An Exploration of Online Technoliteracy Capability Teaching and Learning in Early Years Classrooms

The increasing use of digital devices by young children, has led to calls for earlier teaching for information literacy. However, some research indicates reluctance to do this, due to perceived limitations of young children and notions about what is and is not ‘appropriate’ for them learn. This study examines this proposition, through analysis of 6 and 7 year olds’ application of ‘Technoliteracy’ capabilities during a unit of learning about Matariki (the Maori new year). It used an updated and expanded revision of Durrant and Green’s L(IT)eracy capability model, to understand how the students applied ‘Technoliteracy’ capabilities to online research and production of an information artefact for an identi�ed audience. Although results were mixed, data was found of students’ productive engagement of ‘Technoliteracy’ capabilities aligned with Durrant and Green’s dimensions, suggesting that with developmentally-appropriate curriculum and pedagogy they were capable of integrating these for meaning making, judging meaning quality, and meaning sharing and communication. Given increasingly ubiquitous access to devices from a young age, results indicate that serious consideration should be given to teaching basic ‘Technoliteracy’ capabilities in early years classrooms.


Introduction
Increasingly ubiquitous access to internet-connected digital devices through which individuals can access information at anytime from anywhere, has brought with it many advantages.Commentators point to improved democratisation of information, facilitated by "technology eliminating barriers and granting access [to information] so that new ideas can spread" (Inefuku, 2017, p. 62), while researchers highlight fundamental changes to political landscapes (Zhuravskaya et al., 2020), business and industry (Dwivedi et al., 2021) and social communication and personal interactions often enabled by powerful social media and other networked information systems (Defede et al., 2121).In some countries, schools have promoted the uptake of these technologies as classroom learning tools through Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) initiatives, or by creating easily transportable mobile device pods that can be accessed by teachers for speci c purposes (e.g., Author, 2015;McLean, 2016).Proliferation of these devices in schools and in the out-of-school lives of students, has led to calls for improved information literacy, which Laretive (2019) de nes as being "aware of the need for information (and being) able to seek, access, process and use information e ciently and ethically" (p.225).However, as Willison and O'Regan (2005) point out, teachers and students are "without a clear blueprint or roadmap on how to teach and learn the concept of information literacy" (p.634), describing the assumption of information literate students by the time they enter university as nothing more than "a myth" (p.634).They further comment that to be information literate should be considered a lifelong process rather than one de ned by a "once and for all" (ibid, p. 635) display of particular skills, and that this process must be continuous as individuals interact in different educational, work and social environments.
Contemporary perspectives on information literacy frequently associate it with digital literacy.This is variously described as including abilities to understand and create multimodal texts (Marsh et al., 2017), enabling skills supporting the more effective use of digital tools for personal, civic, social, occupational and learning purposes (Gillen & Barton, 2010), and knowledge required to use digital resources to create new meaning and communicate effectively with others (Neumann et al., 2017) With respect to online information, Kiili et al. (2018) identify the importance of digital skills that support "a self-directed process of constructing text and knowledge when seeking answers to questions on the internet" (p.307), describing this as similar to a research inquiry in which students integrate off and online reading and comprehension skills in a process of "locating information, evaluating information, synthesising information, and communicating information" (Kiili et al., 2018, p. 309).Their empirically-validated theoretical factor analysis identi ed 6 key skills students engaged when working effectively online using this process.These were: locating information with a search engine, con rming its credibility, questioning its credibility, identifying the main ideas from a single source, synthesising information across multiple sources, and communicating a justi able position based on reliable information.They comment that while elements of traditional literacy contribute to these processes, "working to integrate information across multiple and disparate resources may introduce new challenges for students more accustomed to reading logically structured learning materials, such as a textbook or a single article" (Kiili et al., 2018, p. 330).They further highlight the importance of beginning to develop these skills with younger students, lamenting on the poor performance of older students who "seem to be rather unskilled with reading to learn from online information" (p.305).
To this end, while some work has been undertaken exploring digital and information literacy development in high schools and universities (e.g., Al-Qallaf & Aljiran, 2021), research in early years learning appears more limited and focused on less structured and play-based interactions with digital devices, that emphasise "playfulness, agency and creativity" (Burnett, 2010, p. 2).Share (2010) claims preconceived notions about limitations to young children's capabilities based on outdated, lock-step developmental theories, are still held by many early years educators.He comments and that these can limit opportunities for young students to engage in more structured tasks with the potential of introducing essential skills of critical information literacy -skills that should be "taught to children as young as possible" (p.109).This perspective is shared by Hsin et al. (2014), who, in their systematic review, identi ed digital and information literacy in pre-school and kindergarten as under-taught and under-researched, concluding that almost all reviewed studies at this level focused on digital device use for cognitive, social and attitudinal purposes to further language, conventional literacy, mathematics and science discipline learning.
The study this article reports on, aimed to investigate the extent to which pairs of 6-7 year old primary (elementary) students could learn and apply basic Technoliteracy capabilities and practices (Tour, 2010) through a series of lessons exploring the celebration of Matariki (the New Zealand Maori New Year).It updates and extends to the online environment the dimensions of Durrant and Green's (2000) earlier Literacy-Technology (or l(IT)eracy) model, building contemporary understanding of the interaction between technology, information and literacy capabilities and practices engaged by the students when online researching facts about Matariki, and authoring basic information artefacts to present to an audience.Durrant and Green's model was selected as the theoretical referent for this study as its holistic nature accommodated multiple dimensions comprising Operational, Critical, and Cultural understandings considered important for using digital technologies productively for accurate knowledge building and communication.It offered a more comprehensive perspective on the sort of interrelated capabilities needed by students to fully leverage learning advantages from online information, than the information and technical 'skills-checklist' approach of many more recent frameworks, that often deemphasise cultural and critical components (e.g., Foo & Majid, 2017; Kiili et al., 2018).As Rice and Cun (2020) comment, such holistic understandings are critical for young children to "[productively] navigate digital technologies and develop initiative and a sense of industry" (p.1834).
iPad display video and audio data were analysed for evidence of capabilities aligned with the revised l(IT)eracy model, which were systematically taught by the teachers across a series of 6 lessons comprising the learning unit (see later discussion).Data indicated an integration of capabilities across the three dimensions variably de ned each student pair's level of Technoliteracy, and that all pairs displayed some evidence of applying more abstract Cultural-Critical and information evaluation knowledge in researching and developing their artefacts.Results suggest that structured approaches to teaching for Technoliteracy in early years classrooms can be bene cial, and should be considered as a response to increased access to, and use of digital devices by young children in school and other contexts.They also signal the need to reconsider historical perspectives regarding perceived limitations to young children's capabilities in these areas.

