The concept of ‘digital literacy’ is an everchanging concept; from a classic definition from two decades ago: “…a set of skills to access the internet, find, manage and edit digital information; join in communications, and otherwise engage with an online information and communication network. Digital literacy is the ability to properly use and evaluate digital resources, tools and services, and apply it to lifelong learning processes” (Gilster, 1997: 220) it has evolved with the technology and new concepts evolved that encompass effective use of digital resources, like “internet literacy”, “media literacy”, or “computer literacy” (see Chetty et al., 2018; Falloon, 2020). Current authors suggest we delineate between the technology and reason behind it: that »there is a need to distinguish between the tool and the meaning derived from using the tool. There is also a need to distinguish the outcomes and consequences of the tool from those of its use (Njenga, 2018, p. 4).

Chetty et al. (2018) arrive at 5 elements of digital literacy after researching them:

“Information literacy” – “ability to search, retrieve, manipulate, evaluate, synthesize and create digital content”. This entails correct use of the content, meaning copyright and intellectual property protections.
“Computer or ICT literacy” – “ability to operate digital hardware and software”. Ethics of this element are connected to the appropriate usage, e. i. respecting the privacy of fellow users.
“Media literacy” – “ability to interact with textual, sound, image, video and social medias”. This field – of social media is removed from information literacy. Ethics of element pertain to assessing truthfulness and appropriate management of these streams of information.
“Communication literacy” – “ability to communicate in traditional and innovative mediums” - email, phone calls and short messages and also with a broad array of receivers. Ethically, concerns are about the appropriate usage.
“Technology literacy” – “ability to adopt various technologies to a particular life situation”. Simply put, knowing which tool to select is an important skill, as is adapting the tool to a particular context.

In the last decade, the concept of “digital competencies” has been at the forefront of research; technical knowledge and skills are still vital, but it elaborates the socio-cultural need to understand and consider the effects of digital technologies on individuals and society. As with every concept in this field, this one is also under constant reassessment and must take into consideration the technological evolution (see Jansen, 2013). For instance, the development of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has been for migrants, who often remain connected with family members, one of the main advancements of the last decade. It enables them to experience proximity to their close ones, even if they are apart (see Farshbaf Shaker, 2018, Merisalo & Jauhiainen, 2020), to relay formal and informal information about travel routes and places to live (Merisalo & Jauhiainen, 2020). Millard, Baldassar & Wilding (2018) also point to the importance of ICT in the lives of older migrants, which can share emotional support with others, as well as gaining health information and social engagement through online platforms, that forms an important aspect of equity. »ICTs allow migrants to form multiple belongings, to capture cosmopolitan values, to develop deterritorialised identities and biographies and to act at a distance in real time; on the other hand, while accelerating integration and incorporation paths in host societies, ICTs also enable migrants to defend particularistic values and to claim a particular belonging while living as global citizens« (Nedelcu, as cited in Reips & Buffardi, 2012).

Ruget and Usmanalieva (2019) have in their study show that ICT enables Kyrgyz migrants in Russia to be in touch with, and assist, each other, so especially for logistical tasks. The important part - official (reliable) sources of immigration information they however do not search; so they are in permanent state of using word of mouth for their (life) decisions.

The topic of digital literacy as a whole has shifted its focus from just having material access, meaning computer and internet access, to the topics of having motivation – possessing the wish to gain knowledge in this field, as well as skills necessary for handling a computer and accessing the internet, and lastly, usage - using the internet and computer time in different ways. In the beginning, the divide was thought of as physical internet access, now the divide includes differences in skills (see Ertl, Csanadi & Tarnai, 2020). Another divide, important to the migrants, arises from accessibility, quality of connection, appropriation of ICTs (Farshbaf Shaker, 2018, p. 294). Not possessing skills in the digital field could be construed as an impairment, similar to illiteracy. Naturally, if it constitutes an impairment, it also has specific characteristics and factors. Ertl, Csanadi & Tarnai (2020) have on their sample of the German working population shown that age (generation) and migration background are the main factors for the digital divide; gender was also having a minor impact. Kesharwani (2019) has challenged the idea that age constitutes a major divide between digital natives, the younger generation, born after 1980, which has been growing up with the use of digital technology, and digital immigrants, that are the older generation. The author proposes that motivation is an important factor; extrinsic (“continuous improvement in belief judgements”) and intrinsic motivation, which he simplifies as developing a habit. “Taking initial technology use as an example, a user will carefully develop and execute a detailed plan for interaction with a new technology application to complete the task at hand. A conscious effort will be required in this case, but the sequence of the actions performed will remain as memory traces in working memory. As a person becomes more experienced with the application, the “hard-wired” links in long-term memory will be strengthened” (Kesharwani, 2019). This means that using technology repeatedly diminishes effort – it is easier to use it and this encourages those with less skills to engage more, which is a point that Millard, Baldassar & Wilding (2018) make about the importance of digital citizenship for older migrants. They propose that for this vulnerable segment of the population, communities of practice would be beneficial, to learn in groups and exchange knowledge and repeat the material with others.

