The effect of digital literacy on student identity and inclusion: insights from the University of Western Macedonia

Digital literacy and online educational schemes are by definition inextricably linked to one another. This nexus became apparent when the overwhelming majority of universities worldwide opted for online educational programmes to facilitate the learning process (Ozdamar-Keskin et al., 2015, p. 80), and most recently due to the pandemic (Dulamă & Ilovan, 2020). This practice has been further established during the past years, bearing in mind that many educational institutions kept a part of their curriculum online after the pandemic eased. In this regard, the educational process has partially moved online, not because it is a requirement, but because it is considered as a feature that facilitates educational activities. However, during the pandemic universities had to adapt to a totally online scheme, and even exams took place without physical presence during the 3 years of the COVID-19 pandemic (Kasimoğlu et al., 2022).

From this perspective, it becomes evident that higher education is gradually becoming dependent on digital literacy, and more specifically it relies heavily on the digital literacy of both instructors and students (English, 2016). As regards instructors, universities provide them with certifications to confirm their ability to unfold their classroom teaching practices online for several years now (Al-Juboury, 2012). However, students’ lack of digital literacy or familiarisation with online working environments is usually an impediment to their own seamless progress (Maphosa & Bhebhe, 2019). This is particularly the case when it comes to conventional universities, which were not prepared for online educational schemes at first and had not prepared their staff and students to make such a complete turn (Perifanou et al., 2021).

The importance of digital literacy is pointed out by the European Policy Network on Literacy (ELINET). ELINET defines digital literacy as the ‘student’s ability to engage with digital behaviors, practices and identities, and develop their functional IT skills’ (2020–2021). Evidently, students’ capability to respond to online teaching methods is of utmost importance. In this regard, digital literacy develops in operational, cultural and critical dimensions. These three dimensions build upon one another. That is, operational digital literacy relates to students’ ability to function in a digital environment, while the cultural dimension relates to their ability to exchange information and enter into relations with other students or instructors; finally, the critical dimension is their ability to critically assess online information and proceed with their research (Martímez-Bravo et al., 2022).

In this context, it is apparent that digital literacy plays an important role in education in general. When it comes to higher education, online sessions in particular, it is an important skill. Digital competency has become the most significant aspect of distance education schemes, either those which have resulted from public health restrictions, or those which were originally designed this way. Therefore, this is an aspect of modern pedagogy which falls under the spectrum of digitalisation and information societies, as well as a necessary precondition for access to distance learning (Aviram & Eshet-Alkalai, 2006).

Overall, university education goes online to follow the current trends. Adaptation to current needs is expedited during the past years, obliging university institutions to invest in digital tools and enhance students’ literacy skills.

Although digital skills and competence have come almost naturally to students over the recent years, due to their increasing use of digital equipment in everyday life, when digital literacy enters a formal educational environment the requirements differ and change. The application of digital skills in the formal education environment is not so simple, given that it has become a part of the educational process (Maina et al., 2020).

In this regard, it is usually attested that higher education or university educated students develop a negative perception of online and distance education and the digitisation of the process (Galindo-Domínguez & Bezanilla, 2021). In most cases, students who are familiar with online programmes and have acquired digital skills through their daily activities encounter difficulties in incorporating these skills in the learning process. This can basically be attributed to two reasons: first, online and distance education requires that students self-organise their time and efforts, and coupling these efforts with the need to familiarise themselves with the technology and gain digital competence. Second, online and distance education is not only a matter of functional digital literacy, rather it also incorporates the cultural and critical aspects of digital literacy (Martzoukou et al., 2020).

These requirements often impede students from developing a positive perception of online education, due to their digital literacy incompetence. Higher education students in Greece did not enter this educational scheme as part of a conscious decision, as opposed to open education students (Tzifopoulos, 2020). Thus, they lack full knowledge of the prerequisites and requirements of online learning. In this respect, their struggle to cope with online education requirements is understandable. More specifically, students who enter conventional universities in Greece expect that teaching will take place face to face, and thus digital skills will be necessary only when it comes to assignments. On the contrary, open education students know from the very beginning that teaching takes place online and that the university replaces the lack of physical presence with a more sophisticated digital environment, with which they need to familiarise themselves from day one. It has been recorded that university students usually think negatively about digital literacy, except for students at open universities. In turn, handicaps in digital proficiency hold students back from developing their personal digital identity (Engeness, 2021).

