This document summarizes a study analyzing high school students' discussions around online research tasks. Researchers recorded student groups researching challenging questions about art and climate change. They categorized discourse segments based on evidence of critical digital literacy, ranging from naive to thoughtfully critical. For art, most groups recognized subjectivity, though some initially searched for "objective" metrics. For climate change, some focused on advocacy over tangible solutions, but others considered actual planetary impacts. Overall, the study aims to better define critical digital literacy and identify it in student discussions.
1. Symposium:
(Re-)Defining Critical Digital Literacy and Capturing It in Real Time
Wed, November 29, 1:15 to 2:45pm, Hilton Atlanta, Room 224
(Re-)Defining Critical Digital Literacy and capturing it in real time:
a high-school discourse analysis
Colin Harrison and Chloë Patterson University of Nottingham, UK
4. Seven triads (navigator, evaluator, manager)
of 9th Grade students (mean age 15.6)
recorded two 20-minute Internet searches,
and researched two challenging questions
chosen by their teachers:
Humanities:
‘Who is the most talented artist ever to
have existed?’
Science:
‘Who has had the most impact on
attempting to prevent climate change?’
Can we see evidence of critical digital literacy in action?
5. As in our earlier study of students aged 10-15 (2023), a grounded theory analysis of
Critical Digital Literacy was developed.
The open coding identified discourse segments related to
- discussion of search terms (what search terms should we use, and why?)
- navigation (where to click next, and why?)
- reliability of data/site (where is confirmation of our search results?)
- trustworthiness of data/site (why should we trust these results?)
After axial coding, the discourse segments clustered into four groups, which were on a
rough continuum from naïve to thoughtfully critical:
1. Ingenuous (naïve, unquestioning; eg point/click, selecting the first site offered)
2. Multimodal (recognizing the need for information from additional
sources/confirmatory information; eg fresh search terms/rechecking earlier results)
3. Circumspect (showing caution about a site or source; eg caution over invited links)
4. Ambivalent (polyvalent; showing critical awareness of 'truth', judging ideology,
remaining doubtful when faced with conflicting results)
6. Is this evidence of critical digital literacy in action?
1. Ingenuous (naïve, unquestioning, point/click, selecting the first site offered)
Elementary school:
Hannah: This is a horoscope, but I do trust it…it's probably true.
High school:
Jeffrey: It's asking me to accept cookies, so I usually go 'Accept all'.
Charlie: When you do a search, it's usually good to look at the top ones first- if it comes up first that means it's usually
reliable to get information off… it's like Google is singling it out, that's one you need to look at.
7. Is this evidence of critical digital literacy in action?
2. Multimodal (recognizing the need for additional/confirmatory information/fresh search terms/rechecking earlier site)
Elementary school:
Megan: Let's look at another [website] and see if we get different answers.
Ben: Let's just double check, and look at the last two [sites] again.
Amie: I think we should go back [to the previous site] to check.
Bernadette: Are there any other words we can use for this [search]?
High school:
Jessica: I would click on quite a few links to see if they match up, to be sure about it.
8. Is this evidence of critical digital literacy in action?
3. Circumspect (showing caution about a site or source; caution over invited links)
Elementary school:
Maddison: Sometimes you can't trust Wikipedia- anyone can go on there and change words.
Maddison: Can we trust this? It's too informal.
Antonio: Then there's these adverts…. I definitely don't trust this…. And they're asking me to 'like' them on Facebook….
High school:
Jeffrey: Wikipedia isn't a reliable website- 'cos people can change it.
Zara: I find it quite irritating if there's a pop-up straight away, and they ask you to click on a different link.
Alexander: I wouldn't click in the first link that comes up (on Google) You need to look at the little bit underneath. That
might tell you what you really want to know. I would scroll down first.
9. Is this evidence of critical digital literacy in action?
4. Ambivalent(polyvalent; showing critical awareness of the uncertainty of 'truth’, considering intentionality/ideology of
content)
Sarah: Which of these two [sites] could be truer?
Jessica: I don't know whether to trust it, because it's using all scientific words, but you don't know whether it's all true.
Chlöe: They're both relevant, but I don't know whether they're true.
Hildergard: It's talking about star signs…Aren't they basically superstitions? It's like religion. Can we trust it? No.
10. Is this evidence of critical digital literacy in action?
Problems with our earlier study:
• A problematic and woolly definition of Critical Digital Literacy
• Problematic set of sub-scale headings (particularly
‘Ingenuous’ and ‘Ambivalent’)
• We claim to be offering two perspectives on critical digital
literacy: psychological (following Coiro, Leu, Kiili, Dalton, etc.),
but what happened to the critical pedagogy and ideological
perspectives? (Friere, Bakhtin, Polizzi, Gee… and Keats’s
‘negative capability’: ‘… that is, when a man is capable of
being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable
reaching after fact and reason.’)