Takavarasha, Cilliers & Chinyamurindi (2018) in their study of Southafrican students come to the conclusion that the students are not encouraged to use the ICT tool for digital citizenship, they don't know the essentials about safety, about the proper digital etiquette, etc. It gives them basic skills, mentors them for a limited time and gives them unlimited access. But it misses important topics, as it is »lacking in the development of millennials who can use technologies responsibly, safely, critically, productively and civically as expected from digital citizens« (Ribble, 2014, as cited in Takavarasha, Cilliers & Chinyamurindi, 2018, p. 12).

Migrant youth face other challenges. Firstly, there are cultural barriers and among them, the most obvious one - language proficiency, as well as “the kind of proficiency that would translate into educational mobility”, as have shown Free, Križ & Konecnik (2014). This lack of proficiency is supposed to be prevalent in first-generation immigrant children and the children of immigrants. Secondly, these youth face family-related hardships – their parents are absent or working a lot if they have jobs; sometimes, the youngsters themselves are the carers of their younger siblings (see Free, Križ & Konecnik, 2014, p. 193). Thirdly, majority of migrant youth doesn’t have material possession that would allow them to participate fully in the digital world – mobile phones, computers. Fortunately, internet access in Europe and in Slovenia has developed immensely in the last decade and at least in Slovenian city centres, youth can use free internet access which allows them to bare digital necessities. But still, we need to, as Rowsell, Morrell and Alvermann (2017) write: »look at how access to digital worlds enhances people’s life chances«.

One special field of concern when talking about migrant youth are educational challenges, especially those related to their migration; many of them are in Europe only in transit, which means that all the knowledge that could be passed to them is missed, and that negatively affects their digital education (for experience in the U.S. see Free, Križ & Konecnik, 2014, p. 195).

Development of ICT, changed lifestyles and perspectives of work, employment etc., reflect in the appearance of a new type of (short) term migrants: digital nomads. “Digital nomads work while travelling and travel while working. Digital nomadism is driven by important societal changes, such as the ubiquity of mobility and technology in everyday lives and increasingly flexible and precarious employment” (Hanonen, 2020).

References:

Chetty, K., Qigui, L., Gcora, N., Josie, J., Wenwei, L., & Fang, C. (2018). Bridging the digital divide: measuring digital literacy. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 12(23), 1–20.

Ertl, B., Csanadi, A., & Tarnai, C. (2020). Getting closer to the digital divide: An analysis of impacts on digital competencies based on the German PIAAC sample. International Journal of Educational Development, 78, 102259.

Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: the teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Education Tech Research Dev, 68, 2449–2472.

Free, J. L., Križ, K., & Konecnik, J. (2014). Harvesting hardships: Educators’ views on the challenges of migrant students and their consequences on education. Children and Youth Services Review, 47(3), 187–197

Farshbaf Shaker, S. (2018) A Study of Transnational Communication Among Iranian Migrant Women in Australia. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 16(3), 293–312.

Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley.

Hanonen, O. (2020). In search of a digital nomad: defining the phenomenon. Information technology & Tourism, 22, 335–353.

Janssen, J., Stoyanov, S., Ferrari, A., Punie, Y., Pannekeet, K., & Sloep, P. (2013). Experts’ views on digital competence: Commonalities and differences. Computers & Education, 68, 473–481.

Kesharwani, A. (2019). Do (how) digital natives adopt a new technology differently than digital immigrants? A longitudinal study. Information & Management, 57(2), 103170.

McLaughlin, R., & Resta, P. (2020). On Systemic Digital Equity, Systemic Inclusion, and the Teacher Librarian in the Pandemic Era, Part 1. Teacher Librarian, 48(1), 8–14.

Merisalo, M., & Jauhiainen, J. S. (2020) Asylum-Related Migrants’ Social-Media Use, Mobility Decisions, and Resilience. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 18.

Millard, A., Baldassar, L., & Wilding, R. (2018). The significance of digital citizenship in the well-being of older migrants. Public Health, 158, 144–148.

Njenga, J. (2018). Digital literacy: The quest of an inclusive definition. Reading & Writing, 9(1), a183.

Rowsell, J., Morrell, E., & Alvermann, D. E. (2017). Confronting the Digital Divide: Debunking Brave New World Discourses. Reading Teacher, 71(2), 157–165.

Ruget, V. & Usmanalieva, B. (2019) Can smartphones empower labour migrants? The case of Kyrgyzstani migrants in Russia. Central Asian Survey, 38(2), 165–180.

Takavarasha, S., Cilliers, L., & Chinyamurindi, W. (2018). Navigating the unbeaten track from digital literacy to digital citizenship: A case of university students in South Africa’s Eastern Cape province. Reading & Writing, 9(1), a187.