The term ‘digital identity’ refers to ‘a blend of four areas of an individual’s belief system: beliefs about one’s technology skills, beliefs about opportunities and constraints to use technology, beliefs about the importance of technology, and beliefs about one’s own motivation to learn more about technology’ (Goode, 2010, p. 498). In this regard, development of a student’s digital identity is built upon their technological skills and competence and affects their participation in online classes, as well as their communication with other students and instructors, while it also plays an important role in their efficacy (Cochrane & Antonczak, 2015).

The formation of digital identity is not a linear process and differs according to every student’s personal background and profile. Although it depends on literacy and competence, digital identity focuses on the way individuals perceive themselves as students. This selfperception is based on previous technological access, technological familiarity. However, the preceding stages of digital identity formation are not the ones that matter the most. Digital identity affects the way university students address learning opportunities by seeking and receiving information online according to their learning experiences (Goode, 2010). The nexus between the two (digital literacy and identity) is not always manifest. However, a safe link may be drawn. The social ramifications of identity root back to literacy, and vice versa students’ social profile shapes to a great extent their cognitive skills.

Compared with face-to-face classes, online and distance education is connected to lower student motivation rates. As a result, it is an uncontested observation that dropouts are frequent in online educational schemes. Therefore, inclusiveness is one of the most important success factors for such programmes. Inclusiveness is a term that has received multiple definitions till now. Accessibility is undeniably a necessary requirement of it; that is, inclusive education refers to students’ ability to reach higher education. The major shift witnessed during the past years towards online education clearly has a positive impact in terms of accessibility. Distance learning programmes are suitable for students from rural areas, while students with family and working commitments can schedule their daily programme more easily. In addition, online education is, on most occasions, helpful to students with health issues. However, it is this broad accessibility which is partly responsible for high dropout rates. Online accessibility is a double-edged sword in this regard, as its impact on inclusiveness is contested. Although it facilitates the participation of more students, many of them struggle with multiple needs.

Inclusiveness is not a matter of accessibility only; in online environments it also depends on students’ support. It is noticed that ‘there is not a single kind of online student’ (Veletsianos, 2020); thus, the needs of them all shall be visible by educational institutions. Supporting online students to find their place in the online educational process relies mostly on the creation of accessible and usable courses, both in terms of content and design. After all, it is accepted that online inclusiveness is a heavy burden on the shoulders of instructors (Li & Yu, 2022), since they shall design courses with multiple means of engagement, presentation and expression, anticipating the needs of each and every student (Lowenthal et al., 2020, p. 12). As a result, instructors shall create such a strong relationship with their students so as to compensate for the absence of face-to-face courses and thus better cope with their educational needs (Archambault et al., 2022). This is what Veletsianos and Houlden refer to as the ‘radical flexibility and relationality’ effect of COVID-19 in the educational process (Veletsianos & Houlden, 2020).

Digital literacy became a central tenet of higher education during the past decades and concerned universities worldwide. However, the pandemic’s outbreak reflected its significance even more. Even universities which had shown loose reflexes in the past and did not pay attention to digital technologies and student literacy, like the Greek ones, witnessed the significance of digital literacy after the outbreak of the pandemic.

While open universities or distance learning programmes have long-established practices to enhance students’ multidimensional digital literacy, the same does not apply to Greek state universities. Their attempt to ameliorate students’ self-efficacy in a digital working environment and encourage their participation in educational activities was initiated only after 2020 (Yustika & Iswati, 2020, p. 73). This set of practices was applied by undergraduate programmes as a means to avoid student dropouts and guarantee inclusiveness. In other words, such practices related to digital literacy serve as tools to ensure student equity, minimising potential gaps between different student groups.

