-
lectively all together in a summer program preceding the school year, becoming versed in
123
R. Reynolds
the curriculum, in game design and programming, and in guiding a Constructionist type
learning experience. They are mentored by other longstanding teachers on an ongoing basis
throughout the school year, through virtual webinars, phone calls, and tracking and
monitoring of educator ‘‘progress reports.’’ The program aims to achieve at least a 3-year
commitment from school leaders, to participate.
Research design
The study employed a non-experimental longitudinal survey design. Pre and post-program
surveys were conducted online in August of 2011, January of 2012, and May/June 2012,
depending on participant modality (i.e., first semester only, second semester only, or full
year). Links were distributed to students via each pilot location’s wiki site with educator
administration. Educators were encouraged to introduce the voluntary surveys prior and
subsequent to student engagement with the program, with follow-through by non-profit
staff to monitor completion. Research was conducted with full parent consent, child assent,
and IRB approval.
Sample characteristics
A total of 282 middle school and 781 high school students participated in the program. Out
of these 1356 middle and high school student participants, a total of 1063 completed the
pre-survey (78.4 %), and a total of 679 completed both the pre- and the post-survey
(49.4 %). These 679 students derive from a total of 38 schools. Within this sample, 215
participants were girls (32 %) and 464 were boys (68 %); 187 sample participants were in
middle school (28 %) and 492 were in high school (72 %). Findings reported in this study
reflect those participants who completed both the pre-survey and post-survey assessments.
Drop off from pre-survey to post-survey was partly due to a range of factors that are
common to school-based interventions, including student absences at the end of the school
year, and changing of schools. At two of schools (omitted from the dataset), our notes
indicate that teachers neglected to administer the post-survey, running out of time at the
end of the program. Some of the drop-off was also due to student voluntary opt-out of post-
survey completion. In some schools, a small number of students (one or two) would
discontinue in the class, but in the public school setting in middle schools and high schools,
these drop-outs at the course level were rare. We conducted a t test of difference for pre-
survey frequency of engagement in CLA 1 (Create) to compare the students who com-
pleted only the pre-survey, to students who completed the pre- and post-survey and the
findings were not significant (pre-survey only group M = 3.60, SD = .89; both pre and
post-survey group (M = 3.68, SD = .84); t(1138) = 1.40, p = .431).
Variables
Parent education
Parent education was measured by asking respondents to identify the highest level of
schooling each of their parents or guardians had achieved (1 = did not complete high
school; 2 = completed high school; 3 = completed high school, attended some college;
4 = completed college; 5 = completed college, attended some graduate school;
6 = completed graduate school). To account for students from single-parent families, the
123
education level of the parent with the highest attainment was used throughout the analysis.
The mean parent education attainment was high school diploma.
Contemporary learning practices
Engagement in activities and practices indicative of the six dimensions of contemporary

learning as articulated by the Globaloria intervention was measured by assessing students’
self-reported frequency of participation in twenty different Globaloria activities (See
Table 2, Column 3 where each activity per dimension is itemized). Each activity was
Table 2 Indicator descriptions, factor loadings, and reliability analyses of pre-program contemporary
learning Practices at school
Indicator Contemporary learning practices
Imagine/ Manage Publish Socialize Research Surf/play

create
Think up an idea for a creative .85

technology project
Think up an idea for an interactive .84
game
Make computer games .79
Program a computer .80
Make graphics/animations on a .88
computer
Make digital music/video on a computer .89
Work on digital design project with .91
team members in person
Use online tutorials to help with digital .92
design projects
Post digital design projects online 1.00
Exchange messages in email about a .90
technology project
Exchange messages in IM/chat about a .95
technology project
Exchange messages on sites like .87
Facebook about a technology project
Use Wikipedia .82
Search online when you have a question .83
Search online when you need .82
technology help
Surf online to find new websites .58
Play internet games .79
Play software games .84
Play games on a video game console .79
Play multiplayer games with others .82
through the internet
Cronbach’s apre .84 .92 1.00 .89 .76 .81
Cronbach’s apost .84 .88 1.00 .92 .78 .82
All eigenvalues [1.00
123
R. Reynolds
measured prior to the introduction of the intervention (pre-program) as well as at the

