EDUC639 - Team Wiki - Higher Education Digital Literacy
URL Link: https://educ639-digital-literacy.wikidot.com/
(Text version below)
Digital Literacy in Higher Education
Wiki Literature Review
Jennifer Ciburk, Daniel Davis, Sandra Dewey, Alexandria McNier
EDUC639-D01 Liberty University
Dr. Daniel Baer
Abstract
This project will investigate the digital literacy of students and faculty within higher education to define its importance in education, as well as society at large. The researchers will identify gaps which may exist in the digital literacy of incoming college students and focus on how such gaps can best be addressed, either through preparation in high school digital literacy programs, incoming college student intervention, or as part of each designated course taught by faculty members. This review seeks to increase awareness for student academic achievement and assist faculty in promoting pedagogy within a technological framework.
Keywords: digital literacy, digital native, digital immigrant
Digital Literacy in Higher Education Wiki Literature Review
What is Digital Literacy?
One of the challenges to exploring and then addressing any learner need or deficiency is navigating the various definitions of a particular area of concern. This challenge applies to digital literacy, as it has been defined in various ways (Feerrar, 2019). For this wiki literature review, a framework for digital literacy adopted by the Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University will be the basis of our discussions. This framework builds upon a popular framework developed by Jisc, a UK not-for-profit company that specializes in supporting higher education stakeholders (Jisc, 2019). The Jisc Framework includes the following aspects:
1. ICT proficiency;
2. Information, data and media literacies;
3. Digital creation, problem solving and innovation;
4. Digital communication, collaboration, and participation;
5. Digital learning and development; and
6. Digital identity and well-being (Jisc, 2019).
The resulting Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University framework can be defined as "a set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that empower learners to engage with digital content, tools and processes" (Virginia Tech, 2019). This framework is graphically expressed as follows:
(Virginia Tech, 2019)
Digital Literacy's Importance in Society in General
The rapid expansion of information and communication technologies (ICT) is transforming every aspect of society. In the area of communication, emails, texts, and tweets have largely replaced printed correspondence. In the area of information, no longer does one perform research by driving down to the local library, or staying home and paging through to the 32 volume Encyclopedia Britannica that could fill an entire bookcase (Barnett, 2012). Online news sources are taking the place of delivered newspapers and magazines. E-mail and instant messaging are replacing letters sent through the U.S. Post Office. Often, shopping is completed online, replacing the weekend trips to the local mall.
To communicate, shop, obtain information, and function in other ways in today's society, digital literacy skills are required. The digital literacy skills necessary to function in today's technology-embedded world have been acquired by those in all generation groups (Quan-Haase, Williams, Kicevski, Elueze, & Wellman, 2018).
Digital Literacy's Importance in Higher Education in Particular
Higher education has not been spared from the disruptive effects of ICT. E-learning has become an important part of the learning process in both distance education and the traditional classroom. According to a recent study, 31.6% of higher education students have taken at least one distance education course, (Seaman, Allen, & Seaman, 2018). Distance education enrollments have increased for fourteen straight years (Seaman, Allen, & Seaman, 2018). This growth fits with the expectations of today's higher education students as this year's entering freshman class has never known a world without e-mail and Google (Thelin, 2017). ICT, through the spread of e-learning, is transforming higher education.
Can Digital Literacy Be Assumed in Today's World of Digital Natives?
One question foundational to this discussion is the controversial belief that the need for digital literacy skills training is not required to the same extent for students born after 1984. This group of students has been immersed in digital technologies throughout their lives (Kirschner & Bruyckere, 2017). This group of students, often called digital natives, are believed by some to be endowed with specific characteristics that make them unique from students who came before them (a group often referred to as digital immigrants). Because digital natives have never known a world without Google, the Internet, and other information and communication technologies (ICT), it is argued by some that they possess, almost innately, sophisticated digital literacy skills and learning preferences that make them unique. Some also argue that because of these skills and preferences, higher education policy and practice must change to account for the new abilities and learning characteristics of digital natives (Prensky, 2001).
Background to Digital Natives/Digital Immigrant Debate
The term "digital natives" was coined by Marc Prensky in 2001. He and several researchers who followed have argued that the group of students born after 1984 (e.g., digital natives) have a different learning style (e.g., they can multitask) and think about information in a different way than students who came before them (e.g., digital immigrants).
Prensky and those who agree with his contention believe that students today have changed not just socially (e.g., clothing, slang, styles), but also fundamentally (Prensky, 2001). Because today's students spend twice as much time playing video games than reading and have the Internet, cell phones, and instant messaging as integral to every part of their lives, they have grown to think and process information differently than those who came before them (Prensky, 2001). It is argued that growing up in a technology embedded society, surrounded by ICT, has led to a change in actual brain activity and structure (Prensky, 2001).
If Prensky's contentions are true (i.e., that today's students are innately different than the generations of students who came before them), then the need for digital literacy training in higher education would vary tremendously based on the birth year of the student entering higher education. As the largest percentage of students entering college would fall into the "digital native" group, the need for digital literacy training should be diminishing because of the pre-existing digital literacy knowledge, skills, and aptitudes already possessed by this group of students.
Are Digital Natives a Myth or a Reality?
Although it cannot be questioned that each new generation of students brings both new abilities and challenges that educators must be aware of and adapt to, many studies completed since Prensky first published his views in 2001 do not support his views. Kirshner and Bruyckere present evidence that digital natives, although brought up being immersed in digital technologies, do not have a deep knowledge of technology that is helpful in education (Kirschner & Bruyckere, 2017). Their study found that although students born after 1984 have limited knowledge of basic office suite skills and know how to email, text, use Facebook, and "surf the net," they do not have increased ability to use technology to problem-solve and learn (Kirschner & Bruyckere, 2017). Also, they have not developed an ability to "multitask" (Kirschner & Bruyckere, 2017).
In another study held to test Prensky's contentions, Lai and Hong completed a study to investigate the validly of such claims by surveying 799 undergraduate and 81 postgraduate students at a research university in New Zealand (Lai & Hong, 2015). In this study, students were broken into three age groups (under 20, 20-30, and over 30) (Lai & Hong, 2015). Data were captured for each group in terms of their use of available digital technologies at the university, the use of technologies in social interactions, and other related data (Lai & Hong, 2015). This data was captured to determine if there were actual learning characteristic differences among the groups as would be predicted by those promoting the digital native theory (Lai & Hong, 2015).
The findings of the study showed that although students did invest a large amount of time using digital technologies at the university, the range and depth of the technologies used were rather limited. Also, the study found that there was not a practical generational difference between the three groups. All three groups followed similar technology use patterns and learning characteristics (Lai & Hong, 2015).
The results of these studies, among others, suggest that a student's age or classification as a member of an artificially created generational group does not greatly impact the use of technology or learning characteristics of higher education students. The arguments presented by Prensky and others who support the view of the existence of "digital natives" are not supported by the findings of this study.
Based on these studies, it is important not to assume a student's level of digital literacy based on age. Digital literacy is an area that needs to be developed as any other knowledge, skill, and aptitude. Because of that, it is important that the digital literacy gaps among higher education students be explored. As the gaps are revealed, learning experiences can be developed to help close these gaps.
Digital Literacy Gaps Among College Students
How a College Student's Epistemic Ignorance Creates Gaps in Information Literacy
Higher education is a rigorous undertaking by students who look to further their career paths and attain knowledgeable skills for better opportunities. As part of their academic careers, most students need to know the importance of attaining information literacy skills (Siddiq, Gochyyev, and Wilson, 2017). In one area, college students lack basic research information skills and have not been properly trained in how to search for reliable sources, such as academic databases, to complete projects appropriately. Before information could be attained through computers, students had to look in libraries to find resources to support their research (Docampo and Cram, 2017). However, that information can now be readily found through the Internet via reliable academic sources. Students should have access to technologies to learn and become digitally skilled in various formats to use information effectively (Harati, Rahmatizadeh, and Valizadeh-Haghi, 2018).
This leads to the topic of evaluating digital resources. With the influx of information, students do not question the authority whereby much of the information is found. For example, students can type keywords in search engines, and most often, the top results lead to Wikipedia pages (Blikstad-Balas, 2016). According to the statistics given by Bhatt and MacKenzie (2019), as many as 73% of users believe that the information they receive from search engines is "accurate" and truthful; 66% of users believed that the information found on search engines was "unbiased." For many students, this is most easily-located information and they often do not challenge what is stated. Best practices of information literacy and online database searches, whether through a search engine or library database, suggest that the user must define terms and set filters as narrow as possible to avoid contamination of results.
