Emma Pedley, November 2014

What dimensions of critical digital literacy are most important for teachers?

There are few professionals in this modern world who can get by without using any form of
technology. From drawing money at an ATM to participating in online social networks, writing
wikis or even creating your own software, the vast majority of us are immersed in an ever
expanding sea of digital technologies, the application of which seem limitless. Digital technologies
can be both a blessing and a curse. Whilst their application can hugely benefit society enabling
greater opportunities for working, socialising, learning and, even, voting, the existence of so much
digital information opens the door to issues of privacy, fraud, misunderstanding and manipulation.
Being able to cope with this reality is a topic of great debate amongst educational researchers.
How can we prepare 21st century citizens to effectively and appropriately use, adapt to and protect
themselves from the growing array of technologies available? The answer lies in the teaching and
development of “critical digital literacy” at every level of the education system. However, if 21 st
Century teachers are to embrace this notion and develop in their students a critical understanding
of digital information, they themselves must first become fully adept at using digital technology.
That means obtaining the functional skills to navigate their way through the digital world. In other
words, the most important dimension of critical digital literacy for teachers is the basic ability to
access digital information.

Digital literacy, as it is commonly referred to, has been a hotly-debated topic for over a decade
amongst educational scholars. Initially digital literacy – also known as digital competence, and by
many other terms (Ilomäki, Paavola, Lakkala, & Kantosalo 2014) - was regarded as the functional
ability to use digital devices and interfaces. However, in the last decade, researchers, academics
and government organisations have increasingly argued for the concept of digital literacy to
embrace the critical use of technology (Buckingham, 2010; IIomäki et al., 2014); that is to say, the
ability to discern the quality of information presented, its authenticity, and its effective and
appropriate use. Cornell University, for example, takes a moral stand arguing that digital literacy is
not just about ability, but also appropriateness: “unfortunately, the assumption that what can be
done, may be done, is often wrong”. In a nutshell, there has been a call to apply ethics and critical
thinking, including the higher thought processes of analysis, evaluation and creation (Anderson et
al., 2000), to the understanding and teaching of digital literacy.

In an attempt to bring together the current definitions and theories of digital literacy, including the
critical use and understanding of technology, Juliet Hinrichsen and Antony Coomb (2014a, 2014b)
have developed a framework consisting of five dimensions. Based on the four resources model of
critical literacy created by Allan Luke and Peter Freebody (1990; 2003), these five dimensions
represent five areas of competences that a fully effective digital technology user should have.
Hinrichsen and Coomb describe the dimensions as:

 Decoding (navigation, conventions, operations, stylistics and modalities) – the skills

involved in accessing technological tools, and using its interfaces and operative functions.
 Meaning-making (reading, relating and expressing) – the reflexive process between writer
and reader in which the reader uses prior experience and knowledge to interpret and
understand various aspects of a text.
 Analysing (deconstructing, selecting and interrogating) – the ability to assess the value of
digital information from a “critical, ethical and aesthetic” standpoint.
Emma Pedley, November 2014

 Using (finding, applying, problem-solving and creating) – the ability to use technology to
complete a task employing different methods and approaches.
 Persona (identity building, reputation management and participation) – managing your
online identity and interaction with others in different online contexts.

Hinrichsen and Coomb consider all five dimensions of this framework to be both inter-related and
essential to digital literacy. In the rest of this paper, we will discuss which of Hinrichsen and Coomb
´s dimensions are the most important to a teachers´ own literacy.

In this day and age, teachers have many roles which require them to be able to use digital
information including researcher, framer and facilitator (Gassó, n.d.). In their capacity as
researchers, they need to stay up-to-date with the subjects they teach. This can be achieved using
the Internet to search for accurate and current information in their field. They need to know which
search engines to use, how to evaluate the reliability and usefulness of the information they find,
and also be able to effectively comprehend different types of media. Thus, in particular, the
dimensions of “meaning-making”, “analysing” and “using” digital technology are important.

Teachers are not only researchers, however; they are also framers. A teacher must be able to
categorise and adapt material, often multimedia, for use in the classroom. This could include using
digital technologies to deliver content. Information found on the internet may need to be
simplified or added to. A teacher may choose to draw from many different sources to piece
together an effective class. This implies the creation of materials and the need to express oneself
effectively, possibly across different types of digital texts. Once again, this suggests the importance
of the “meaning-making”, “analysing” and “using” dimensions as teachers adapt the digital
information and applications they find, and express themselves through technology, writing their
own resources.