conclusion of the intervention (post-program). Frequency of engagement in the items was
measured by asking students to report how often they performed a given behavior using a
6-point scale (The scale responses were: 1 = never, 2 = a few times a month, 3 = about
once a week, 4 = a few times a week, 5 = about once a day, 6 = several times a day). In
our regression models we investigate how change in engagement among the dimensions is
inter-related. Change factors for each dimension were calculated by subtracting the pre-
variables composing each dimension from the post-variable composing each dimension.
The operationalization relying on frequency of use self-reports for specific technology
activities has limitations in some ways similar to existing surveys used in cross-sectional
research, and critiqued in the literature review. However, this operationalization has an
advantage over these previous operationalizations of digital skills, in that the derivation of
the given technology activities used in the survey items is grounded in the CLP dimen-
sions, which are a theory-driven set of practices underscored by constructionism and social
constructivist learning theory.
Results
Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to validate the six dimensions of contem-
porary learning. The factorability of 20 indicators was examined across the six dimensions.
All indicators for each dimension displayed factor loadings of at least .5 or above
(Table 2). Indicators were program-based practices and activities that were derived from
existing research (e.g., Harel Caperton 2010; Reynolds and Harel Caperton 2009). Factor
1, ‘‘Create,’’ explained 67.5 and 63.2 % of the variance at school and at home, respec-
tively, and was composed of four indicators that involve engagement in the invention of an
original game, including creation of the original idea as well as the computer programming
of gameplay dynamics. Factor 2, ‘‘Manage,’’ explained 81.1 and 71.5 % of the variance at
school and at home, respectively. Manage was composed of four indicators that measured
engagement in the design, creation, and programming of individual game elements as well
as managing the process of building the game. Factor 3, ‘‘Publish,’’ was composed of a
single indicator, which is reflective of engagement in online publishing, distribution, and
management of digital design projects.
Factor 4, ‘‘Socialize,’’ explained 82.1 and 78.2 % of the variance at school and at home,
respectively, and was composed of indicators that reflect engagement in social-based
learning, participation and exchange in a networked environment. Factor 5, ‘‘Research,’’
explained 67.9 and 68.0 % of the variance at school and at home, respectively, and was
comprised of three practices and activities that measured engagement in information-based
learning, purposeful searching, and exploration of web-based content. Factor 6, ‘‘Surf,’’
explained 59.3 and 58.2 % of the variance at school and at home, respectively, and was
made up of five indicators that involve engagement in basic digital literacy skills, including
surfing websites, experimenting with web applications, and playing multiplayer online
games. Subsequent reliability analyses revealed that the indices used to construct the
factors displayed good-to-excellent levels of internal consistency (e.g., Kline 1998).
Confirmatory factor analyses and subsequent reliability analyses of frequencies of
engagement in indicator practices and activities at home (Table 3) parallel these results.
Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficients were computed to investigate the
relationships between the change factors for the six dimensions of contemporary learning
123
Table 3 Indicator descriptions, factor loadings, and reliability analyses of pre-program contemporary
learning Practices at home
Indicator Contemporary learning practice factors
Imagine/ Manage Publish Socialize Research Surf/play