While Google is an easy first step, what a user finds on a news site may not be an accurate reference for an academic paper, and critical thinking skills are needed to evaluate each source. Students would rather tolerate statements or data as apropos rather than evaluate or question the source. Accordingly, if students are asked about their sources, they would rather ask the reader to research the information on their own. Therefore, students are showing a naivete towards offering opinions or proof from the information they provide (Manuel and Schunke, 2016). Technology is an integral aspect in a student's learning process, thereby providing the needed resources and space to think, practice, and process the information allows for critical thinking skills to increase and create new forms of technology (Bhatt and MacKenzie, 2019). That brings into sharp realization the need for higher education to provide students with digital literacy and information literacy skills training across disciplines. As students increasingly lack the skills required to become information literate, educators and librarians must emphasize a pedagogical technology aspect to the content being taught.
How a Lack of Confidence in Digital Problem-Solving Skills Affects Learning
Student confidence stems from what they have learned, how the concept was taught, and if the process they learned has remained consistent. The more students learn about a certain concept and practice its use, the greater the probability of retaining this knowledge and possessing confidence (Pfannkuch, Budgett, Fewster, Fitch, Pattenwise, Wild, and Ziedins, 2016). With digital literacy, it appears most students are not taught how to use digital tools but rather are expected to make use of such tools. The first aspect of a student's lack of confidence is that students are not shown how to properly utilize digital tools. In this instance, there should be no expectation for student success. In addition, the presentation of too many digital resources without proper instruction can result in cognitive overload. According to Aharony and Gazit (2019), student's exposure to differing types of online information does not increase how information is processed in the brain, therefore as they are not able to process entire units of data efficiently on their own, this reduces confidence and self-efficacy. This may create learning difficulties when students are not taught the specifics of using digital tools with understanding and responsibility. This leads to the second aspect of student's lack of confidence-comprehension of the use of certain digital tools. Most often, students are told to use a particular digital tool. Yet, if there is only an introduction as to what should be used and no clear instruction as to why it is being used, most students simply will not feel the confidence to use it and will fall back on what they feel most at ease with. According to English (2016), there are student expectations for clear and concise instructions from teachers in how to thoroughly complete assignments; if students do not receive articulated or detailed instructions, students may lose trust and disengage, therefore thorough training before each assignment should be provided This is important for educators to know as technology is becoming an important element in and out of the classroom.
The final aspect of students lack of self-confidence relies on how digital tools are accessed. Students become digitally literate in what they already know and what they already have (O'Connor, 2019). There are often expectations from educators that all projects will have the same results, but this is not always the case. Students may use outdated or the latest software depending on their own budgets. In these cases, students may not feel confident about their work based on what they have and how their professors grade the work, which may not meet the expectations based on rubrics (Howell, Rintamaa, Faulkner, and DiCicco, 2017). Again, students may use various digital tools or software to complete assignments unless there is clear instruction on what is to be used and provision of the required tools.
The Need for Learner-Centered Digital Frameworks that Address Digital Literacy Gaps
"Information literacy (IL) is a vital skill central for functioning in the twenty-first century" (Aharony and Gazit, 2019). Colleges and universities are seeing exponential growth in the utilization of technology both in the classroom and through online learning. For students to succeed in this academic environment, it is essential that learner-centered digital frameworks be established by higher education for effective implementation of digital literacy. Ferrar's (2019) framework, once redefined by the focus groups, develops the student's skill in digital literacy by centering the skills around the student as "Learner," and focusing on the student as an individual at the center of his or her own learning. The five key values that Ferrar (2019) lists as central to the framework (curiosity, reflection, equity and social justice, creativity and participation) indicate the importance of digital literacy to students and faculty in higher education. We are all digital citizens, and we all have the responsibility to be engaged learners on the Internet. The framework developed by Ferrar (2019) displayed compassion for students who have a lack of confidence in their digital skills and may need assistance with digital tools.
