Exploring pre-service teachersʼ and comprehensive school pupilsʼ understandings of literacies in digital environments

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Exploring pre-service teachersʼ and comprehensive school pupilsʼ understandings of literacies in digital environments © 2023 Author(s). Published version Hankala, Mari; Kankaanranta, Marja; Rousi, Rebekah; Mehtälä, Saana; Merjovaara, Olli Hankala, M., Kankaanranta, M., Rousi, R., Mehtälä, S., & Merjovaara, O. (2023). Exploring preservice teachersʼ and comprehensive school pupilsʼ understandings of literacies in digital environments. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 18(3), 158-172. https://doi.org/10.18261/njdl.18.3.3 2023 Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy article Fagfellevurdert Researchpublication Exploring pre-service teachers’ and comprehensiveschoolpupils’ understandings ofliteraciesin digital environments Mari Hankala Lecturer, Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä [email protected] Marja Kankaanranta Senior researcher, Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä Rebekah Rousi Associate Professor, School of Marketing and Communication, University of Vaasa Saana Mehtälä Postdoctoral researcher, Faculty of Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä Olli Merjovaara University teacher, Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä Abstract This study focuses on Finnish pre-service teachers’ and comprehensive school pupils’ understandings of literacies in digital environments. The study included 181 participants: 38 pre-service teachers, 79 primary school (PS) pupils and 64 lower secondary school (LS) pupils. The pre-service teachers created concept maps and written descriptions that portrayed their understanding ofreading literacy, digital literacyand multiliteracy. The pupils were asked towrite down what kinds of literacies they need in digital environments. The results indicate that the pre-service teachers mainly understood the many modalities of literacies. However, they emphasised reading literacy as the fundamental basis of other literacies. Similarly, the PS pupils perceived the many modalities of literacies, especially emphasising their visual elements. Instead of noticing the diversity of texts, LS pupils highlighted critical attitude and language skills. Keywords Pre-service teacher, comprehensive school pupil, digital environment, reading literacy, digital literacy, multiliteracy Introduction In modern society, digital environments have become a major part of people’s lives, and a considerable amount of research has been published on the literacies needed to manage these environments. These literacies have been defined by many scholars and referred to in various ways, for example, digital literacy, digital competence, multiliteracies, media literacy and twenty-first-century skills (eg. van Laar et al., 2017; Martínez-Bravo et al., 2020). Studies have examined the use of digital devices and environments, particularly among children and adolescents (e.g., Smahel et al., 2020), and in educational contexts, literacies have been examined in international comparative studies (e.g., Fraillon et al., 2020). Despite wide, multifaceted prior research, little is known about individual understandings of the literacies required in digital realms (Kulju et al., 2020; List et al., 2020). Copyright © 2023 Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Volume 18, No. 3-2023, p. 158–172 ISSN online: 1891-943X DOI: https://doi.org/10.18261/njdl.18.3.3RESEARCH PUBLICATION The aim of the current paper is to study Finnish pre-service teachers’ and comprehensive schoolpupils’understandingsoftherequiredliteracies.Theresearch questionsareasfollows: 1) how do pre-service teachers understand the notions of reading literacy, digital literacy and multiliteracy as well as the relations between these concepts? and 2) How do comprehensive school pupils understand the literacies they need in digital environments? It is important to study pre-service teachers’ conceptions of literacies because previous research has shown that teachers’ personal qualities, such as conceptions, attitudes and beliefs about teaching and learning, can impact their classroom practices (e.g., Pajares, 1992). Studies of digital technology in education have extended these observations, showing that teachers’ qualities play a significant role in the integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) into teaching (e.g., Bingimlas, 2009). Moreover, although the importance of digital environments is widely recognised, teachers are not necessarily aware of pupils’ daily environments and do not utilise them in their teaching practices (Kulju et al., 2020). It is necessary to support pupils’ literacy learning; thus, it is important to identify any gaps and strengths concerning their literacies. Last, the present study showcases youths’ voices, which have been underrepresented in this research field (e.g., Gillett-Swan & Sargeant, 2018). Literacies in digital environments Previous literature (e.g., Leu et al., 2013) has stressed the overlapping nature of the various types of literacies and their scholarly conceptual understandings. In this section, we attempt to briefly define the interwoven key concepts of the current study: literacy, digital literacy and multiliteracy. Literacy has already been defined through UNESCO’s (2006) four theoretical understandings: 1) as skills, with an emphasis on the cognitive