Research Aim and Questions
The aim of this study was to investigate whether young children could engage with and learn from curriculum designed to teach basic Technoliteracy capabilities aligned with a revision of Durrant and Green's (2000) l(IT)eracy model.Data were collected and analysed responding to these questions: 1. To what extent are young students able to operationalise Technoliteracy capabilities in online research and digital information artefact development?
2. How did Technoliteracy capabilities integrate in researching and developing the digital information artefacts?

Understanding Technoliteracy
The concept of Technoliteracy originates from Green's (1988) early work on socio-cultural understandings of general literacy as comprising three interrelated dimensions: Operational, Cultural and Critical.The Operational dimension refers to capabilities associated with understanding and using a language system in order to function effectively in different contexts.The Cultural dimension focuses on 'meaning-making'-that is, awareness that meanings derived from texts are context dependent and that what might be considered appropriate or inappropriate in one context, may not apply to others.Finally, the Critical dimension views understanding language as a socially-constructed practice, "represent(ing) particular interpretations and classi cations" (Lankshear & Knobel, 1998, p. 2).Lankshear and Knobel associate the Critical dimension with pedagogical considerations that focus on furthering skills and dispositions supporting the critique of existing discourses, as represented through speci c texts.They further comment on the transformative nature of Critical dimension capabilities as essential for enabling individuals to play a more active role in shaping meaning-making systems, rather than merely being socialised into them.In the context of technology-literacy learning, Durrant and Green (2000) comment that in school policy and programs "all dimensions need to be addressed simultaneously" (p.97), representing this as an interrelated process (Figure 1).
More recently, Durrant and Green's (2000) dimensions have been updated and expanded, acknowledging the increasing importance of digital technology in student learning.This expansion emphasises understanding and using multimodal information as a key component of contemporary Technoliteracy (Tour, 2010).Furthermore, Lankshear et al. (2000) identify Technoliteracy as an emerging literacy form, de ned by capabilities which combine traditional literacy with technology pro ciencies within, and at the intersection of Green and Durrant's l(IT)eracy model dimensions.These include abilities to decode and encode information, research and report on information -deciding which is relevant, and practical skills such as notetaking, scanning and being selective in collecting information.
Tour (2010) used Lankshear et al.'s (2000) expanded conceptualisation of Technoliteracyto help understand English as an additional language (EAL) students' learning practices, while working in technology-rich environments.She speci cally focused on how students used technology to encode and decode multimodal information, the appropriateness of practices they applied when doing this with regard to context and purpose, and their willingness and ability to question and critique meanings and practices associated with using online information.Tour (2010) reported that using the expanded conceptualisation of Technoliteracy enabled her to identify unique challenges faced by EAL learners when working with online information.These included overall language pro ciency and con dence, contextual differences in how and what information is accessed and used, ICT technical capabilities, and reluctance to engage critically in critiquing and evaluating information due to poor language skills and limited knowledge of contextual norms.In her study, the interaction of these mediating factors with each other within the dimensions of the l(IT)eracy model, is represented in Figure 2. Her ndings illustrate the exibility of Durrant and Green's (2000) model to accommodate Lankshear et al.'s (2000) Technoliteracycapabilities, and its usefulness as an analytical tool to build knowledge about students' practices when using online information in different contexts.
In this study, a further revision and extension of Durrant and Green's (2000) model was used to build understanding from data collected during a teaching unit introducing young students to basic capabilities associated with accessing and using online information, and the foundational strategies for checking and evaluating its authenticity.