create
Think up an idea for a creative .83

technology project
Think up an idea for an interactive .83
game
Make computer games .76
Program a computer .76
Make graphics/animations on a .82
computer
Make digital music/video on a computer .83
Work on digital design project with .86
team members in person
Use online tutorials to help with digital .88
design projects
Post digital design projects online 1.00
Exchange messages in email about a .87
technology project
Exchange messages in IM/chat about a .91
technology project
Exchange messages on sites like .87
Facebook about a technology project
Use Wikipedia .83
Search online when you have a question .83
Search online when you need .82
technology help
Surf online to find new websites .68
Play internet games .83
Play software games .84
Play games on a video game console .70
Play multiplayer games with others .76
through the internet
Cronbach’s apre .80 .86 1.00 .86 .77 .82
Cronbach’s apost .87 .91 1.00 .88 .78 .84
All eigenvalues [1.00
at school and at home. At school, results indicated the strongest correlations among Create,
Manage and Publish, with highest correlation between pre/post changes in Manage and
Publish (r(1105) = .82, p \ .001) followed by the correlation between pre/post changes in
Create and Manage (r(1095) = .78, p \ .001) and the one between pre/post changes in
Create and Publish (r(1105) = .68, p \ .001). Socialize, Research, and Surf also indicated
significant correlations with the first three dimensions of contemporary learning at school,
to lesser apparent extents (Table 4).
Correlations among frequencies at home pre/post changes in CLP factors paralleled
those at school, though they appeared somewhat lower overall (Table 5). The strongest
123
R. Reynolds
Table 4 Correlations between pre/post change (i.e., ‘‘diff’’) variables for contemporary learning practices
factors, at school
Imagine/create Manage Publish Socialize Research Surf/play
Imagine/create 1.00
Manage .78*** 1.00
Publish .68*** .82*** 1.00
Socialize .49*** .41*** .37*** 1.00
Research .41*** .33*** .31*** .38*** 1.00
Surf/play .35*** .31*** .28*** .40*** .40*** 1.00
*** p \ .001
correlation again appeared between Manage and Publish (r(1096) = .81, p \ .001) fol-
lowed by Create and Manage (r(1096) = .75, p \ .001) and Create and Publish
(r(1098) = .61, p \ .001). The lesser apparent strength of the correlations between
Socialize, Research, and Surf, and each of Create, Manage, Publish appeared similar at
school and home.
Results from a series of repeated measure ANOVAs indicate that the intervention
resulted in increased frequencies of engagement at school and at home across most of the
CLP dimensions (Table 6). For frequencies of engagement at school, there were increases
in the following dimensions: Create (F(1, 662) = 221.62, p \ .001); Manage (F(1,
663) = 403.04, p \ .001); Publish (F(1, 667) = 345.23, p \ .001); Socialize (F(1,
670) = 36.03, p \ .001); and Research (F(1, 676) = 63.35, p \ .001). The order of the
apparent effect sizes for at-school change in engagement, from largest to smallest, was:
Manage (g2 = .38); Publish (g2 = .34); Create (g2 = .25); Research (g2 = .09); and
Socialize (g2 = .05).
For at home engagement, results indicate increases in the following dimensions: Create
(F(1, 664) = 11.10, p \ .001); Manage (F(1, 666) = 30.67, p \ .001); Publish (F(1,
671) = 33.20, p \ .001); and Research (F(1, 673) = 4.71, p = .030). The order of the
apparent effect sizes for change in pre/post engagement at home, from largest to smallest,
was: Publish (g2 = .05); Manage (g2 = .04); Create (g2 = .02); and Research (g2 = .01).
Findings from both school and home demonstrate that the intervention had the largest
overall effects on the more constructionist dimensions of contemporary learning.
Multiple regression analyses were used to investigate if the change in frequency of
engagement in the six dimensions of contemporary learning at school (computed as post
Table 5 Correlations between pre/post change (i.e., ‘‘diff’’) variables for contemporary learning Practices
factors, at home
Imagine/create Manage Publish Socialize Research Surf/play
Create 1.00
Manage .75*** 1.00
Publish .63*** .81*** 1.00
Socialize .41*** .34*** .31*** 1.00
Research .40*** .38*** .31*** .33*** 1.00
Surf/play .38*** .29*** .24*** .30*** .38*** 1.00
*** p \ .001
123
Table 6 Repeated measure ANOVAs for pre/post CLP engagement factors, at school and at home
Pre- Post- Change F p n2 N
intervention intervention
mean mean
Imagine/create frequency at 1.95 2.84 ?0.89 221.62 \0 .001 0.25 663

school
Manage frequency at school 1.57 2.89 ?1.32 403.04 \0.001 0.38 664
Publish frequency at school 1.52 2.90 ?1.38 345.23 \0.001 0.34 668
Socialize frequency at school 1.46 1.80 ?0.34 36.03 \0.001 0.05 671
Research frequency at school 2.62 3.09 ?0.47 63.35 \0.001 0.09 677
Surf/play frequency at school 2.32 2.37 ?0.05 0.86 0.355 0.00 663
Imagine/create frequency at home 1.99 2.16 ?0.17 11.10 \0.001 0.02 665
Manage frequency at home 1.56 1.85 ?0.29 30.67 \0.001 0.04 667
Publish frequency at home 1.39 1.72 ?0.33 33.20 \0.001 0.05 672
Socialize frequency at home 2.39 2.43 ?0.04 0.54 0.463 0.00 672
Research frequency at home 2.99 3.10 ?0.11 4.71 0.030 0.01 674
Surf/play frequency at home 3.44 3.48 ?0.04 0.81 0.370 0.00 663
minus pre) contributed significantly to students’ change in frequency of engagement at