The connection between digital literacy and inclusion has long been researched, not only in the field of educational methods but also since social media platforms have entered our lives. People’s access to digital networks is nowadays considered a valuable tool for societal inclusion. In the field of higher education it is more than that: digital literacy is broadly synonymous with access to knowledge. More specifically, digital literacy includes all ‘values, beliefs, knowledge, capacity and attitudes to use technology in an adequate way, including computer as well as different programmes and Internet, which allow for the possibility of research, access, organization and the use of information to produce knowledge’ (Spante et al., 2018, p. 1519151).

The list of such education practices is long, since universities have invested in them to guarantee their effectiveness as higher education institutions in undergraduate programmes. Among them, instructors’ enhanced communication with students, as well as their involvement in team educational activities, are at the top of the list. In this way, potential digital illiteracy will soon come to the surface and instructors will have a chance to propose ways that will improve students’ digital skills. High levels of digital competence and literacy will in turn transform into inclusion factors and equity features. This argument is circular and explains in a clear way how technology skills affect all these facets of the educational process (Sefton-Green et al., 2009).

These practices are not static following technological evolution. Digital literacy in higher education covers all its three dimensions. Functional literacy allows instructors and students to effectively communicate through a digital environment and effectively use particular software programs. Moreover, students have to access and search for information and critically use it in their research (Faris-Gaytan et al., 2022). At this point, it is upon instructors to safely guide students to obtain the necessary digital research skills to complete their educational tasks.

The above demonstrates how changeable and dynamic the environment of digital literacy is. Universities currently rely heavily on their instructors’ digital competencies and their students’ digital skills. Digital literacy and in particular the formation of digital identity has become a key factor of inclusiveness. COVID-19 expanded the role of digital literacy in higher education, although it is not the only factor towards this direction. By now, the acceleration of technological developments evinces the importance of digital literacy, and in turn the construction of digital identity. Put simply, during the past years technological literary and digital identity are becoming central aspects of higher education.

This research attempts to investigate how digital literacy affects student efficacy in undergraduate education and further investigates how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the educational process. It examines how digital skills and functional digital literacy guarantee access to the educational programme, while it analyses if the absence of such skills threatens inclusiveness and equity. Finally, it critically goes through pedagogical ways to improve cultural and critical digital literacy and considers how such skills may be incorporated into a university’s curriculum and support services. It explores whether undergraduate students are able to develop cultural and critical digital literacy, and it argues that the formation of digital identity is of growing importance, now that online education seems to be a permanent feature in the post-pandemic reality.

The research hypotheses were formulated as follows:

H1. Undergraduate students are concerned with operational digital literacy.

Overall, 135 undergraduate students of Obstetrics across Greece participated in the research. The questionnaire comprises 22 questions including demographics and is structured into four different categories.

Self-evaluation questions on digital literacy

The first set of opinion questions relates mostly to students’ self-evaluation of their digital skills and competence. Given that higher education is characterised by inclusion and there is no particular pattern of homogeneity between students, not much attention was given to demographics. Instead, only two questions relate to participants’ gender and age. The first set of five questions relate to (1) participants’ self-evaluation of their digital skills, (2) if their university attendance has developed their digital skills, (3) how satisfied they are by their digital competence, (4) if they acknowledge the term digital literacy and (5) if they believe they have developed their digital identity (Table 5).

Table 5.

Self-evaluation opinion questions

Likert scale	How would you evaluate your digital skills (%)	Have university studies developed your digital skills (%)	How satisfied are you with your digital skills (%)	How do you value digital literacy (%)	Have you developed your digital identity (%)
1. Not at all satisfied	11	4	20	4	24
2. Little satisfaction	4		18	9	22
3. Neutral	27	16	18	36	18
4. Satisfied	36	11	22	29	29
5. Very satisfied	22	69	22	22	7

Answers to the first question, regarding selfevaluation of digital skills and competence, show a variety of responses, which further reflects students’ different backgrounds. However, the results for the second question are illuminating, given that participants perceive their studies at the university as a catalyst for the development of their digital skills, and an overwhelming majority of 69% answered that they developed their digital literacy very much (Figure 1).

Figure 1:

As far as self-satisfaction with digital skills regarding their studies is concerned, answers are equally distributed, reflecting students’ varying perceptions and standards of their efficacy (Figure 2).