The first step in building a learner-centered digital framework is for incoming students to be introduced and instructed on selected technologies to help build digital literacy skills. According to Collins and Halverson (2018), with the latest technologies, educators can learn new ideas on how to formulate curriculum and help to create an engaging learning environment for teacher and student collaboration which will stimulate pedagogical objectives and increase academic achievement. According to Starkey (2019), "A framework for clarifying what is meant by student-centered education incorporating three dimensions is proposed" to empower faculty members:
(Starkey, 2019)
Faculty and staff members within higher education must recognize that each student comes from differing educational backgrounds with differing needs. Therefore, may be necessary to revise how classes are taught based on the technologies used. The second step in building a learner-centered digital framework is to incorporate librarians in advancing digital literacy skills (McDaniel, 2018). The library serves as the core academic center of higher learning. Librarians have the essential knowledge of assisting students on how to locate physical or digital resources within a library (Ismaila, 2019); they help to ensure that each student knows how to conduct thorough and proper research and make every effort to find additional resources as requested. An academic library stays well-informed to provide the essential sources, specifically when effective collaboration is established between professors and library staff for the sake of the student body. The final step in the learner-centered digital framework is to employ IT staff to work with faculty and students in providing and extending guidance to developing digital literacies. It is beneficial for IT staff to build a connection with those they serve on campus and through online learning (Adam-Turner and Burnett, 2018). This encourages and supports the academic community in general and establishing a collaborative effort to promote academic success and qualitative digital literacies.
Digital Literacy Gaps Among Faculty and Staff
How Faculty and Staff Use Digital Literacy
Faculty and staff value digital literacy and consider the effectiveness of how information is communicated (Adam-Turner and Burnett, 2018). There seems to be apprehension toward the latest technology trends, and most faculty remain reserved when it comes to digital improvements (Green, 2017, as cited in Adam-Turner, 2018) Most faculty members would rather remain consistent with what they know. This is often the case with established faculty members who still use overhead projectors, text-based PowerPoint presentations, or the enduring standard lecture (Meehan and Salmun, 2016).
Restructuring Educator's Use of Digital Literacy
To change how educator's use digital literacy, leaders in higher education must communicate the pedagogical outcomes of digital literacy to faculty members (Khlaisang and Songkram, 2019). Most educators want a mutual working relationship with campus administrators but often find that the affiliation is unsuccessful in meeting faculty members' needs. Therefore, leaders in higher education must proactively work to instill positive collaboration with faculty in building a thorough digital literacy program (Khlaisang and Songkram, 2019).
The second step is to restructure how faculty members instruct their students. Teaching in higher education should not be limited to a standard method but rather incorporate different approaches and create a collaborative learning environment for students (Nel, 2017). The final step is to provide extensive training and professional development to faculty in the restructuring program. The goal for new digital literacies is the ability to use these proficiently for the purpose of consistency and meeting student needs through engagement (Ungerer, 2016).
Pedagogy and Technology Support Digital Literacy
According to Bury (2016), "Faculty are therefore well positioned to influence the information literacy (IL) agenda in higher education." Faculty and staff are the primary role models in what they teach and in what they use to influence their students. Therefore, faculty and staff must have pedagogical flexibility (Chavoshi and Hamidi, 2019) as technology integration in the college classroom builds digital literacy (Adam-Turner and Burnett, 2018). Technology is being used by most individuals in some form and in most industries. It is pivotal that educators implement a pedagogical and technological plan within the context of their teaching. "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" (Reynolds, 2016). Consequently, digital literacy is comprehensively being required to work within the pedagogy of higher education to stimulate every student's abilities to conscientiously use DL for professional and personal development (Adam-Turner and Burnett, 2018; Collins and Halverson, 2018).
Improving Digital Literacy
K-12 Students
As digital literacy skills have gained recognition for their importance in 21st-century society, efforts to foster these skills among children have become more common. Today, many educators recognize that to avoid this practice is to disadvantage students as they progress to college and adult life. Emphasis on digital literacy in the K-12 setting has been encouraged by the United States Department of Education, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), and the American Association of School Librarians (Reynolds, 2016).
Recent research suggests that digital literacy can begin at a very young age. In one example, preschool-aged children were able to use a tablet application to learn the alphabet and principles of phonics (Yelland, 2018). This demonstrates that young children are capable of operating devices and software and using them to learn in the absence of formal teaching, important competencies of digital literacy as defined by Tang and Chaw in 2016. With this in mind, it is appropriate to employ strategies for the development of digital literacy beginning in early childhood. According to Neumann, Finger, and Neumann (2016), emergent digital literacy begins with the recognition of icons, navigation of applications and webpages, technical operation of devices, comprehension of digital terminology, hyperlink use, and the ability to store and retrieve data, all of which can be accomplished by preschool students.
