Main Article Content
Many students in post-secondary education nowadays expect online spaces for learning as they are used to be quasi-always online via social network services and streaming sites. How much can instructors cope with the challenges of digital technologies expected to be used in contemporary higher education institutions? Answers lead to the evaluation of digital literacy exhibited by students and instructors. Many definitions have been proposed to handle the concept of digital literacy adding to many more others that try to make the research and application of similar skill sets and competences manageable. This study aimed at assessing the level of digital literacy exhibited by instructors at higher education institutions in Thailand. Moreover, we investigated the attitudes towards the use of digital technologies for teaching expressed by the instructors. We collected data from a variety of institutions with the help of questionnaires as well as in-depth interviews and analyzed the data. Basic statistics such as mean, S.D. and percentage were used for quantitative data analysis. For qualitative data, content analysis technique was employed as a key method. According to the findings of the present study, the instructors showed moderate level of digital literacy and more than half of the participating instructors exhibited some key fundamental digital skills and literacy. In addition, they perceived positive uses of digital technologies. However several instructors still employed simple forms of digital technologies for their teaching and research work as they recognized the importance of TPACK, and some challenges and difficulties. The findings suggest that there is still a need for specific training for enhancing their digital literacy in order for them to suitably leverage technology or digital tools for their teaching practice and research in an effective way.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The owner of the article does not copy or violate any of its copyright. If any copyright infringement occurs or prosecution, in any case, the Editorial Board is not involved in all the rights to the owner of the article to be performed.
2. Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
3. Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8 -14.
4. Blau, Ina, & Yoram Eshet-Alkalai. (2017). The ethical dissonance in digital and non-digital learning environments: Does technology promotes cheating among middle school students? Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 629-637.
5. Calvani, Antonio, Antonio Cartelli, Antonio Fini, & Maria Ranieri (2009). Models and instruments for Assessing Digital Competence at School. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 4 (3), 183-193.
6. Clark, Ruth C., & Richard E. Mayer. (2011). E-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
7. Confalonieri, W. (2015). The quest for the digital frontier. Retrieved May 26, 2015, from https://www.educause.edu/ero/article/quest-digital-frontier
8. Covello, S. (2010). A review of digital literacy assessment instruments. N.p.: Syracuse University.
9. Erman, A. (1966). The old Egyptians: A sourcebook of their writings. New York: Harper & Row.
10. Eshet, Y. (2012). Thinking in the digital era: A revised model of digital literacy. Informing Science & Information Technology, 9, 267-276.
11. Farmer, T., K. Robinson, S. J. Elliott, & J. Eyles. (2006). Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research, 16, 377-394.
12. Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. Seville: JRC-IPTS. Retrieved September 16, 2012, from https://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC68116.pdf.
13. Flores-Koulish, S., Deal, D., McCarthy, K., McGuigan, J. & Rosebrugh, E. (2011). After the
media literacy course: three early childhood teachers look back. Action in Teacher Education, 33, 2, 127–143.
14. Gapski, H. (2007). Some reflections on digital literacy. Proceedings of the 3rd International
Workshop on Digital Literacy (pp. 49-55). Crete, Greece: CEUR-WS.org. Retrieved online from: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-310/paper05.pdf
15. Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley.
16. Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measure to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–112.
17. Hsiu-Fang Hsieh, & Sarah E. Shannon. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
18. Innovation & Business Skills Australia. (2013). Digital literacy and e-skills: Participation on the digital economy. Report.
19. International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). National educational technology standards for students. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/standards/for-students-2016
20. Jones, Rodney H., & Christoph A. Hafner (2012). Understanding digital literacies: A practical introduction. London: Routledge.
21. Luke, A., & P. Freebody. (1999). A map of possible practices: Further notes on the four resources model. Practically Primary, 4(2), 5-8.
22. Maloney, S., Nicklen, P., Rivers, G., Foo, J., Ooi, Y. Y., Reeves, S., & Ilic, D. (2015). A cost-effectiveness analysis of blended versus face-to-face delivery of evidence-based medicine to medical students. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(7), e182.
23. Martin, Allan, & Jan Grudziecki. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy development. DigEuLit: Concepts and Tools for Digital Literacy Development. ITALICS, 5.
24. Maslen, Geoff. (2012). Worldwide student numbers forecast to double by 2025. Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20120216105739999.
25. Mertens, et al. (2016). The future of mixed methods: A five year projection to 2020. Retrieved from https://mmira.wildapricot.org/resources/Documents/MMIRA%20task% 20force%20report%20Jan2016%20final.pdf
26. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications
technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319–341.
27. Nerentzi, C. (2014). A personal journey of discoveries through a DIY open course development for professional development of teachers in Higher Education. Journal of Pedagogic Development, 4(2), 42-58.
28. OECD/UNESCO. (2016). Education in Thailand: An OECD-UNESCO Perspective. Paris: OECD Publishing.
29. Rosen, L. D., K. Whaling, L. M. Carrier, N. A. Cheever, & J. Rokkum. (2013). The media and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2501-2511.
30. Sharpe, R., & Beetham, H. (2010). Understanding students’ uses of technology for learning: towards creative appropriation. In Rethinking Learning for the Digital Age: how Learners Shape their Experiences, eds R. Sharpe, H. Beetham & S. de Freitas, Routledge, London, pp. 85-99.
31. UNESCO. (2011). ICT Competency framework for teachers. Retrieved from
32. Van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & Van Deursen, A. J. A. M. (2014). Digital skills, unlocking the information society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
33. Van Laar, Ester, Alexander J. A. M. van Deursen, Jan A. G. M. van Dijk, & Jos de Haan. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577-588.
34. Walters, Timothy N., Lynne M. Walters, Martha R. Green, & Lau Hooi Lin (2016). Rich Text, Rich Teach: Expanding Educational Horizons with Technology in Malaysia. In: Amsat, I. H. and B. Yusuf (eds.): Fast forwarding Higher Education Institutions for Global Challenges. Singapore: Springer. ISBN 978-981-287-602-7. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-287-603-4_2.
35. World bank. (2013). Gross enrollment, tertiary, both sexes. Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR