View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Ghent University Academic Bibliography

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF

SOCIAL MEDIA LITERACY

Hadewijch Vanwynsberghe1, Elke Boudry1 and Pieter Verdegem1

Abstract

Social media have become increasingly popular because of the combination of both technological
developments and social change. However, there are manifest differences in the ways people use
social media as well as in the level of their competence. Differences in the skills to master technology
and in the use of social media may result in new types of digital inequality. In order to overcome these
inequalities, an extensive body of initiatives must deal with enhancing people’s level of social media
literacy. Unfortunately, due to difficulties in adequately measuring media literacy, the effectiveness of
these efforts has not yet been fully determined. Hence, the main objective of our research is
measuring social media literacy. In order to do so we first need to be able to accurately define social
media literacy and understand how it can be conceptualized. Based on an extensive literature review,
this paper presents a conceptual framework for social media literacy and discusses its main building
blocks. The proposed conceptual model posits that an accurate understanding of social media literacy
requires more insight into people’s access to social media applications, knowledge, skills, self-efficacy,
attitudes and actual media use.

1
Research group for Media & ICT (IBBT-MICT), Ghent University, Interdisciplinary Institute for Broadband
Technology (IBBT), contact: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
1
1. Introduction

Today it is true to say that, in most Western countries and many other parts of the world, social
media increase in importance and becomes more popular and even omnipresent (Kaplan & Haenlein,
2010). Various research projects have indicated a growth in social media use, and consequently,
jump to the conclusion that people are now becoming increasingly engaged in online content
creation and participation (Boyd, 2008; Courtois, Paulussen, Mechant, & De Marez, 2011; Madden &
Zickuhr, 2011; Vickery & Wunsch-Vincent, 2007).

Social media can be defined as “a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological
and technological foundations of web 2.0., and that allow the creation and exchange of User
Generated content.” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61). This definition makes clear that many Internet
applications are in fact social media, including blogs, social networking sites (e.g. Facebook), virtual
social worlds (e.g. Second Life), collaborative Internet projects (e.g. Wikipedia), content communities
(e.g. YouTube) and virtual game worlds (e.g. World of Warcraft) (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 62).

Social media offer a lot of opportunities for users, for example they enable people to share
collaborative knowledge (e.g. Wikipedia), to share their interests or hobbies (e.g. blogs), to share
their own image (e.g. Flickr) and video creations (e.g. YouTube), to make new friends (e.g. Facebook)
and to build communities (e.g. World of Warcraft). This way, achieving goals by using these
applications can contribute to user empowerment or, in other words, it can enable “people to control
their own lives and to take advantage of opportunities” (van der Maesen & Walker, 2002, p. 6).
Notwithstanding, the failure to use or wrongly use of social media can lead to disempowerment, for
example the violation of privacy. These opportunities but also threats of social media are recently
becoming truly visible due to the proliferation of these media. Hence, there are many questions and
ambiguities about the competences needed to (appropriately) use social media applications.

In this context notions of media literacy are relevant, since they focus on the competences people
need to appropriately deal with media. In this paper we focus on ‘social media literacy’ or the
competences needed to deal with social media. Hence, being capable to handle these new media in a
critical and conscious way is not an unnecessary luxury, but a necessity for all users of social media
(Frau-Meigs, 2006). Users who are not able to appropriately use social media will therefore be
excluded from a lot of possibilities and will be exposed to risks (Livingstone & Haddon, 2009).
Moreover, one should bear in mind, as Ferro et al. [2010] argue, that media literacy is not only a
factor of digital inequality, but also an inequality in itself, since the digital inequalities undeniably

2
lead to social inequalities or exclusion (S. Martin & Robinson, 2007). We need to be aware that
despite the increasing use of social media, differences can also be noticed in the way people engage
with these applications (Boyd, 2008; Jenkins, Purushotma, Weigel, Clinton, & Robinson, 2009;
Madden & Zickuhr, 2011; Vickery & Wunsch-Vincent, 2007). Furthermore, although a majority of the
population has access to computers, Internet and other new media technologies, there are still
manifest inequalities in the frequency of use and the different ways in which people use these new
media in their everyday life.

