Digitally literate children?

New names are continuously being invented for new internet generations. In 1998, Don Tapscott talked about the ‘Net Generation’, in 2001 Marc Prensky coined the term ‘digital natives’, and in 2006 Wim Veen and Ben Vrakking made reference to ‘homo zappiens’. All these authors are highlighting a discrepancy between older and younger generations, emphasising the seemingly natural capability of the latter to use and cope with an increasingly digitised world. These authors suggest that computers hold no secrets for the children of our era, who seem to master quite naturally the necessary digital skills. Although many parents and teachers share their opinion, they also worry about their children's lack of the skills that enable these opportunities to be exploited in a way that is not harmful to the child.

To an extent, their anxieties are justified: research into children’s internet information skills, for example, shows that they often lack evaluative and strategic skills, that is, they do not know how to evaluate the utility or reliability of internet information (see, for example, Kuiper et al, 2008; Walraven et al, 2009). It could be argued that children’s length of experience with the internet and their participation in a wide range of internet activities is contributing to their digital skills, but most research does not relate the amount and range of children's internet activities to the skills they possess. This chapter addresses both of these issues. The findings are compared to children's own accounts of their capabilities, which reflect their beliefs in their abilities. Although self-reports are less valid than performance tests for evaluating digital literacy (van Deursen and van Dijk, 2010), they are an obvious measure for investigating a large sample. However, whether the three self-reported measures can be used as a proxy for digital literacy is another question. There are many definitions of digital and media literacy, but most refer to a combination of skills, knowledge and attitudes (see, for example, Hargittai, 2007; Snyder, 2007; Rosenbaum et al, 2008; Livingstone, 2009; Merchant, 2009). We take a critical look at the meanings of our measurements of digital literacy in relation to which component of digital literacy is being measured and what it means for future research.