Further, some have proposed that elementary school students need coding, semantic, pragmatic, and critical skills to read websites proficiently (Neumann, Finger, and Neumann, 2016). According to the same article, lack of access to resources such as electronic devices, Internet connection, software, and guidance from a knowledgeable adult can stunt the development of these skills. While the development of digital literacy among young students has clear benefits, educators have expressed concerns that the need is often neglected as digital literacy skills are not evaluated on standardized tests (Sadaf & Johnson, 2017).
Today's students are often referred to as "digital natives," as most have used digital technologies throughout their lives and are highly accustomed to them. However, it is a myth that this familiarity equates to a high degree of digital literacy. In a recent survey of seventh-grade students, most evaluated their digital literacy skills as being strong regarding six separate components of digital literacy (Porat, Blau, & Barak, 2018). However, when their skills were objectively assessed, these same students received mediocre scores, at best, on all aspects of digital literacy, with particularly poor skills in social-emotional literacy, an area in which they expressed a particularly high degree of confidence. Research has commonly demonstrated that people who are experienced in using technologies possess advanced skills regarding the technical and operational aspects of technology but may lack other aspects of digital literacy, particularly those that are cognitive and analytical (Ng, 2012; Porat, Blau, & Barak, 2018). Therefore, it is important that efforts towards improving digital literacy among students be targeted at those specific skills.
A majority of digital literacy initiatives in the K-12 environment involve older students. Reynolds (2016) attempted to cultivate digital literacy by having students in middle and high school collaborate on digital game development tasks. In that study, the researcher found that targeted activities were capable of increasing digital literacy, as students increased in their capacities to use digital tools to socialize and research and, to a greater extent, to create, manage, and publish their work. At the same time, certain disparities have been found to exist among high school students. In particular, students with intellectual disabilities are less likely than their peers to have access to technology and benefit from digital tools, a difference that carries the possibility of widening educational disparities between groups (Cihak, Wright, Smith, McMahon, & Kraiss, 2015). However, students with intellectual disabilities were highly successful in developing and maintaining digital literacy skills as a result of targeted interventions and practice (Cihak, 2015).
College Students
At the college level, differences in digital literacy become more apparent, as students at this level are expected to locate and analyze research and compose papers citing academic sources. Digital literacy has been linked to student success in the face-to-face (Petermanec & Sebjan, 2018), blended (Tang & Chaw, 2016), and online (Prior, Mazanov, Meacheam, Heaslip, & Hanson, 2016) learning environments. Differences in digital literacy may serve to widen learning disparities between students. For example, Voss (2018) found that, when students collaborated on digital projects, those with the highest degree of digital literacy took on greater responsibility and control regarding the project, improving their skills while others gained no practice in using the digital tools involved in the assignment. Similarly to the findings regarding K-12 students, digital literacy among college students is more strongly associated with academic experience and analytical skills than with technical expertise (Bulger, Mater, & Metzger, 2014). Therefore, targeted efforts are needed to improve digital literacy among college students.
Interventions to improve digital literacy have proven successful at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In one case, undergraduate students who were nearing the end of their courses of study attended a one-day workshop covering the use of their university's online library database and advanced search techniques (Weber, Hillmert, & Rott, 2018). The results of this experimental study revealed that the workshop was effective in improving students' use of academic databases, though there was no change in the relevance of the information students found to the specified topic. Importantly, students retained what they learned in the one-day workshop over an extended period. This demonstrates that short-term efforts at improving digital literacy skills among students, requiring minimal investment, can have long-term benefits. A qualitative study that also focused on digital literacy among undergraduate students had similar results. Students were given a task in which they were to use digital tools, including text, video, graphics, and audio, to tell a story (Chan, Churchill, & Chiu, 2017). After completion of the project, students demonstrated improvements in their abilities to navigate digital tools and use them to express their knowledge, attitudes, and ideas. These students also demonstrated improved engagement and motivation, taking the initiative to study and practice using digital tools independently and to a greater extent than was required, showing that students may be highly motivated to participate in digital literacy programs.