home (Table 7). Each model tests a different at-home dependent variable factor. The
independent variables were the same for each model, testing the contribution of the at-
school pre/post change in engagement factors along with gender, grade level, and parent
education.
The results from Model 1, investigating the independent variables’ effects upon change
in at home Create engagement, indicated that the model parameters explained 41.9 % of
the variance (R2 = .42, F(9, 461) = 38.68, p \ .001). The parameter with the most
apparent predictive power was change in Create engagement at school (b = .45, p \ .001)
followed by change in Socialize engagement at school (b = .31, p \ .001) and change in
Surf engagement at school (b = .17, p \ .001).
Model 2, investigating the independent variables’ effects upon change in at home
Manage engagement, showed that predictors accounted for 38.5 % of the sample variance
(R2 = .39, F(9, 465) = 34.00, p \ .001). The parameter with the most apparent predictive
power was change in Socialize engagement at school (b = .43, p \ .001). Change in
Manage engagement at school (b = .20, p = .008) and change in Surf engagement at
school (b = .20, p \ .001) were also significant predictors of change.
Model 3 investigating the independent variables’ effects upon change in at home
Publish engagement, revealed that predictive variables explained 29.0 % of the sample
variance (R2 = .29, F(9, 468) = 22.66, p \ .001). Change in Socialize engagement at
school (b = .42, p \ .001) and change in Surf engagement at school (b = .12, p = .006)
were significant predictors of change, with the former demonstrating more predictive
power than the latter.
Socialize engagement, explained 18.6 % of the sample variance (R2 = .19, F(9,
469) = 13.14, p \ .001). Significant predictors included change in Socialize engagement
at school (b = .35, p \ .001) and change in Surf engagement at school (b = .11,
123
Table 7 Regression models predicting change in frequencies of engagement in CLP-based activities at home
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
D imagine/create freq. at D manage freq. at D publish freq. at D socialize freq. at D research freq. at D surf/play freq. at
123
home home home home home home
b b b b b b b b b b b b
Constant -.32 -.29 -.13 .90* -.19 .78*

(.28) (.30) (.35) (.45) (.33) (.31)
Gender (male = 1) .10 .04 .18 .07 .18 .06 -.16 -.05 .02 .02 -.13 -.04
(.09) (.10) (.12) (.15) (.11) (.11)
Grade level .02 .03 .02 .03 .01 .02 -.06 -.07 .01 .01 -.07* -.11
(.02) (.03) (.03) (.04) (.03) (.03)
Parent education -.02 -.02 .00 .00 -.01 -.01 -.10 -.08 .01 .01 -.02 -.03
(.03) (.04) (.04) (.06) (.04) (.04)
D create freq. at school .39*** .45 .06 .06 .11 .11 .06 .05 -.05 -.06 .12* .15
(.05) (.05) (.06) (.08) (.06) (.06)
D manage freq. at school -.10 -.12 .16** .20 .04 .05 -.13 -.13 -.06 -.06 -.10 -.11
(.06) (.06) (.07) (.09) (.07) (.06)
D publish freq. at school -.04 -.07 -.07 -.09 -.02 -.03 .07 .08 .06 .08 .02 .03
(.04) (.05) (.05) (.07) (.05) (.05)
D socialize freq. at school .26*** .31 .38*** .43 .39*** .42 .40*** .35 .06 .07 .04 .08
(.04) (.04) (.05) (.06) (.04) (.04)
D research freq. at school .03 .04 -.03 -.03 -.01 -.01 .07 .06 .42*** .46 .08* .11
(.03) (.04) (.04) (.05) (.04) (.04)
D surf/play freq. at school .15*** .17 .18*** .20 .12** .12 .13* .11 .09 .11 .26*** .32
(.04) (.04) (.04) (.06) (.04) (.04)
F 38.68*** 34.00*** 22.66*** 13.14*** 20.63*** 12.28***
R2 .43 .40 .30 .20 .28 .19
Adj. R2 .42 .39 .29 .19 .27 .18
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001. Standard errors are in parentheses
R. Reynolds
p = .021). Of the two significant predictors, change in frequency of at-school Socialize