An extensive body of research projects and policy initiatives deal with enhancing people’s level of
(new) media literacy. So far, it is very difficult to determine the effectiveness of these projects,
especially because new media use and the level of new media literacy were hardly measured. In
today’s constantly changing and converging media culture it is a challenging task for measuring (new)
media use and media literacy, because the variety of questions and methods that are being used. In
addition, there is almost no consensus about the concept of media literacy (Graham & Goodrum,
2007; Potter, 2004). In literature there exist many different definitions, perspectives and concepts
that relate to media literacy, for example information literacy, computer literacy, Internet literacy,
network literacy or digital literacy.

It is evident that research activities on both a conceptual and a methodological level are needed to
support research projects and policy initiatives for enhancing people’s (social) media literacy and
consequently help to re-balance participation inequality. We need to overcome conceptual
vagueness concerning social media literacy on the one hand and counter fight the lack of good
practices for measuring social media use and media literacy on the other hand. In this paper we focus
on the conceptualisation of social media literacy.

This paper starts with a conceptualization of media literacy in general, consisting of different
definitions and approaches. We come up with a (critical) contribution about the dominant
approaches of media literacy and which are applicable to social media literacy. After this general
introduction of the concept, we present a working definition and a conceptual model of social media
literacy and explain the underlying components and elements in that model. Finally, in the discussion
we will summarize the advantages and disadvantages of our approach and conceptualization of
social media literacy.

3
2. Media literacy and its applicability in the context of new media

The competences needed to deal with media are discussed in the scholarly literature through various
concepts, being media literacy, information literacy, computer literacy, network literacy, Internet
literacy and digital literacy (Bawden, 2001). The choice of a concept depends on the aspects on which
the focus is (e.g. skills-oriented or critical thinking). In this respect, the concepts are embedded in
different approaches, such as a critical approach (e.g. media literacy as the critical evaluation of
media content), a cognitive approach (e.g. media literacy are the cognitive skills to attain and use
knowledge about media), a structuration or action-oriented approach (e.g. computer literacy is the
ability to turn on the computer) and a rather idealistic or normative approach (e.g. digital literacy as
a personal fulfilment). We can identify several ‘literacies applicable to new media’, mostly originating
in the pre-digital period, but presented as routes for understanding phenomena, such as the
(r)evolution to social media, which have become more significant in a multifaceted social media
landscape. Nevertheless we recognise the existence of multiple definitions and frameworks in
describing the different literacy concepts. In this paper, we limit ourselves to the definitions that we
use as starting points for our conceptualization of social media literacy.

Media literacy has been developed from the critical evaluation of mass media, and is a major
educational and research activity. Media literacy as a critical evaluation should serve as a protection
against the negative effects of the media messages (A. Martin & Grudziecki, 2006). A definition of
media literacy that fits this critical approach is offered by Livingstone (2004): “the ability to access,
analyze, evaluate and create messages across a variety of contexts” (Livingstone, 2004, p. 18).
Livingstone identifies the critical thinking rather than the practical competences as the main element
of media literacy, and emphasizes the critical evaluation and creation of media messages, rather than
the technical skills to operate the media technology.

4
Information literacy developed since the late 1980s when academic library communities promoted
information retrieval in libraries. With the increasing notion of the Internet as a seemingly infinite
source of information, the concept of information literacy gained more urgency. A definition of
information skills is proposed by Catts & Lau (2008, p. 8). They have elaborated a five-skill set people
need in order to deal with information in the current information society. People must be able to:

1. Recognize their information needs;

2. locate and evaluate the quality of information;
3. store and retrieve information;
4. make effective and ethical use of information, and
5. apply the information to create and communicate knowledge.

These five skills refer to the fact that each element is supporting information literacy, but also that
progression is possible up each step. As it were following a continuum of increasing skills from ‘basic’
through ‘advanced’. Hence, it is a rather prescriptive and formulaic definition, which is based upon
the assumption of a formally expressed information need. However, people do not always have an
information need in advance; it is also possible that information just comes around, for example in
the case of people that are watching You Tube movies.