skills involved in reading and writing; 2) as an applied, practiced and situated approach to literacy; 3) as a process of learning; and 4) as a text, for example, genres, subject areas and even representations of ideological content. In the current study, we utilised the concept of reading literacy to observe how the pre-service teachers conceptualised reading literacy alongside digital literacy and multiliteracy. Digital literacy has been divided into three main categories (List, 2019). The first is digital literacy as an automatic process that reflects the idea of digital natives (Prensky, 2001), in which literacy is acquired while being exposed to digital environments as one is growing from childhood into adulthood. The second category views digital literacy as a set of skills, which is a common way to structure the concept, and refers to various frameworks and taxonomies. For example, Ng (2012) defines digital literacy through cognitive, technical and social-emotional dimensions. Third, sociocultural perspectives on digital literacy (e.g., Lankshear & Knobel, 2006) stress literacy as an intentional and situated social practice that is learned in social online communities that are meaningful to their participants. List (2019) states that this perspective is the opposite of the digital native perspective, yet it deepens the skill perspective by offering a context in which the skills can be practiced. In their metaanalysis of digital literacy constructs, Martínez-Bravo et al. (2020) discover that the concept is related to the skills and competences of technology use but also to teaching, learning and related strategies. In addition to previous definitions, it is essential to note that digital literacy is now the basis for being able to operate as an active citizen, that is, to engage in civic and political activities online (Kahne et al., 2012). Multiliteracies, which are closely connected to digital literacy (Martínez-Bravo et al., 2020), is a key concept representing the literacies fostered in the Finnish National Core 159NORDIC JOURNAL OF DIGITAL LITERACY | VOLUME 18 | No. 3-2023 Curriculum for Basic Education (FNCCBE; NBoE, 2014). Multiliteracy (in the singular form) is defined as follows: the competence to interpret, produce and make a value judgement across a variety of different texts, which will help the pupils to understand the different modes of cultural communication and to build their personal identity. Multiliteracy is based on the broad definition of text. In this context, text refers to knowledge presented by systems of verbal, visual, auditive, numeric and kinaesthetic symbols and their combinations. (NBoE, 2014, pp. 22–23) In the Finnish context, multiliteracy differs somewhat from the original concept (New London Group [NLG], 1996), which introduces the multimodal and multicultural aspects of multiliteracies. In the FNCCBE definition, multimodality is accentuated, but multicultural diversity is mentioned only briefly. The relationship between the Finnish concept of multiliteracy and the international literacies debate is problematic, and there has not been an attempt to bring the original concept into Finnish pedagogy. However, the term is compact, novel and relatively neutral in the Finnish context (Mertala, 2018). Linguistic issues add to the challenges of conceptualising literacy. In the Finnish language, a direct translation of ‘literacy’ does not exist; instead, ‘reading and writing’ are commonly used together or individually. Moreover, the Finnish term ‘lukutaito’ (‘luku’ meaning ‘reading’; ‘taito’ meaning ‘a skill’) in the singular form means ‘reading literacy’, but ‘lukutaidot’, its plural form, is a wider concept that refers to different types of reading/interpreting and writing/producing skills. However, the FNCCBE utilises the singular form of the concept of multiliteracy (‘monilukutaito’), even though it includes both the interpretative and productive side of the concept. According to Mertala (2018), these widely discussed linguistic challenges affect all the purposes for which literacy concepts are translated and used in the Finnish language. Previous research concerning the understanding of digital literacies Recent research on pre-service teachers’ and pupils’ understandings of literacies in digital environments is scarce. For example, List et al. (2020) state that pre-service teachers’ conceptions concerning digital literacy have not been extensively studied. Instead, earlier studies have focused on their attitudes towards technology adoption, beliefs regarding their own digital literacy skills and level of professional competence that will be needed in future work. For example, List (2019) states that, in their beliefs, pre-service teachers comprehended digital literacy as mostly skill-based by nature. More attention was placed on technology skills than cognitive skills, such as criticism of sources, the digital native perspective was quite prominent, and socio-emotional aspects (e.g., communication) were almost completely missing. Similarly, in those studies on pre-service teachers’ concepts of digital literacy, both List et al. (2020) and Nabhan (2021) show that understandings of digital literacy are often narrow and superficial, and digital literacy is seen as the fluent use of technology, instead of being comprehended on a more sophisticated level, for which critical reasoning is needed. Regarding multiliteracy, previous research has focused mainly on projects implemented in classrooms and on classroom pedagogy, not on teachers’ conceptualisations per se (Kulju et al., 2018; Kulju et al., 2020). However, there are some studies about teachers’ (Hankala et al., 2022) andexperts’ (Matveinen et al.,2021) conceptionsofmultiliteracy.Accordingly,children’s and adolescents’ conceptions of digital literacy and multiliteracy have still not been directly studied; instead, their interpretations of the internet and computers have gained more research interest (e.g., Eskelä-Haapanen & Kiili, 2019; Wennås Brante & Walldén, 2021). 