11. Is this evidence of critical digital literacy in action?
Discourse segment classifications (with an example)
Naïve: “If it comes up first that means it's usually reliable to get information off… it's like
Google is singling it out.”
Multimodal: “Let's look at another [website] and see if we get different answers.”
Circumspect: “I wouldn't click in the first link that comes up [on Google) You need to look at
the little bit underneath.”
Dialogic [phrase-level]: “They're both relevant, but I don't know whether they're true.”
“I don't trust ANY website!”
Sustained Dialogic: [n ≥ 2] Evidence of collaborative argumentation (as in Neil Mercer’s
Thinking Together project); collaborative questioning of ideology (as in Bakhtin
(1929/1984):’Truth is not born nor is it to be found inside the head of an individual person, it
is born between people collectively searching for truth, in the process of their dialogic
interaction’. For Bakhtin, truth is ‘unfinalizble’)
12. Is this evidence of critical digital literacy in action?
Humanities research question: ‘Who is the most talented artist ever to have existed?’
1 Pepe (in Group A) began by saying ‘How do you measure talent?’, and Lily replied ‘You can’t’,
and a few seconds later, when Pepe said ‘Would you say that having more attributes makes you
more talented, or is it being better at one thing?’, Marianne was instantly cautious: ‘It's completely
subjective. Art is subjective.’ [Dialogic]
2 Pepe: You research the exact question and it tells you an answer, but it's still not the right
answer. It could be a different answer.
Lily: (contrasting this search with their previous research question on preventing climate change)
Climate change- the effects can be more, like, quantified, but art is a lot more subjective, so you
can't get a real answer from anywhere.
Lily: If you look at multiple sites, you're more likely to get…
Pepe: (Interrupts) You could look at the average, but there's a lot of fake news out there saying the
same thing. [Dialogic]
13. Humanities research question: ‘Who is the most talented artist ever to have existed?’
3 Group C followed a similar pattern:
Nick: So, how do you think we should go about answering this question?
John: What makes an artist talented?
Finn: … because it's very subjective. We could look at other people's opinions, in chats and stuff… then we
could see the bigger picture and recognise some trends. [Circumspect? Dialogic?]
4 Nick: Surely there is no way to argue who has the most talent if we’re not looking at, physical – like
numbers.
Finn: I think that if were to bring it to a conclusion right now, we would have to say something like ‘Art is very
… There are so many different types of art, and it’s just...’
Nick: … no way can we define how talent can be defined. [Dialogic]
5. Searching for numerical data: In Group E, Neave suggested, ‘'Let's look at 'most expensive painting’”, and
Dave followed a similar approach, ‘How much money did Leonardo da Vinci make?’. [Naïve?] At the end of
their search, however, Amelia brought the group back to earth: ‘You can never really tell, because 'talent' is
based on opinion.’ [Circumspect? Dialogic?]
Is this evidence of critical digital literacy in action?
14. Science research question: ‘Who has had the most impact on attempting to prevent climate change?’
6 Group G- an eclectic approach:
Sophie: ‘Click on any site that seems reliable’ [Circumspect]
[They find a site called 'The Apolitical Foundation'] Yolanda: It looks real.
Sophie: ...Trustworthy, yeah.
Jenny: I don't trust ANY website! [the others laugh, then read on in silence] [Circumspect? Dialogic?]
7 Group A- Maeve persuades the group to value direct effect on the planet, rather than on public opinion:
Initially Pablo says (00.11) ‘Right, so, what are we going to do first?’, and Maeve replies ‘We can find out, who,
like, the main figures are, and we can see who you think is the bigger one.’ Diego immediately equates
‘impact’ with financial impact: ‘Who’s made the biggest donation? Jeff Bezos has donated about 10 million….’
[Naïve?]
The group then spend two minutes looking for data on philanthropic donations. But Maeve has a more
tangible notion of impact (02.16) ‘I don't think we should base it on donations, I think we should base it on
people who find different ways of doing things...’ and she then says why she holds this view (02.25), ‘cos
they're donating because they're rich. It's the least they could do.’ This leads Pablo to change direction, and to
search for ‘What inventions have prevented climate change?’
Pablo considers the inventions that this web search throws up, and makes a suggestion (02.50):
Pablo: We’ve got the ocean clean-up...
Maeve: We could look at who’s behind each of those. [Sustained Dialogic?]
Is this evidence of critical digital literacy in action?
15. Science research question: ‘Who has had the most impact on attempting to prevent climate change?’
8. Group A (continued)
Maeve (12.37): When we first looked, it mentioned Greta Thunberg and David Attenborough. We could see
what they've actually done. They're more famous for their speeches than their work, so it might be interesting
to see what they've actually done… I don't think Leonardo DiCaprio's done much actual campaigning….
Diego: David Attenborough is more focused on animals…. Seems like he's more speech related... Greta
Thunberg brought more than 100 scientists and writers together…
Maeve: I think that's quite influential.