Figure 2:

- Finally, the most interesting part of the first set of opinion questions is that although students believe that digital literacy is extremely important for the accomplishment of their studies, they do not feel they have fully developed their digital identity. In turn, this further signifies low efficacy levels in terms of critical digital literacy skills, while it emphasises the potential deficits in their knowledge during research and written assignments.

Digital literacy responses

The second set of opinion questions relates particularly to the dimensions of digital literacy. More specifically, students were asked whether they feel comfortable about (1) using the necessary software to accomplish their tasks, which directly refers to operational digital literacy, (2) if they are familiar with the term cultural digital literacy, (3) if they are satisfied with their skills when it comes to online research, (4) if they feel they can critically assess the information they find on the web for their educational activities and (5) if they are familiar with the term critical digital literacy.

The findings from this set of questions reveal that students are familiar with the software used to complete their tasks, according to the chart in Figure 3. In this regard, their functional digital literacy is verified.

Figure 3:

However, they are not familiar with the terms cultural and critical digital literacy (Questions 6 and 9, respectively) according to the distributions of their answers (Figures 4 and 5).

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

In this regard, students seem to use the sources unconsciously and exchange information with their costudents, without particular knowledge of the importance of these functions.

Institutional practices on digital literacy

The third set of opinion questions refers only to good educational practices related to students’ digital literacy. More specifically, students were asked which practices followed by the university supported their digital competence: (1) if introductory courses and digital environment presentations are helpful, (2) how the close instructor–student relation has affected their operational digital literacy, (3) if mail and phone contact with instructors has resolved digital skills questions, (4) if they have received assistance from their fellow students and finally (5) if they have engaged in team educational activities (Table 6).

Table 6.

Good educational practices

Likert scale	Introductory courses & digital environment presentation (%)	Studentinstructor relations & digital literacy (%)	Email conduct with instructors (%)	Assistance from fellow students (%)	Team educational activities (%)
1. Not at all satisfied	16	9	2	4	4
2. Little satisfaction	13	4	13		2
3. Neutral	36	22	29	24	29
4. Satisfied	20	31	27	38	29
5. Very satisfied	16	33	29	33	36

The findings from this set of questions are extremely interesting. The majority of participants (36%) pointed out that introductory courses and the presentation of the university’s digital environment were insufficient and did not make much difference in their operational digital literacy, which further makes room for discussion as far as the content and manner of execution of this educational practice is concerned.

Participants show confidence in communication with their instructors and this communication covers digital literacy as well, since a total sum of 64% have responded that they are satisfied, or very satisfied.

Finally, the last two questions refer to the university’s practices which engage students in teamwork. Participants develop their cultural digital literacy in such ways and feel free to exchange their views with their fellow students. Moreover, these team educational activities are very important for the shaping of their digital identity. More specifically, team educational activities are valued very highly by participants, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6:

COVID-19 effects on the educational process

The fourth and final set of questions relates to the influence of COVID-19 on digital literacy. More specifically, students were asked whether COVID-19 (1) has disrupted educational activities, (2) how satisfied they are with the digital conduct of exams, (3) how confident they feel about sitting for digital exams, (4) how COVID-19 has affected their digital competence and (5) how COVID-19 affects online education (Table 7).

Table 7.

COVID-19 and digital literacy

Likert scale	COVID-19 disruption of education (%)	Digital conduct of exams satisfaction (%)	Confidence in digital exams (%)	COVID-19 digital competence (%)	COVID-19 online education (%)
1. Not at all satisfied	4.40	2.20	2.20
2. Little satisfaction	13.30	4.40	2.20
3. Neutral	42.20	33.30	24.40	24.40	15.60
4. Satisfied	28.90	28.90	35.60	26.70	31.10
5. Very satisfied	11.10	31.10	35.60	48.90	53.30

This set of answers verifies the overall sentiment that COVID-19 has not affected much online and distance education and that students are highly receptive to this online educational scheme. This is due to the fact that the majority of participants did not physically attend university facilities during their first year of undergraduate studies, and thus online higher education was how they first entered university. In this regard, they perceived online higher education as a logical scheme which made sense during the pandemic, as they had no other previous experience in university studies.