160 MARI HANKALA, MARJA KANKAANRANTA, REBEKAH ROUSI, SAANA MEHTÄLÄ AND OLLI MERJOVAARA Methods This section is structured according to the research questions. The first addresses pre-service teachers’ understandings of the notions of reading literacy, digital literacy and multiliteracy and the relations between these concepts as presented in concept maps. The second question focuses on pupils’ written explanations of their understanding of the literacies they need in digital environments. This study was implemented during 2017−2019 as part of a research project exploring digital literacy in the context of mental well-being. Pre-service teachers’ concept maps (RQ1) The research data consist of 38 concept maps and complementary descriptions created by pre-service teachers who were going to teach at the primary school level (grades 1 to 6). These first and second-year students participated in a multidisciplinary course combining health education and mother tongue and literature. The course, which was a compulsory part of their Master of Education degree programme, focused on enhancing their digital literacy skills, allowing them to guide pupils in digital environments concerning mental well-being. The concept maps were created individually and by hand during the course’s first meeting. The pre-service teachers were asked to create a concept map about the definitions of literacy concepts ‘lukutaito’ (‘reading literacy’), ‘monilukutaito’ (‘multiliteracy’) and ‘digitaalinen lukutaito’ (‘digital literacy’) and the relations between these concepts. They were also asked to write a few sentences of complementary description about the main points of their maps. We then conducted a qualitative data-driven content analysis that included quantification (Schreier, 2012) to analyse the concept maps from two perspectives: the relations between the three literacy concepts and the expressions associated with literacies. Relations between literacy concepts: two authors studied the 38 maps and 33 complementary descriptions separately, after which they compared their results, which were similar, for the triangulation of the data. Both authors analysed the concept maps by placing the maps and their associated descriptions side by side. They considered which concepts from each map were labelled as the main concept, sub-concept or parallel concept, and then compared the maps with the complementary descriptions. Generally, the authors’ interpretations of the maps were in line with the complementary descriptions. In cases in which a map could be understood in multiple ways, the description written by the pre-service teacher guided the researchers’ interpretation. Five students’ descriptions were missing; hence, only their concept maps were analysed. Expressions associated with literacies: The expressions mentioned in the concept maps were listed and then classified into categories. An expression typically consisted of one word (‘pictures’) or of a meaning-carrying compound of a few words (‘the ability to read different kinds of text types’), although in some cases there were complete sentences. Each expression was examined in relation to what literacy or literacies it referred to. Quite often, one expression was related to more than one literacy. Thus, a single expression may have been counted one, two or three times, depending on the situation. This resulted in the total number of expressions (761) being higher than the actual number of expressions that were mentioned. Pupils’ written answers to literacies (RQ2) The data consist of 85 written answers created by 143 comprehensive school pupils from four schools: 21 group answers from 79 primary school (PS) pupils (ages 9–10, grades 3 and 4) and 64 individual answers from lower secondary (LS) school pupils (ages 13–15, grades 7–9). 161NORDIC JOURNAL OF DIGITAL LITERACY | VOLUME 18 | No. 3-2023 PS and LS pupils participated in three workshops in which they designed digital environment scenarios for the promotion of mental well-being. The workshops were co-organised by the authors and teachers as part of the schools’ general curriculum. To ground the scenarios, in the first workshop (1.5 h), the pupils were asked to write down their thoughts on the literacies (‘lukutaidot’ − plural form) that they felt they needed in digital environments. In cases where this question was too difficult, the assignment included an additional question: ‘what skills do you need while using different digital environments, for example websites or applications?’ The pupils answered bycreating written presentations with Book Creator (PS) and Google Slides (LS), and the data were subsequently analysed using data-driven content analysis (Schrier, 2012). The responses were presented as the number of mentions, which were usually single words (‘writing’) or short sentences (‘You need to know how to behave’). In the current study, the data collection method varied between groups. Thus, the authors could only examine indicative explorations of the similarities and differences. The pre-service teachers were assumed to have a more complex understandings of literacies than the school pupils, and for this reason, their assignment required them to engage with a more conceptual level that the pupils. PS pupils were allowed to answer in groups of three to five because earlier studies (e.g., Eskelä-Haapanen & Kiili, 2019) have shown that, in interviews, children’s answers might remain scarce. The LS pupils were considered capable of producing answers individually. Regarding the ethics of the study, the pre-service teachers gave their consent to participate in digital form. As the comprehensive school pupils were minors, and the project topic as a whole addressed mental well-being, the research group applied for an ethics clearance that was approved by the university’s Ethics Committee. In addition, the pupils themselves and their parents gave their consent for the children to participate. Results Pre-service teachers’ understanding of literacies in digital environments (RQ1) Relationsbetween literacy concepts The pre-service teachers perceived the relations between literacy concepts in three ways via 38 concept maps: 25 maps represented reading literacy as the main concept, and correspondingly, multiliteracy was the main concept of eight maps. In the five remaining maps, all literacies were understood as equal. On maps where reading literacy or multiliteracy were the main concepts, the sub-concepts were usually parallel. In the 25 maps in which reading literacy was placed as the central concept, there were two kinds of perspectives: 1) reading literacy above other literacies and 2) reading literacy as a basis or enabler of the other literacies. Altogether, 15 pre-service teachers set reading literacy above other literacies as a main concept, including digital literacy and multiliteracy as its sub-concepts, as presented in Figure 1 (accompanied by pre-service teachers’ complementary descriptions). 162 MARI HANKALA, MARJA KANKAANRANTA, REBEKAH ROUSI, SAANA MEHTÄLÄ AND OLLI MERJOVAARA In my opinion, reading literacy is a main concept that encompasses smaller entities, such as multiliteracy and digital literacy. Mere reading literacy is no longer enough now because anyone is capable of writing and publishing anything they want. Thus, the importance of these different types of literacies and a critical attitude is constantly being emphasised. Figure 1Concept map and complementary description In 10 concept maps, reading literacy was understood as a solid basis for other literacies. In many of the complementary descriptions, digital literacy and multiliteracy were presented as concepts that can be built on top of reading literacy or as an extension of it (Figure 2). 163NORDIC JOURNAL OF DIGITAL LITERACY | VOLUME 18 | No. 3-2023 Reading literacy is the basic skill of life, and when you have learned it, it is possible to also learn multiliteracy and digital literacy. These skills will be given more attention and practiced in primary school because they are a part of the curriculum. Figure 2Concept map and complementary description For eight pre-service teachers, multiliteracy was the main concept under which other literacies were situated (Figure 3). 164 MARI HANKALA, MARJA KANKAANRANTA, REBEKAH ROUSI, SAANA MEHTÄLÄ AND OLLI MERJOVAARA I thought that multiliteracy would consist of reading literacy and digital literacy. Multiliteracy is the ability to search for information in a diverse way from a range of environments, as well as the ability to review existing information critically. Figure 3Concept map and complementary description In five pre-service teachers’ concept maps, all literacies were closely linked or were placed in equal relationships with one another (Figure 4). Reading literacy, multiliteracy and digital literacy are all connected. They all require reading comprehension. Multiliteracy consists of interpreting and producing text, in addition to technical reading. Texts include, in addition to written language, images, videos and notes. To the concept of digital literacy, I associate media and, through it, a critical attitude towards media. Figure 4Concept map and complementary description 165NORDIC JOURNAL OF DIGITAL LITERACY | VOLUME 18 | No. 3-2023 NBoE (National Board of Education) (2014). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. National Board of Education. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u Ng, W. (2012). Canwe teachdigital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.01 Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816 Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage Publications. Smahel, D., Machackova, H., Mascheroni, G., Dedkova, L., Staksrud, E., Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S., & Hasebrink, U. (2020). EU Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries. EU Kids Online. http://doi.org/10.21953/lse.47fdeqj01ofo UNESCO (2006). Education for all: Literacy for life. EFA global monitoring report. https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2006/literacy-life Wennås Brante, E., & Walldén, R. (2021). “Internet? That’s an app you can download”. First-graders use linguistic resources to describe internet and digital information. Education Inquiry,14(1), 1– 21. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2021.1950273 172 MARI HANKALA, MARJA KANKAANRANTA, REBEKAH ROUSI, SAANA MEHTÄLÄ AND OLLI MERJOVAARA