There is much similarity between the concepts of media literacy and information literacy. Both
concepts highlight the importance of the media message, however, they differ from each other in the
way the message is handled. While the term media literacy mainly focuses on how the message is
constructed and interpreted, information literacy draws attention to the way it is accessed and
evaluated (A. Martin & Grudziecki, 2006). Information literacy highlights the importance of the
identification of the problem (what do you want to know?), the location where information can be
found, the evaluation of the founded information and the use of this information in solving the
problem (Livingstone, Van Couvering, & Thumim, 2005).

Computer or ICT literacy are more action-oriented than media and information literacy and has been
identified as a need from the late 1980s with the increasing popularity of the personal computer (A.
Martin & Grudziecki, 2006). As evidenced by the terms themselves, they refer to the actual use of a
computer or in other words the operational or technical skills needed to use the computer for
example turning on the computer, opening a folder and saving a file. In literature, computer literacy
has been most commonly defined as “the skills required to use a variety of computer applications
packages –word processing, databases, spreadsheets, etc. – together with some general IT skills, such
as copying disks and generating hard-copy printout” (Bawden, 2001, p. 226). Computer and ICT
literacy are terms that are often described narrowly and that only cover the basic skills to operate a
5
computer. While, such definitions are very focused and perfectly measurable, they quickly become
obsolete due to the rapidly changing media environment (Ba, Tally, & Tsikalas, 2002).

The concept of Internet literacy fits in the series of action-oriented approaches and emphasizes the
importance of action and interaction on the Internet. This concept is focused on the skills needed to
deal with the Internet. Van Deursen (2010) operationalized internet skills by making a distinction
between medium-related and content-related skills (see figure 1). The medium-related skills are the
operational and formal skills to operate the technology, being the computer and the computer
network – the Internet – such as menu structure and hyperlinks. The content-related skills are the
information and strategic skills to deal with information on the Internet. Van Deursen (2010)
illustrates the importance of going beyond a technologic viewpoint when defining Internet skills.
Internet skills, according to van Deursen, should contain both the technical skills to operate the
medium and more substantive skills to deal with the content of the medium.

Figure1: Summary Internet skills of van Deursen (2010).

6
The term digital literacy is considered as a combination of the above discussed approaches and
terms. Hence, the term belongs to a more ‘idealistic’ approach in which an ideally idea of media
literacy is proposed, for example media literacy as a personal fulfillment or individual moral
fortitude. The concept of digital literacy, as it is now generally used, was firstly introduced by Gilster
(1997) who defined it as “the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats form a
wide range of sources when it is presented via computers” and “…being able to understand a problem
and develop a set of questions that will solve that information need” (cited in Bawden, 2001, p. 19).
Gilster (1997) provides a broad definition of digital literacy, which has as advantage that it is
applicable to all kinds of digital media. The disadvantage is that it does not give a particular clear and
coherent account of digital literacy itself, of the skills, knowledge and attitudes that underline it; it is
rather a wide-ranging approach, which may lead to some confusion for anyone attempting to
operationalize and to measure digital literacy.

In line with the above conceptualization of digital literacy, Martin & Grudziecki (2006) developed a
framework of digital literacy in three stages (see figure 2): digital competences, digital usage and
digital transformation. These competences are a combination of for example skills, concepts,
approaches and attitudes, so it contains all the abilities people need in order to be able to use digital
media. Therefore, these competences are seen as a criterion for using digital media for professional,
private or other purposes.

Figure 2: Stages of digital literacy by Martin & Grudziecki (2006).

7
This stage-model sheds light on digital literacy as a personal fulfillment. Media literacy cannot be
seen as equal for everyone, but must be considered from the situation of the individual.
Consequently, Martin & Grudziecki (2006) state that for evaluating media literacy we must set up a
personal development profile based on this conceptual model. The highest level in the model is
digital transformation, innovation or creativity and this can only takes place when digital
competences and usage is established. This is the most comprehensive and complete definition of
digital literacy found in literature. In addition, the definition is very general and can therefore be
applied to different kinds of digital media. However, in this definition, as in the other definitions of
digital literacy, no clear practical skills and knowledge are distinguished what makes it very difficult to
operationalize and to measure.