engagement possessed greater predictive power.
Research engagement, accounted for 27.1 % of the sample variance (R2 = .27, F(9,
467) = 20.63, p \ .001). The sole significant predictor of change was change in Research
engagement at school (b = .46, p \ .001).
The results from Model 6, investigating the independent variables’ effects upon change
in at home Surf engagement, revealed that model parameters explained 17.9 % of the
variance in the sample (R2 = .18, F(9, 458) = 12.28, p \ .001). Change in Surf
engagement at school (b = .34, p \ .001) demonstrated the largest amount of predictive
power in the model. Other significant predictors included change in Create engagement at
school (b = .15, p = .032), grade level (b = -.11, p = .012), and change in Research
engagement at school (b = .11, p = .025).
Discussion
This article offers a framework for conceptualizing digital literacy as a set of practice
domains, technology activities/instructional affordances, and measurement operational-
izations. The practice domains proposed in this study are grounded in social constructivism
and Constructionist pedagogy. This human learning centered definition comprises 6 cre-
ative task-driven practice domains that are described with conceptual linkages, and
operationalized with interchangeable technology activities/instructional affordances of the
moment. We propose that this framework can stand the test of time over and above
previous definitions that are more technology-determined (e.g., Livingstone and Helsper
2007; Ito et al. 2009; Barron 2004; Hargittai 2005, 2009), which require constant updating
as technology evolves. The definition also addresses Aviram and Eshet-Alkalai’s (2006)
call for researchers to greater explicate conceptualizations of digital literacy, and more
transparently identify the assumptions, values and norms of the definer. The framework
offers a modular structure distinguishing theoretically derived practice domains fairly
common in Constructionist pedagogy, as well as instructional activities and measurement
operationalizations that can be configured in alternative ways supporting comparative
research, towards helping instructional designers and practitioners identify best practices. It
is hoped that this framework approach can help facilitate ongoing scholarly advances in
this domain, as well as policy discourse and research on the digital divide and its
prevalence.
The study’s empirical research questions centered on testing the framework in the
context of the specific instructional design implementation described. Research Question 1
centered on the bivariate relationships among the six dimensions as applied in Globaloria,
considering ways in which changes in each correlated to one another. Frequency changes
in the first three dimensions of Contemporary Learning Practice (Create, Manage, Publish)
displayed the highest degree of inter-correlation, both for at-school and at-home measures.
The more change occurred in one dimension, the more it occurred in the other two
dimensions. The latter three dimensions (Socialize, Research and Surf) correlated to one
another and to the first three categories, but to lesser apparent extents. Further, magnitudes
of correlation for at-school and at-home activities appeared higher overall for the at-school
measures than at home, which would be expected since the students shared the at-school
experience.
123
R. Reynolds
The bivariate findings overall indicate that change in the first three dimensions occur in
a coordinated way in this intervention. The CLPs 4–6 (Socialize/Research/Surf-Play),
which can be seen as secondary technology use processes supporting the primary digital
game content creation activities, inter-correlate and contribute to the primary activities but
to a lesser apparent extent than Create/Manage/Publish contribute to each other. Instruc-
tional designs that offer these activities in six dimensions as a coordinated set, targeting
students towards a shared outcome of creating a functioning and complete interactive
online web game (and using multiple computing technologies to do so), differs from earlier
skills-based models that treat information and digital skills as discrete and separate entities
(e.g., national standards frameworks; Hargittai 2005, 2009). Results of this study indicate
that change in student engagement in one dimension relates to change in other dimensions,
among all of them, thereby offering support for the theoretical underpinnings of the
instructional design.
We also analyzed effect size on change in engagement from pre-intervention to post-
intervention in the sample. We note the limitation that this study represents a non-ex-
perimental pre/post design. The pre-program mean appeared lower for the first three CLPs
centered on content creation (indicating that students were less familiar with these activ-
ities before starting), and the subsequent change in engagement was largest for these
dimensions than for CLPs 4–6 (a type of ceiling effect). These changes in engagement
indicate that participation changed students’ computing practices, increasing their fre-
quencies of engagement.
Research Question 2 addressed the relationships between at-school change and at-home
change in engagement, for which we used multiple regression. At-school change for Create
related to at-home change for Create, with similar results for Manage, Socialize, Research
and Surf (but not Publish), which showed parsimony for the items. Overall, since no
homework was assigned, student engagement at home was voluntary, thus largely self-
motivated. The relationship between at-school and at-home engagement may indicate some
level of transfer but this research is not causal so more research is needed. This finding is
notable especially for the more effortful, constructive CLPs 1–3, in which students had
minimal prior experience, and which have been linked in past research to cultural capital
enhancement benefits (Hargittai and Walejko 2008). Creation activities extending to the
home are notable.
Changes in at-school Socialize (CLP 4) and Surf (CLP 6) activity related to change in
almost all CLP dimensions at-home. This finding may indicate that student peer engage-
ment, feedback, dialogue and sharing (Socialize), as well as their review of existing games
and web tools at school (Surf), are linked with a greater motivation for home use, and it
may be that students are engaging in at-home computing activity, together. This finding
highlights the inherent social nature of the social constructivist intervention and the social
nature of those activities in particular.
A relationship between change in Research at-school and change in other dimensions at
home was expected, but not seen. In Globaloria, students must engage in significant
autonomous discovery-based inquiry, information-seeking, and resource usage to suc-
cessfully complete their game design in the program. While Research was the only
dimension among CLPs 4–6 that showed increases in at-home change from pre- to post-
program, at-school engagement did not correlate with at-home engagement in more cre-
ative CLPs 1–3 for Research. Other studies (e.g., Reynolds and Harel Caperton 2011;
Reynolds 2016) indicate that some students find the autonomous inquiry and research
activity required in the discovery-based learning context to be frustrating, challenging, and
halting. In this study, we see that while Socializing and Surfing relate to and may influence
123
home engagement, changes in Research activity at school only influences changes in