It is also important to note that digital literacy gaps may exist even amongst the most advanced students. Recognizing the need for doctoral students to understand and work with digital tools such as databases, citation management software, and content organization applications, Alfonzo and Batson (2014) performed a study in which a course on these technologies was co-taught by a faculty member and a librarian. Following the course, students self-reported drastically higher levels of skill and confidence regarding the technologies. These findings establish that digital literacy can never be assumed, regardless of one's experience with technology or academic standing. Initiatives that specifically target digital literacy skills are necessary at all levels to ensure that students can use the tools needed to be successful.
Faculty
Discussion of faculty digital literacy is scarce in the literature in comparison to coverage of the topic as it relates to students. Dozens of academic databases were searched and a variety of terms used in order to identify relevant material, including different combinations of the terms "digital literacy", "technological literacy", "technology use", "faculty", "staff", "professors", "higher education", and "college" with no date, location, or subject restrictions. These searches produced only a few relevant articles, none of which described comprehensive efforts to improve digital literacy among faculty.
Most studies which describe digital literacy among college and university faculty and staff have employed qualitative methods. Buchanan, Sainter, and Saunders (2013) found that faculty self-efficacy regarding Internet use, an important component of digital literacy, was the best predictor of regular use of educational technologies, while faculty who viewed digital technologies as minimally useful to education were least likely to incorporate them in their teaching. In a study of nursing faculty, Roney, Westrick, Acri, Aronson, & Rebeschi (2017) linked a lack of digital self-efficacy to the absence of training in technological pedagogy in the graduate-level curriculum. In a similar vein, Adam-Turner and Burnett (2018) described the role of leadership in fostering digital literacy among faculty and staff in the community college setting, emphasizing the importance of offering workshops and technical support. Finally, in interviews conducted by Bennett in 2014, early adopters of technology among the faculty of one university revealed that their motivation to incorporate digital tools hinged on the capacity of those tools to improve teaching and learning and expressed no interest in using technologies that did not possess such capacities. Taken together, the available literature to date demonstrates the importance of faculty support and education on the benefits of digital tools as part of any effort to improve faculty digital literacy.
The findings discussed in the previous paragraph are supported by an article in which efforts to improve digital literacy among faculty were identified. In that case, leaders attempted to improve digital literacy by instituting new policy which mandated the development of 38 specified technological literacies and the creation of a website offering resources and assessments in support of this goal (Newland & Handley, 2016). While there was a high level of initial faculty and staff interest in these measures, subsequent engagement failed to meet expectations, and the effort was largely unsuccessful. This suggests that the methods used, which do not match the best practices implied by the literature, may have been to blame.
Conclusion
Overview
Higher education is intent on improving its stance on digital literacy and readying students for 21st-century technology skills. With continual changes in technology, it is vital that institutions of higher education begin a restructuring process to integrate digital literacy with classroom pedagogy. The objective is to create a learner-centered framework to bridge digital literacy gaps within the context of creating a collaborative learning environment between faculty, staff, and students. Therefore, it is a matter of facilitating continual work among leaders in higher education and educators to bring digital literacy to the pedagogical forefront. Educators must be committed to change through professional development in digital literacy and imparting knowledge to students who are pursuing the goal of remaining lifelong learners.
Gaps in the Literature
In general, gaps in the literature appear among differing groups, from K-12 schools to colleges, and among faculty members at all levels. There was interest in some of the studies, but for various unstated reasons, some of the methods did not match the practices described in the literature. In another study regarding digital natives, more research was conducted only to reveal a lack of support for the initial analysis, which began almost twenty years ago. This reveals that there are constant changes in technology that can create dilemmas in establishing a solid theory about digital literacy gaps. Another study about individuals born after 1984 revealed a lack of multitasking skills based on what participants were given and asked to accomplish. Given the number of studies regarding digital literacy, the research appears inconclusive due to varying factors of age, grade level, skill and aptitude levels, types of methodologies used, and time passed between studies.
Suggestions for Future Research
The research needs to be ascertained for an extended time frame and perhaps viewed from differing campuses and diverse educational locations, either domestically or globally. Technology in and of itself is in a constant evolutionary state. Therefore, it is suggested that research be conducted continuously to make periodic determinations regarding digital literacy gaps within higher education.