Diego- NPR- shall we just check the web site [on Greta Thunberg]? Looks pretty decent…. News, podcasts…
looks pretty decent...age fifteen... school strikes…
Pablo- but was that doing anything to stop it? [climate change]
[The teacher asks if they’ve reached a conclusion]
Maeve: We think the answer is that Boyen Slat did the most, because unlike Greta Thunberg and David
Attenborough and Leonardo DiCaprio, he set up a foundation that collected quite a lot of litter from the ocean,
we think that the actual change in, like, helping the climate is more important than just spreading awareness.
[Sustained Dialogic]
Is this evidence of critical digital literacy in action?
16. Science research question: ‘Who has had the most impact on attempting to prevent climate change?’
9 Group F’s discussion (4-person group) of the Science research task:
Juan (00.44): ‘So how are we actually going to go about deciding who has the most influence?’ But he then, before the
others have a chance to respond, he continues ‘...based on maybe how much money they've put in?’. [Naïve?]
John (01.50) ‘Try and look for questions that are going to have an answer- like a simple answer.’ [Naïve?]
But later, a more polyvalent approach emerges:
Juan (02.50) ‘You could look at Wikipedia, though it's not necessarily a trustable source.' John, as evaluator, continues
a cautious approach, with focus on reliability: ‘That looks- "United Nations Environment Programme" [web site]- that
looks pretty reliable…’ [Circumspect]
Then, as with Group A, they start to consider the relative merits of actions that actually impact the planet (‘traction-
wise’) versus famous advocates who might influence opinion:
Finn (03.30): ‘So when we're looking at this are we looking at more… traction-wise… than how famous they are, and
what influence they have on the climate?’.
Juan (04:45): ‘You could ask "Who is considered to be the….” because we're not going to find out “Who has had the
most …” because that's quite…’. The research question is: ‘Who has had the most impact on attempting to prevent
climate change?’, and Juan’s answer is ‘... we're not going to find out.’
Finally, they nominate Greta Thunberg; as Nick puts it (06.20): ‘She’s encouraging school children in schools to go on
strike, because they're the ones that climate change is going to effect the most.’ [Sustained Dialogic]
Is this evidence of critical digital literacy in action?
17. Science research question: ‘Who has had the most impact on attempting to prevent climate change?’
9 Group F’s discussion (4-person group) of the Science research task:
Juan (00.44): ‘So how are we actually going to go about deciding who has the most influence?’ But he then, before the
others have a chance to respond, he continues ‘...based on maybe how much money they've put in?’. [Naïve?]
John (01.50) ‘Try and look for questions that are going to have an answer- like a simple answer.’ [Naïve?]
But later, a more polyvalent approach emerges:
Juan (02.50) ‘You could look at Wikipedia, though it's not necessarily a trustable source.' John, as evaluator, continues
a cautious approach, with focus on reliability: ‘That looks- "United Nations Environment Programme" [web site]- that
looks pretty reliable…’ [Circumspect]
Then, as with Group A, they start to consider the relative merits of actions that actually impact the planet (‘traction-
wise’) versus famous advocates who might influence opinion:
Finn (03.30): ‘So when we're looking at this are we looking at more… traction-wise… than how famous they are, and
what influence they have on the climate?’.
Juan (04:45): ‘You could ask "Who is considered to be the….” because we're not going to find out “Who has had the
most …” because that's quite…’. The research question is: ‘Who has had the most impact on attempting to prevent
climate change?’, and Juan’s answer is ‘... we're not going to find out.’
Finally, they nominate Greta Thunberg; as Nick puts it (06.20): ‘She’s encouraging school children in schools to go on
strike, because they're the ones that climate change is going to effect the most.’ [Sustained Dialogic]
Is this evidence of critical digital literacy in action?
18. Discourse segment classifications (with an example)
Naïve: “If it comes up first that means it's usually reliable to get information off… it's like
Google is singling it out.”
Multimodal: “Let's look at another [website] and see if we get different answers.”
Circumspect: “I wouldn't click in the first link that comes up [on Google) You need to look at
the little bit underneath.”
Dialogic [phrase-level]: ”I don't trust ANY website!”
Sustained Dialogic: [n ≥ 2] Evidence of collaborative argumentation (as in Neil Mercer’s
Thinking Together project); collaborative questioning of ideology (as in Bakhtin
(1929/1984):’Truth is not born nor is it to be found inside the head of an individual person, it
is born between people collectively searching for truth, in the process of their dialogic
interaction’. Truth is ‘unfinalizble’)
Discussion task: does this categorization help us to identify critical digital literacy in action?'
19. Symposium:
(Re-)Defining Critical Digital Literacy and Capturing It in Real Time
Wed, November 29, 1:15 to 2:45pm, Hilton Atlanta, Room 224
(Re-)Defining Critical Digital Literacy and capturing it in real time:
a high-school discourse analysis
Colin Harrison and Chloë Patterson University of Nottingham, UK