Research at home; none of the other dimensions. It may be that Research is a more solitary
activity. Reynolds (2016) calls for greater scaffolding for research and information skills in
the curriculum because research using wiki learning management system resources and
tutorials is an integral part of their learning process and successful outcomes in pro-
gramming and coding. A greater investigation is needed into actual expertise development,
in this regard, and this work is underway with qualitative datasets.
The results also indicate that gender and parent education were not significant predictors
of at-home change; a relationship might have been expected, given that these demographic
variables have been found in past research to be contributors to the digital divide. It is
positive that they did not, and may support past research that Globaloria attenuates digital
divide effects (Reynolds and Chiu 2015).
Limitations
We are cautious not to over-reach in our interpretation of the self-report surveys of

engagement. This study did not employ a measure of actual learning or assessment of
outcomes. However, previous work on this intervention does employ content analysis of
student game design artifacts, showing a correlation between frequency of engagement (as
well as intrinsic motivation) and student learning outcomes (Reynolds and Chiu 2012,
2013). More research is needed to understand the nature and extent of longer-term effects
on student engagement, and, development of expertise. Future studies should supplement
engagement variables with other measures (e.g., self-efficacy, interest, and actual perfor-
mance-based knowledge assessments) in order to further establish construct validity. The
sample drew only upon West Virginia schools, reflecting a rural, mostly white population
in a mountainous state with a lower than national average socio-economic status. This was
not a random sample of schools. However the N of [650 students across 38 different
schools was moderately high, and the sample did reflect schools with moderate variation in
parent education levels, a proxy for socio-economic status.
Conclusion
This study’s framework approach, unique definition for task-driven ‘‘social constructivist
digital literacy,’’ and the empirical investigation’s design and operationalization that offer
support for the definition proposed, can serve as a reference point for others conducting
research on the construct of digital literacy and the digital divide. The conceptualization
inherently invites interchanging of digital literacy theories, instructional designs, and
measurement operationalizations, and encourages comparative research.
The implementation study offers support for the framework in that (a) students appeared
to increase in their engagement from pre- to post-program (per the non-experimental
pre/post design), and (b) the six dimensions of CLPs were found to inter-correlate, sup-
porting the theoretical perspectives underscoring the design. The results show that offering
digital learning opportunities across a coordinated set of practice dimensions produces
engagement such that the more students engage in one dimension, the more they engage in
others as well. It appears the coordinated activities augment one another, which is what the
theories propose. Further, the study results indicate that (c) the school-based activities of
students are proliferating beyond school (suggesting the intervention is effective at least in
123
R. Reynolds
motivating engagement and practice). Interestingly, the Research dimension (CLP 5) did
not inter-correlate to changes in engagement in the more creative CLPs 1–3 in the same
way Socializing (CLP 4) and Surfing (CLP 6) did, indicating that in this guided discovery-
based program, students may need greater instructional scaffolding for information literacy
and autonomous uses of resources to learn programming. Expertise was not measured, thus
more work is needed to continue strengthening the operationalization of the 6-CLPs
beyond the limits of frequency of engagement alone. Such work would offer alternatives to
the given Measurement specifications in Table 1 Column 3.
The framework is offered to the research community as a more clearly articulated
conceptualization of ‘‘digital literacy.’’ Overall, the paper aims to offer a bridge between
cross-sectional digital divide research and prescriptive instructional design research around
this shared concept of interest. The paper encourages continuing work in this domain
towards realization of a greater proliferation of educational opportunities for young people
involving constructive creation of original content with digital and computational tools and
technologies.
Acknowledgments The author thanks Dr. John Wolf of the New Jersey Institute of Technology for his
contributions to earlier drafts of the manuscript’s data analysis and narrative. The author thanks Dr. Idit
Harel, president of Globaloria, and her non-profit organization’s staff for their participation in a collabo-
rative partnership of design-based research. This work was conducted with the generous support of an IMLS
Early Careers Development grant in the Laura Bush Twenty-First Century Librarian Program, for which the
author is thankful as well.
References
Agosto, D., & Hughes-Hassell, S. (2006). Toward a model of everyday life information needs of urban
teenagers, part 2: Empirical model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 57(11), 1418–1426.
American Association of School Librarians. (2007). Standards for the 21st-century learner. Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/guidelinesandstandards/learningstandards/standards.cfm
Aviram, R., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2006). Towards a theory of digital literacy: Three scenarios for the next
steps. European Journal of Open Distance E-Learning. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/
materials/contrib/2006/Aharon_Aviram.htm
Barron, B. (2004). Learning ecologies for technological fluency: Gender and experience differences. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 1–36.
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on
inquiry-based and cooperative learning. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/pdfs/edutopia-
teaching-for-meaningful-learning.pdf
Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of Documentation,
57(2), 218–259.
CCSS. (2010). Common core state standards initiative. Retrieved May 6, 2015 from http://www.
corestandards.org/the-standards.
diSessa, A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103.
Eisenberg, M., & Berkowitz, R. (2011). The Big6 workshop handbook: Implementation and impact. Santa
Barbara, CA: Linworth.
Greenhow, M., & Menzer, T. Gibbins. (2015). Re-thinking scientific literacy school: Arguing science issues
in a niche Facebook applications. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 593–604.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. D. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field.
Educational Researcher., 42(1), 38–43.
Harel, I. (1991). Children designers: Interdisciplinary constructions for learning and knowing mathematics
in a computer-rich school. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Harel Caperton, I. (2010). Toward a theory of game-media literacy: Playing and building as reading and
writing. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 2(1), 1–16.
123
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environ-
ments, 1(1), 1–32.
Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4).
Hargittai, E. (2005). Survey measures of Web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science Computer Review,