References
Adam-Turner, N., & Burnett, D. D. (2018). Leadership perspectives of digital learning and digital literacy adoption at rural community colleges. Community College Enterprise, 24(2), 21-48.
Aharony, N., & Gazit, T. (2019). Factors affecting students' information literacy self-efficacy. Library Hi Tech, 37(2), 183-196. doi:10.1108/LHT-10-2018-0154
Barnett, L. (2012, March 14). Death of a salesman: no more door-to-door Britannica. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2012/mar/14/britannica-death-salesmen-door
Bennett, L. (2014). Learning from the early adopters: Developing the digital practitioner. Research in Learning Technology, 22, 1-13. doi:10.3402/rlt.v22.21453
Bhatt, I. & MacKenzie, A. (2019) Just Google it! Digital literacy and the epistemology of ignorance. Teaching in Higher Education, 24:3, 302-317, doi: 10.1080/13562517.2018.1547276
Blikstad-Balas, M. (2016). "You get what you need": A study of students' attitudes towards using Wikipedia when doing school assignments. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60(6), 594-608. doi:10.1080/00313831.2015.1066428
Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(1), 1-11. doi:10.1007/s12528-013-9066-6
Bulger, M. E., Mayer, R. E., & Metzger, M. J. (2014). Knowledge and processes that predict proficiency in digital literacy. Reading and Writing, 27(9), 1567-1583. doi:10.1007/s11145-014-9507-2
Bury, S. (2016). Learning from faculty voices on information literacy. Reference Services Review, 44(3), 237-252. doi:https://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1108/RSR-11-2015-0047
Chan, B. S. K., Churchill, D., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2017). Digital literacy learning in higher education through digital storytelling approach. Journal of International Education Research (JIER), 13(1), 1-16. doi:10.19030/jier.v13i1.9907
Chavoshi, A., & Hamidi, H. (2019). Social, individual, technological and pedagogical factors influencing mobile learning acceptance in higher education: A case from Iran. Telematics and Informatics, 38, 133-165. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2018.09.007
Cihak, D. F., Wright, R., Smith, C. C., McMahon, D., & Kraiss, K. (2015). Incorporating functional digital literacy skills as part of the curriculum for high school students with intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50(2), 155-171.
Docampo, D., & Cram, L. (2017). Academic performance and institutional resources: A cross-country analysis of research universities. Scientometrics, 110(2), 739-764. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2189-6
Feerrar, J. (2019). Development of a Framework for Digital Literacy. Emerald Insight, 91-105.
Harati, A., Rahmatizadeh, S., & Valizadeh-Haghi, S. (2018). Allied medical sciences students' experiences with technology: are they digitally literate? Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from https://link-galegroup-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/A580773840/AONE?u=vic_liberty&sid=AONE&xid=edeff577
Howell, P. B., Rintamaa, M., Faulkner, S., & DiCicco, M. (2017). Four professors, three universities, two modes of technology, and one eighth grade classroom: Collaboration in middle level teacher education. Middle School Journal, 48(5), 14-20. doi:10.1080/00940771.2017.1368315
Ismaila, Y. A. (2019). Information literacy skills on the use of electronic resources by undergraduates students of University of Ilorin and Kwara State University, Malete, Kwara State, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1-21.
Jisc. (2019). Building digital capabilities: The six elements defined. Retrieved from Jisc: https://repository. jisc.ac.uk/6611/1/JFL0066F_DIGIGAP_MOD_IND_FRAME.PDF
Khlaisang, J., & Songkram, N. (2019). Designing a virtual learning environment system for teaching twenty-first century skills to higher education students in ASEAN. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 24(1), 41-63.doi:10.1007/s10758-017-9310-7
Kirschner, P., & Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myth of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 135-142.
Lai, K., & Hong, K. (2015). Technology use and learning characteristics of students in higher education: Do generational differences exist? British Journal of Educational Technology, 725-738.