From the outline above, it seems that there are several approaches possible, all with their own
strengths and weaknesses. The main purpose of this part is not to select or propose one concept
definition for the conceptual framework development, but rather to compare the different concepts
and to recognize the essential characteristics and elements of each concept of literacy. This should
help us to choose an appropriate approach or approaches to conceptualize social media literacy.

3. Social media literacy

Because social media are Internet-based applications, the other conceptualizations of literacy are
only applicable to social media in a limited way. While the concepts media and Internet literacy
mainly focus on analyzing and evaluating information online, social media competences, as indicated
by Jenkins et al. (2009) and Kaplan & Haenlein (2010), must deal with the production, creation,
communication, collaboration and transaction of media content. Therefore, using social media
requires more action or active engagement of the user. The specific competences needed to deal
with social media, however, are rarely or never actually operationalized.

Hence, in conceptualizing ‘social media literacy’ we face a number of challenges. As mentioned

above, dealing with social media demands more action and interaction from the user compared to
the competences needed to deal with other media such as television. Therefore, our focus will
mainly be on an action-oriented or skill-based approach in order to conceptualize social media
literacy. However, although we will mainly focus on action-oriented media competences, we cannot
neglect the critical-analysis competences in order to conceptualize social media literacy. The latter
are competences that have been arisen with the emergence of mass media and cannot be
disconnected from new media competences. Due to the media convergence some applications from

8
other ‘older’ media, such as television watching, can also be used in social media, for example
streaming television programs on YouTube (Jenkins, 2006). Therefore, the challenge is to combine
the both approaches, the critical and the action-oriented approach.

These approaches can only be combined when we not only pay attention to the medium-related
competences in dealing with the social media applications itself, but also to the content-related
competences in dealing with the content on these applications. In addition, we follow Livingstone
(2004) and Martin and Grudziecki (2006) who assume that media literacy is more than the
competences needed to deal with media, but that also access and use must be considered as
prominent components of media literacy. The concepts of ‘media literacy’ and ‘media competences’
are often used as interchangeable terms, but from now on ‘social media literacy’ is used as an
umbrella concept for the components access, medium- and content-related competences and use.

Above all, the conceptual framework must be applicable to a wide range of social media applications,
as they all have their own specific characteristics. Hence, the conceptualization must be broad
enough to contain all the above challenges and, at the same time, ensure that the conceptualization
is concrete enough to stay measurable.

3.1. Definition of Social Media Literacy

In order to define social media literacy, we start from the above outlined conceptualizations. We
started with the definition of Livingstone (2004) in order to include the aspect of critical thinking
about media content. For a more action-oriented notion of media literacy we follow the
operationalization of van Deursen (2010), who has attention for both medium-related and content-
related Internet skills. For a more comprehensive and wide interpretation of media competences we
refer to the definition of Martin & Grudziecki (2006). They highlight not only the importance of
critical thinking, but also the self-creation and communication what are typical social media
competences.

Considering these points, we developed the following definition of social media literacy:
“Social media literacy are the competences of individuals to (appropriately) use social media
applications and to critical analyze, evaluate, share and create social media content.”

In this regard, social media literacy implies a broadening, and also a reinforcement of the elements
by which all (media) literacies in general are defined. It does not attach itself to the rather

9
operational or instrumental skills, but also to a critical analyze and evaluation of numerous media
texts, transaction and creation of media content.

The first part of the definition illustrates the medium-related competences needed to use social
media tools. For using these tools people first need to have access to the Internet and some ‘basic’
technical knowledge and skills to operate the Internet for example the abilities to open web sites by
entering the URL. Considering the hypermedia nature of the Internet, not all technical skills are
necessarily simple or basic, for example the complex nature of navigating through different websites.