23(3), 371–379.
Hargittai, E. (2007). A framework for studying differences in people’s digital media uses. In N. K. a. H.-U.
Otto (Ed.), Cyberworld Unlimited? (pp. 121–137). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften/
GWV Fachverlage GmbH.
Hargittai, E. (2009). An update on survey measures of Web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science
Computer Review, 27(1), 130–137.
Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the net
generation. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92–113.
Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ use of the internet.
Communication Research, 35(5), 602–621.
Hargittai, E., & Walejko, G. (2008). The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age.
Information, Communication and Society., 11(2), 239–256.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psy-
chology Review, 16, 235–266.
Hoadley, C. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4),
203–212.
Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
Horrigan, J. B. (2011). What are the consequences of being disconnected in a broadband-connected world?
Daedalus, 140(4), 17–31.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). NETS for students 2007. Retrieved from http://
www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students.aspx.
ISLS International Society of the Learning Sciences. (2014). Mission statement. ISLS International Society
of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.isls.org/about.html.
Ito, M., Herr-Stephenson, B., Perkel, D., & Sims, C. (2009). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out:
Kids living and learning with new media (p. 2009). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st
century. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children’s learning (p. 1995).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives
for game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36–40.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.
Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2012). Guided inquiry design: A framework for inquiry
in your school. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries United.
Larusson, J. A., & Alterman, R. (2009). Wikis to support the ‘‘collaborative’’ part of collaborative learning.
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 371–402.
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital
divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671–696.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2007). Digital citizenship: The internet, society, and
participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2011). The 10 barriers to technology adoption. District Administration, Nov/Dec,
2011.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent devel-
opments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Peppler, K., & Kafai, Y. B. (2007). From SuperGoo to Scratch: exploring creative digital media production
in informal learning. Learning, Media, and Technology, 32(2), 149–166.
Reppening, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist
for getting computational thinking into public schools. The 41st ACM technical symposium on com-
puter science education, SIGCSE 2010 (Milwaukee, WI). ACM Press.
Reynolds, R. (2008). Reconstructing ‘‘digital literacy’’ in a constructionist computer club: The role of
motivation, interest, and inquiry in children’s purposive technology use. Doctoral dissertation (un-
published), S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Syracuse University.
Reynolds, R. (2016). Relationships among tasks, collaborative inquiry processes, inquiry resolutions, and
knowledge outcomes in adolescents during guided discovery-based game design in school. Journal of
Information Science: Special Issue on Searching as Learning, Feb. 2016.
123
R. Reynolds
Reynolds, R., & Chiu, M. (2012). Contribution of motivational orientations to student outcomes in a
discovery-based program of game design learning. In Proceedings of the international conference of
the learning sciences (ICLS), July 2012, Sydney, Australia.
Reynolds, R., & Chiu, M. (2013). Formal and informal context factors as contributors to student engagement
in a guided discovery-based program of game design learning. Journal of Learning, Media & Tech-
nology, 38(4), 429–462.
Reynolds, R., & Chiu, M. M. (2015). Reducing digital divide effects through student engagement in
coordinated game design, online resource uses, and social computing activities in school. Journal of
the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST),. doi:10.1002/asi.23504.
Reynolds, R., & Harel Caperton, I. (2009). Development of high school and community college students’
contemporary learning abilities in Globaloria-West Virginia in the first pilot year. Paper presented at
the annual convention of the American Education Research Association (AERA), April 2009.
Reynolds, R., & Harel Caperton, I. (2011). Contrasts in student engagement, meaning-making, dislikes, and
challenges in a discovery-based program of game design learning. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 59(2), 267–289.
Salen, K., Gresalfi, M., Peppler, K., & Santo, R. (2014). Gaming the system: Designing with gamestar
mechanic. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Salen, K., Torres, R., Rufo-Tepper, R., Shapiro, A., & Wolozin, L. (2010). Quest to learn: Growing a school
for digital kids. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Savolainen, R. (2010). Everyday life information seeking. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sci-
ences, Third Edition, 1(1), 2735–2746.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Introduction: The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Seely Brown, J. (2005). New learning environments for the 21st century. Paper presented at the forum for
the future of higher education, Aspen Symposium, Aspen, CO.
Seely Brown, J. (2006). New learning environments for the 21st century: Exploring the edge. Change
Magazine, September/October (2006).
Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stager, G. (2001). Computationally-rich constructionism and at-risk learners. Retrieved from http://www.
stager.org/wcce/index.html.
Sweller, J. (2006). The worked example effect and human cognition. Learning and Instruction, 16(2),
165–169.
UNESCO. (2012). Competencies. Education. Retrieved May 11, 2015 from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/
education/themes/strengthening-education-systems/quality-framework/desired-outcomes/competencie/
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). National education technology plan. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from
http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environ-
ments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.
Wellings, J., & Levine, M. (2009). The digital promise: Transforming learning with innovative uses of
technology. New York: Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Report retrieved May 5, 2014
from http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/publication/white-paper-the-digital-promise-transforming-
learning-with-innovative-uses-of-technology/
Dr. Rebecca Reynolds is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Library and Information Science in
the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University. Her research investigates middle
school and high school student inquiry, collaboration and creation during project-based learning with
technology, and the design of curriculum and information systems to support successful learning outcomes
in information and digital literacy.
123
View publication stats