Teachers can also be facilitators. Gassó (n.d.) describes this as a “subordinate, support role”
whereby the student is introduced to a website or application (for example, a forum) and gives
feedback on the students` participation. Here the “using” and “analysing” dimensions of digital
literacy are important as the teacher has to locate and choose appropriate mediums for student
involvement.

Moreover, teachers are also role models, and as they begin to employ more technology in their
teaching, that means managing an appropriate online persona. Teachers may choose to construct
dialogues with their students using Twitter, Facebook, chats, forums and blogs. It is not only
important for them to exploit stylistic elements such as more informal language, abbreviations and
emoticons to appeal to their students, but also to evaluate the extent to which they should do so.
They should take into consideration how their identity is being projected, being wary of
establishing too informal relationships with their students over these types of media.

Thus far, it appears that the dimensions of meaning-making, analysing and using, and to some
extent persona, are the most important for teachers regarding their own literacy competences.
Therefore, some may argue that decoding, the functional skills, is the least important dimension of
critical digital literacy for teachers. However, this idea is misleading. How can a teacher be
expected to find, analyse and interpret digital information or manage online communication
without understanding first how to use a computer or how to physically browse the internet? In
Emma Pedley, November 2014

order to develop for themselves and later teach the competences of the other four dimensions,
they need to know how to use digital technologies in the basic sense. In other words, decoding is
not the least significant of the dimensions, but the first step to attaining overall digital literacy.

The ability to draw meaning from a digital text presupposes a knowledge of how to use the digital
interface in which it is presented. Online articles or texts are often not linear; they are hypertexts.
They require the reader to jump around, clicking on links and scrolling down to other parts of the
article or web page. If the reader doesn`t know how to do this, neither can they interpret
effectively the text they have before them. Just as the basic reading skill (the ability to understand
syntax and vocabulary) is key to developing critical reading skills, the digital dimension of meaning-
making can only take place where a teacher already knows how to decode the digital information.

Equally, a teacher cannot analyse the value of a digital source if they do not know how to use it or
reach it. The efficacy of the exercises on an English language CD-ROM, for example, may depend
on the usability of its functions, not just the content or authorship of the activities. Is it intuitive to
use, or complicated and confusing? In this case, only “decoding” knowledge can help the teacher
assess how useful the resource is for his/her students. It is therefore indispensable to the
“analysing” dimension of digital literacy.

Similarly, whilst it is important to recognise the various uses of different types of digital media to
meet differing needs, a teacher will only discover that digital media with the use of basic
functional skills. For example, if a teacher wants to find out about a specific topic, he/she will need
not only to identify where to look for it, but also be able to use the various technical features of
browsing a catalogue or doing an advanced search such as selecting options from boxes, writing
keywords in text boxes and clicking on links. Thus, decoding skills are also key to the “using”
dimension.

Whilst researchers urge the development of critical thinking in the use of technology and the
integration of technology into the learning experience, we cannot expect teachers to rise to this
challenge until they have mastered the basic functions of using a computer or other digital device.
Decoding abilities are the first step to successful digital literacy educational programmes for both
teachers and their students and, as such, they cannot be ignored or passed over. For that reason,
they are, at this moment in time, the most important.
Emma Pedley, November 2014

References

Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths,
J., Wittrock, M.C. (2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of
Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.

Buckingham, D. (2010). Defining digital literacy. In Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen (pp 59-
71). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Cornell University Digital Literacy Resource (2009). Retrieved 26th November, 2014, from
http://digitalliteracy.cornell.edu/welcome/dpl0000.html

Freebody, P. & Luke, A. (1990). `Literacies´ programs: debates and demands in cultural context.
Prospect: Australian Journal of TESOL, 5.3. 7-16

Freebody, P. & Luke, A. (2003). Literacy as engaging with new forms of life: the four roles model. In
Bull, G, & Anstey, M. (Ed.), The Literary Lexicon (2nd ed.) (pp51-66). NSW: Pearson
Education Australia.

Gassó, E. (n.d.) Computer Assisted Language Learning. Fundación Universitaria Iberamericana

materials from Masters in Teaching English as a Foreign Language distance programme.

Hinrichsen, J. and Coombs A., (2014a). The five resources of critical digital literacy: a framework for
curriculum integration. Research in Learning Technology, 21:21334

Hinrichsen, J. and Coombs A., (2014b). The five resources model of digital literacy. Retrieved 26th
November, 2014, from https://sites.google.com/site/dlframework/

Ilomäki, L., Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., & Kantosalo, A. (2014). Digital competence – an emergent
boundary concept for policy and educational research. Education and Information
Technologies