The second part presents the advanced content-related competences, which are the main abilities
people should learn to apply in a social media environment. The analysis and evaluation of media
content illustrates the critical interpretation of everything that is on a social media website, including
text-messages, visuals and sounds. Sharing social media content includes the communication or
interaction with other people online (=sharing text-messages) and the transaction of other electronic
material (e.g. photos, movies, music, etc.). Creating social media content contains the production of
that content or everything what is self-generated or created by the user (User Generated Content).

In addition, people must also be able to operate the specific social media applications on the
Internet. This is where attitudes and self-efficacy comes in, if a person hates a certain social media
application (attitudes), he or she will not or reluctantly use this application and consequently does
not develop the competences to use it (appropriately).

10
3.2. Conceptual Model Social Media Literacy

What the factors of social media literacy are and how these various components of social media
competences are linked is further discussed in the conceptual model below (figure 3). The hierarchy
of the model clarifies that the higher steps cannot exist without the lower ones.

Social Media Literacy

Figure 3: Conceptual model of social media literacy

Based on a literature review we can distinguish three dimensions of social media literacy, being social
media access, social media competences and social media use:

11
Dimension 1: Access to social media applications

At the foundation of the model we place access to social media as an important prerequisite for the
development of social media competences. In this case, access is the possession of a technology
through which people can go on the Internet, such as a computer with Internet connection or a
smartphone. In addition, it is not only important to have a device that can connect to the Internet,
also the connection in itself should be accomplished and must be sufficient to open social media
applications. Without this access the development of social media competences is precluded.

Dimension 2: Social media competences

The second level illustrates social media competences, which encompass the abilities needed to deal
with social media applications. However, the terms media competences, media literacy and media
skills are often used as synonyms (A. Martin & Grudziecki, 2006), while in our conceptualization we
use them as separate terms. Social media competences refer to being able to perform a certain social
media activity. Therefore, skills are treated in our conceptual model as a component of competences
and refer to the more practical aspects of these competences (van Deursen, 2010; van Deursen &
van Dijk, 2010). Media competences, in turn, are considered as a component of media literacy. In
moving from media competences to media literacy, we take into account access to social media
applications and the actual social media use.

Social media competences are divided in objective and subjective competences, according to the way
they can be measured. Skills and knowledge can be objectively verified, while attitudes and self-
efficacy should be measured by asking the person themselves (subjective). The objective
competences are in turn subdivided in ‘basic’ or medium-related knowledge and skills and rather
‘advanced’ or content-related knowledge and skills. Knowledge in the medium-related competences
is the descriptive and practical knowledge with a low degree of self-conscious awareness, content-
related competences contain the knowledge about social media applications, the understanding of
media context and content and knowledge about knowledge (meta-knowledge). Moreover, skills are
the tools to translate this knowledge into (social) media behaviour. The specific skills needed to deal
with social media, however, are rarely or never actually operationalized, therefore we base ourselves
on the operationalization of Internet skills by van Deursen (2010). We make a distinction between
medium-related and content-related skills. The medium-related skills are the skills needed to operate
and to deal with the formal characteristics of different kinds of social media. The content-related
skills are the skills to deal with the content on social media applications, which are divided in

12
information, creation and communication skills. These are the skills to critically analyze and evaluate
information, to create unique content and draw the needed attention to that content and the
sharing and/or communicating of content while taking into account the receiver of the sender.

The ‘basic’ or medium-related knowledge and skills are at the bottom of the objective competences,
because they are a pre-requisite for the development of the advanced content-related competences.
For example before you can write something on a social networking site (SNS) or forum, you need to
create an account. Without the practical knowledge and skills to operate the social media
applications, people will not be able to analyze, evaluate, share and create social media messages.
Also the advanced content-related knowledge and skills can, in turn, influence the medium-related
knowledge and skills: dealing with the content, for example content creation, can provide more
insights into how a particular social media application works and on this way tighten the medium-
related knowledge and skills.