Manuel, J. T., & P. Schunke, M. (2016). Meeting students where they are online, but leading them somewhere more interesting: Reflections on teaching the facebook class. College Teaching, 64(3), 112-118. doi:10.1080/87567555.2015.1099094
McDaniel, S. (2018). Library roles in advancing graduate peer-tutor agency and integrated academic literacies. Reference Services Review, 46(2), 272-293. doi:10.1108/RSR-02-2018-0017
Meehan, K., & Salmun, H. (2016). Integrating technology in today's undergraduate classrooms: A look at students' perspectives. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(1), 39-47. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24892411
Nel, L. (2017). Students as collaborators in creating meaningful learning experiences in technology‐enhanced classrooms: An engaged scholarship approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(5), 1131-1142. doi:10.1111/bjet.12549
Neumann, M. M., Finger, G., & Neumann, D. L. (2017). A conceptual framework for emergent digital literacy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(4), 471-479. doi:10.1007/s10643-016-0792-z
Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065-1078. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016
O'Connor, M. L. C. (2019). Now serving: An appealing menu of digital literacy tools & resources. Knowledge Quest, 47(5), 16+. Retrieved from https://link-galegroup-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/A586601391/AONE?u=vic_liberty&sid=AONE&xid=2ea45e16
Petermanec, Z., & Sebjan, U. (2018). The impact of components of information literacy on student success in higher education 1. Knjiznica, 62(1/2), 151-168.
Pfannkuch, M., Budgett, S., Fewster, R., Fitch, M., Pattenwise, S., Wild, C., & Ziedins, I. (2016). Probability modeling and thinking: What can we learn from practice? Statistics Education Research Journal, 15(2), 11.
Porat, E., Blau, I., & Barak, A. (2018). Measuring digital literacies: Junior high-school students' perceived competencies versus actual performance. Computers & Education, 126, 23-36. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.030
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 1. On the Horizon, 1-6.
Prior, D. D., Mazanov, J., Meacheam, D., Heaslip, G., & Hanson, J. (2016). Attitude, digital literacy, and self efficacy: Flow-on effects for online learning behavior. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 91-97. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.01.001
Quan-Haase, A., Williams, C., Kicevski, M., Elueze, I., & Wellman, B. (2018). Dividing the grey divide: Deconstructing myths about older adults' online activities, skills, and attitudes. American Behavioral Scientist, 1207-1228.
Reynolds, R. (2016). Defining, designing for, and measuring "social constructivist digital literacy" development in learners: A proposed framework. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 64(4), 735-762. doi:https://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1007/s11423-015-9423-4
Roney, L. N., Westrick, S. J., Acri, M. C., Aronson, B. S., & Rebeschi, L. M. (2017). Technology use and technological self-efficacy among undergraduate nursing faculty. Nursing Education Perspectives, 38(3), 113-118. doi:10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000141
Sadaf, A., & Johnson, B. L. (2017). Teachers' beliefs about integrating digital literacy into classroom practice: An investigation based on the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33(4), 129-137. doi:10.1080/21532974.2017.1347534
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Higher Education Reports. Retrieved from Babson Survey Research Group: https://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/highered.html
Siddiq, F., Gochyyev, P., & Wilson, M. (2017). Learning in digital networks - ICT literacy: A novel assessment of students' 21st century skills. Computers & Education, 109, 11-37. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.014Somerville, M. M., & Collins, L. (2008). Collaborative design: A learner-centered library planning approach. The Electronic Library, 26(6), 803-820. doi:10.1108/02640470810921592
Starkey, L. (2019). Three dimensions of student-centered education: A framework for policy and practice. Critical Studies in Education, 60(3), 375-390. doi:10.1080/17508487.2017.1281829
Tang, C. M., & Chaw, L. Y. (2016). Digital literacy: A prerequisite for effective learning in a blended learning environment? Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 14(1), 54.
Thelin, J. R. (2017). American Higher Education. New York: Routledge.
Ungerer, L. M. (2016). Digital curation as a core competency in current learning and literacy: A higher education perspective. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5) doi:10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2566
Virginia Tech. (2019). Virginia Tech. Retrieved from Digital Literacy: https://lib.vt.edu/research-learning/digital-literacy.html
Voss, J. (2018). Who learns from collaborative digital projects? Cultivating critical consciousness and metacognition to democratize digital literacy learning. Composition Studies, 46(1), 57-194.
Weber, H., Hillmert, S., & Rott, K. J. (2018). Can digital information literacy among undergraduates be improved? Evidence from an experimental study. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(8), 909-926. doi:10.1080/13562517.2018.1449740
Yelland, N. J. (2018). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Young children and multimodal learning with tablets. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 847-858. doi:10.1111/bjet.12635