Technoliteracy and Young Children
According to Marsh (2004), notions of literacy in early years education generally focus on paper-based activities concerned with "developing a solid foundation for later attainment in [traditional] literacy" (p.52).However, she argues that this conceptualisation is no longer adequate in a world where even very young children are able to access multimodal information using a range of technologies including television, computers and mobile devices.She suggests that contemporary understandings of literacy need to "incorporate technology and multimodal ways of making meaning" (p.52).These include opportunities for young children to engage in Technoliteracy learning, which she describes as "those literacy practices and events which are mediated by new technologies [or are] embedded within older technologies [that are] constantly updated to include new technologies" (Marsh, 2004, p. 52).
Fundamental to this transition, Share (2010) identi es the importance of "teaching critical media literacy to children as young as possible" (p.109), to build the foundational skills and dispositions that will support them to question and critically review multimodal information, and use that information transformatively to construct personal meaning, solve problems and affect change.At the same time he identi es a signi cant barrier to this being popularly held notions amongst early years educators about "what is and what is not appropriate, [that] often prevents the possibility of discovering the potential of critical media literacy to engage young children in meaningful learning that develops their cognitive, social, emotional, moral and political abilities" (Share, 2010, p. 110).Earlier work by Nicoll (1996) con rms this perspective, which she suggests is based on unfounded assumptions held by some early years educators who believe that "children are too young to be able to think well" (p.2).
In recent years, a few studies have emerged challenging these historical assumptions through trialling more structured approaches to teaching Technoliteracy capabilities in early years education.For example, DeCarlo et al.'s (2017) work investigated Neuman's (2009) I-LEARN model as a structure to teach kindergarten students (5 and 6 year olds) how to source, evaluate and synthesise information to create digital portfolios on the topic of 'What Makes our City Special?' The I-LEARN model adopts a problem-based approach, and is structured around 6 stages designed to teach students important skills and processes of learning with information (Neuman, 2009).Neuman identi es these as Identify (what is the need for information?),Locate (source information), Evaluate (judge the quality of information), Apply (use the information to address the need), Re ect (on the outcome and processes) and kNow (represent what has been learnt for future use).
Supported by professional learning that introduced the teacher to the I-LEARN model, a series of structured lessons aligned with its stages were planned and taught to 24 kindergarteners.These systematically stepped the children through the model's stages, and introduced effective skills and processes associated with each.Although the lessons did not focus exclusively on sourcing and using digital information (it was one source amongst others), ndings indicated high levels of student capability existed in identifying potential sources of information, and "evaluating their ease of use and perceived usefulness in uncovering new information" (DeCarlo et al., 2017, p. 272).Furthermore, they provided evidence that the very young children were able to e ciently process information from different sources, and use it "to build new information and digital knowledge, throughout the project" (p.270).The study concluded that while kindergarteners may only be at the earliest stages of understanding how digital and non-digital information can be sourced and used, given a structured curriculum and teachers able to scaffold using developmentally-appropriate pedagogies, even very young children are capable of "understanding how knowledge is organised and how to nd information, which are the building blocks of becoming information literate" (DeCarlo et al., 2017, p. 274).The present study builds on Share and DeCarlo et al.'s work by investigating young students' Technoliteracy capabilities and practices when researching and using online information to author simple digital information artefacts.It generates new insights into the capacity of young students -given appropriate structure and support, to understand and apply Technoliteracy capabilities in digitally-mediated and online learning tasks.