The development of these objective competences does not happen without the subjective
competences of the individuals themselves. Someone who hates (attitude) a particular media
application and therefore refuses to use it, will be reluctant towards learning the knowledge and
skills to deal with that social medium. In addition, a person who is in advance underrating his or her
own knowledge or skills to use a particular social media application (self-efficacy), will be less inclined
to learn these objective competences. Consequently, attitudes and self-efficacy are very closely
linked to the development of knowledge and skills. Moreover, between the subjective competences
there also exists a reciprocal relationship: if a person believe in his or her (objective) competences to
use a particular medium, he or she will be quite positive towards that social media application and
vice versa. In sum, both the objective and subjective media competences determine the actual media
use.

Dimension 3: Social Media Use

At the highest level of the model is social media use, which is the result of the development of media
competences. Users draw upon relevant competences to use social media in private or professional
life situations. Social media use is the successful conversion of both, objective and subjective media
competences in actual social media behaviour. This behaviour indicates not only which and how
social media applications are used, but also how often, and where.

Between the three levels there also exist reciprocal relationships. Once initial and physical access is
accomplished, acquiring media competences conducts users to transform significantly and
13
continually the conditions of access and use and vice versa (Livingstone, 2003). It is assumed that
media literacy is the reciprocal relationship between media use and the growing and changing media
competences of the user (Livingstone, 2003). The idea behind this is that media competences are
shaping and being shaped by someone’s experience with media technology and content, both
physically and symbolically. Physically in the sense of how often it is used and symbolically as the
importance that is attached to it. If a particular media technology or content is used a lot and/or it is
interpreted as for example important or functional, the competences of the user needed to deal with
it will enhance.

4. Discussion

The main goal of this paper was to develop a conceptual framework of social media literacy. The
latter entails both a definition and a conceptual model of social media literacy. We conceptualize
social media literacy in a well-elaborated way that goes beyond ‘basic’ operational competences.
Besides the more objective competences (e.g. skills and knowledge), we also focus on subjective
competences (e.g. attitudes and self-efficacy) as equally important for measuring people’s level of
media literacy (Brandtweiner, Donat, & Kerschbaum, 2010; S. P. Martin, Robinson, J.P., 2007;
Tondeur, Sinnaeve, Van Houtte, & Van Braak, 2010; Verdegem & Verhoest, 2009). Hence, we
consider social media literacy as broader than only the skills in order to deal with social media
applications, also the knowledge to perform these skills, a positive attitude towards the social media
use and confidence in the own skills (self-efficacy) are relevant for dealing with social media
applications.

In addition, we consider media competences, in line with scholars such as Livingstone (2004) and van
Deursen (2010), not merely in terms of operational or medium-related knowledge and skills e.g.
operating the Internet, but also in terms of content-related knowledge and skills e.g. a critical
evaluation of content. Hence, the advantage of the proposed conceptualization is that both
approaches on media literacy, being the critical and the action-oriented approach, are integrated in
one comprehensive model of social media literacy.

Another advantage of the proposed conceptualization is the attention for access, in this case access
to the Internet. Because this access is a necessary prerequisite for the development of social media
competences, the same goes for social media literacy. Also the attention for media use, in a
reciprocal relation with media competences, is important for the development of social media
literacy. This is so because the actual use of social media applications determines the competences

14
people can develop and these developed media competences, in turn, can change people’s actual
media use. For example if people are experimenting (using) social networking sites, they will develop
a few competences for dealing with social networking sites and this, in turn, enhance their use of
these applications.

Moreover, the conceptual framework of social media literacy applies equally well to all kinds of social
media applications, which is useful for measuring the level of social media literacy in a multifaceted
social media landscape. The consequence of this social media independent framework is that it is not
possible to immediately convert into a measurement instrument. Hence, the model contains
elements that should be addressed and elaborated in more detail when further research, both
quantitative and qualitative, on media literacy and the underlying elements is set up. This further
conceptualization will be different for different research methods as well as for different social media
applications and will therefore serve as input for the next stage of the research.

In addition, we recognize that there are also other factors, both individual (e.g. income) and social
(e.g. peers network), that play a role in the development of social media literacy. These other factors
will be discussed in the operationalization of social media literacy, which is the subject of future
research.