2016-2 3A Reynolds PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016-2 3A Reynolds PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Article in Educational Technology Research and Development · January 2016

Information and Learning Sciences Journal View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Educational Technology Research

Education Tech Research Dev

Defining, designing for, and measuring ‘‘social

Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2016

Keywords Digital literacy Information literacy Game design Digital divide

& Rebecca Reynolds

In US society, digital technologies have become ubiquitous in organizational, professional,

organizing framework may be applied in structuring an empirical investigation of digital

Defining ‘‘digital literacy’’ as a social science research construct

Theoretical underpinnings of ‘‘social constructivist digital literacy’’

Learning sciences is an inter-disciplinary field centered on theory-based research and

Social constructivist digital literacy as a task-driven enterprise

The practice domains of social constructivist digital literacy

1: CREATE Brainstorm, develop game and Think up idea for a creative

DIGITAL PRACTICE DOMAIN: TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES/ MEASUREMENT

5: RESEARCH Searching the Web for answers Use Wikipedia

In-depth discussion of 6-CLPs

students develop by learning introductory computational programming in Actionscript.

Empirical investigation of a social constructivist digital literacy intervention

The framework of practice domains, instructional affordances and measures aims to

Fig. 2 Screenshot example of Unit 2 of the learning module

availability, school administration approval, and requisite hardware infrastructure in a

Contemporary learning practices

Engagement in activities and practices indicative of the six dimensions of contemporary

Imagine/ Manage Publish Socialize Research Surf/play

Think up an idea for a creative .85

measured prior to the introduction of the intervention (pre-program) as well as at the

Imagine/ Manage Publish Socialize Research Surf/play

Think up an idea for a creative .83

All eigenvalues [1.00

Imagine/create frequency at 1.95 2.84 ?0.89 221.62 \0 .001 0.25 663

minus pre) contributed significantly to students’ change in frequency of engagement at

Constant -.32 -.29 -.13 .90* -.19 .78*

p = .021). Of the two significant predictors, change in frequency of at-school Socialize

home engagement, changes in Research activity at school only influences changes in

We are cautious not to over-reach in our interpretation of the self-report surveys of

You might also like