The chart in Figure 7 shows that COVID-19 has not significantly disrupted the usual processes of digital education, since 42.20% stayed neutral.

Figure 7:

Moreover, students seem to have digital confidence when it comes to exams and their percentage of satisfaction is relatively large, even though it was a new process imposed by the needs of COVID-19 (Figure 8).

Figure 8:

- The same pattern follows the last two questions, where students found little effect of COVID-19 on digital literacy and online education, since the majority of answers show satisfaction or great satisfaction.

This paper aptly demonstrates how Greek state universities attempted to adapt to the new scenario and cope with the technological transformational needs. Universities seem well equipped as far as the student–instructor relation is concerned (Zagkos et al., 2022). Most answers demonstrate that instructors managed to create strong bonds with their students during the COVID-19 period and cope with the absence of face-to-face classes. This is maybe the most tangible result drawn from this research. This is a global trend that has been recorded in many universities worldwide, and not an originality of the University of Western Macedonia (Tice et al., 2021). Thus, H3 is verified by this research.

Students have shown confidence in the new digital environment and there have been positive outcomes of this transformation. These measures have affected primarily the conduct of exams (Kharbat & Abu Daabes, 2021). Students’ overall satisfaction with regard to online learnina environments introduced after the pandemic and their feeling of competence during each semester was conjoined by the security they felt to take online exams (Abrosimova, 2020; Spante et al., 2018). However, answers to the questionnaire demonstrated concern or even anxiety about their operational literacy, particularly when it comes to presentation of their research, or other assignments. This verifies H1, although it shows that these concerns do not cover the part of exams. However, results are not the same as far as introductory courses are concerned, which do not have the same impact on students’ digital competence. This study has most certainly demonstrated that students do not seem satisfied with the university’s digital environment, or that they do not receive sufficient support regarding transformation to online courses. Although instructors managed to create a sense of security, the same does not apply to institutional university services (Alqabbani et al., 2021). This finding is a novelty of this study as it differentiates between University services and instructors’ support and demonstrates that there is more to be done by university institutions. In other words, there is a certain deficit in institutional readiness (Badiozaman, 2021; Budur et al., 2021; Cutri et al., 2020). That is, although H3 is verified it is not the only means to bring in good results for H1.

Moreover, although students communicate with their classmates with regard to the exchange of information and receive strong guidance from their instructors on their research and studies, they are not familiar with the importance of cultural and critical digital literacy and have low rates of confidence in searching for and critically assessing information. From this perspective, we may positively come to the conclusion that functional digital literacy is very well developed among undergraduates, while the same does not apply to cultural and critical digital literacy. Thereat, H1 is not proven in its entirety. What is more, students do not feel they are in a position to have shaped their digital identity as researchers and young scholars (Camacho et al., 2012), a fair outcome, bearing in mind that they are at an undergraduate level (Mcclurken et al., 2013). This finding proves that there is a gap in higher education between digital literacy and competence and the formation of digital identity. This finding runs contrary to H2 according to which digital literacy is a prerequisite for digital identity. The two are related: the former is first accomplished by students, however, there are stages in between which are not easily discernible. Although there is confidence with skills, undergraduates are not yet in a condition to perceive themselves as young scholars and researchers.

Finally, it can be generally said that Greek state universities have adapted to the new technological requirements (Kamarianos et al., 2020). This adaptation has been quick and not predesigned. Adaptation did not come as a result of careful planning, therefore conventional state universities, like the University of Western Macedonia, did not benefit from the already existing knowledge of open universities which are familiar with open distance learning. In this sense, the high level of students’ and instructors’ digital competency was the decisive factor in the successful outcome of this transition. In this sense, further design and overall planning of digital tools in higher education shall be made to enhance students’ literacy and guarantee that their digital identity is constructed based on positive learning experiences. This planning will further enhance all students’ inclusion in the digital University environment and avoid inclusion gaps or divides. Findings do not manifest issues of inclusion, however, there is no hint that no steps are taken towards inclusion through digital literacy (H4).