15
5. Conclusion

This paper proposes a conceptual framework of social media literacy that is developed upon and can
be linked to the definitions, approaches and concepts that can be found in the scholarly literature
about media literacy. The model proposes the conceptualization of the underlying elements of social
media literacy, however, a more detailed description is needed in order to apply in concrete
measurements and particular research methods has not been elaborated yet. Rather, the objective
of this paper is developing a wider conceptual framework of social media literacy which is on the one
hand applicable to the whole range of social media applications and can on the other hand be
adapted to different research methods (both quantitative and qualitative). In the presented
conceptual framework, we shed light on all the different elements that should be considered when
developing social media literacy, namely access to social media applications, social media
competences (knowledge, skills, attitudes and self-efficacy) and the actual use of social media
applications.

16
6. References

Ba, H., Tally, W., & Tsikalas, K. (2002). Investigating children's emerging digital literacies. Journal of
Technology, Learning and Assessment, 1(4), 1-48.
Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of
Documentation, 57(2), 218-259.
boyd, D. (2008). Why Youth love Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage
Social Life. In D. Buckingham, D. John & T. Catherine (Eds.), Youth, Identity and Digital Media
(pp. 119-142). Cambridge, MA The MIT Press

Brandtweiner, R., Donat, E., & Kerschbaum, J. (2010). How to become a sophisticated user: A
twodimensional approach to e-literacy. New Media and Society, 12, 813-833.
Catts, R., & Lau, J. (2008). Towards information literacy indicators. Paris.
Courtois, C., Paulussen, S., Mechant, P., & De Marez, L. (2011). Het techno-subsysteem van de
Vlaamse Tiener: Keuzes van Jongeren in hun Gebruik van Communicatietechnologieën.
Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap 39(3), 17-40.
Frau-Meigs, D. (2006). General report. Pan-European forum on human rights in the information
society: Empowering children and young people. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Gilster. (1997). Digital literacy. New York, NY: Wiley
Graham, P., & Goodrum, A. A. (2007). New media literacies: At the intersection of technical, cultural
and discursive knowledges. In R. Mansell, C. Avgerou, D. Quah & R. Silverstone (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of information and communication technologies (pp. 473-493). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York
University Press.
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robinson, A. J. (2009). Confronting the
challenge of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. United States
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenge and opportunities of
social media. Business Horizons 53, 59-68.
Livingstone, S. (2003). The changing nature and uses of media literacy. Retrieved on March 2011
from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.131.4409&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Livingstone, S. (2004). What is media literacy? Intermedia 32(3), 18-20.
Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2009). Kids online: Opportunities and risks for children. London: The
Policy Press.
Livingstone, S., Van Couvering, E., & Thumim, N. (2005). Adult media literacy: A review of the
research literature. Londen, UK office of Communications (Ofcom)
Madden, M., & Zickuhr, K. (2011). 65% of online adults use social networking sites: Women maintain
their foothold on SNS use and older Americans are still coming aboard. Washington
Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy development.
ITALICS, 5(4), 249-267.
Martin, S., & Robinson, J. (2007). The income digital divide: trends ans predictions for levels od
internet use. Social Problems, 54(1), 1-22.
Martin, S. P., Robinson, J.P. (2007). The income digital divide: Trends and predictions for levels of
internet use. Social Problems, 54(1), 1-22.
Potter, W. J. (2004). Theory of media literacy: A cognitive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tondeur, J., Sinnaeve, I., Van Houtte, M., & Van Braak, J. (2010). ICT as cultural capital: The
relationship between socioeconomic status and the computer-use profile of young people.
New Media and Society.

17
van der Maesen, L. J. G., & Walker, A. C. (2002). Social quality: The theoretical state of affairs (Vol.
24). Amsterdam: European Foundation on Social Quality
van Deursen, A. (2010). Internet skills. Vital assets in an information society. Enschede: University of
Twente.
van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2010). Measuring Internet skills. International Journal of Human-
Computer Interaction, 26(10), 891-916.
Verdegem, P., & Verhoest, P. (2009). Profiling the non-user: Rethinking policy initiatives stimulating
ICT acceptance. Telecommunications Policy, 33, 642-652.
Vickery, G., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2007). Participative web and user-generated content: Web 2.0,
wikis and social networking. Paris.

18