Participants and Student Organisation
The participating school was a multicultural contributing primary (K-6), located in a middle to low socioeconomic area of a small regional town in New Zealand's north island.The research class comprised 28 primary (6-7 year old) students who, on average, had been at school for between 1.5 and 2 years.The class comprised 14 boys and 14 girls who were, according to their teachers (Sonia and Lisa, pseudonyms used), of "generally average achievement in reading and writing, according to the PM Benchmark Literacy Assessment" (Sonia, personal communication).The students were familiar with using iPads for other learning, including writing stories using 'Storybook Creator' and practising basic addition and subtraction with apps such as 'Rocket Maths'.They had also used teacher-selected and facilitated sections of the 'National Geographic Kids' website to learn about the habitats of native New Zealand animals during a Living World Science unit.However, this was the rst time they been taught about and had used online information to create an information artefact.
Sonia was an experienced teacher of 23 years and Assistant Principal, while Lisa was in her 8 th year of teaching, 6 of which had been in the junior school.Following Sonia's recommendation, the students were organised into social pairs for the unit.She suggested doing this would maximise the prospect of quality conversations occurring and increase on task time that would yield more detailed information, as, according to her "they work better with someone they know and are comfortable with" (Sonia, personal communication).iPad display and audio data were collected from all 14 pairs, which, apart from one absence (data were still collected from the remaining student), remained stable across the 6 lessons.The social grouping arrangement was considered acceptable, as the purpose of this study was not to compare students, nor determine any relationship that might exist between, for example, existing reading capabilities and their ability to successfully complete this task.Instead, this study sought evidence to determine whether students of this age are capable of understanding and operationalising basic online research and information evaluation and communication capabilities, when taught using a project-based curriculum.Its principal purpose was to investigate the e cacy of this approach for early years classrooms.

The Teaching Unit
The students were tasked with creating an information artefact (digital representation) for a speci ed audience (their 'buddy' class), reporting at least 3 facts about Matariki (the Maori New Year) resulting from their online research.
The learning unit was described by Sonia as: … an integrated language and digital technology unit, where the children need to use the web to research and then design a Pic Collage [1] poster or Popplet [2] map with 3 facts about Matariki, to share with their buddy class using the IWB (interactive whiteboard)… (Sonia, unit plan).
Learning outcomes aligned with New Zealand's national curriculum objectives in Digital Technologies (DT) and English (Eng.) at Level 1 (Ministry of Education, 2007).These were: 1. Designing and developing digital outcomes (DT);

Design and visual communication (DT);
3. Acquire and begin to use sources of information, processes and strategies to identify, form and express ideas (Eng.).
To help guide planning, after discussion with the teachers, Durrant and Green's (2000) original Technoliteracy dimensions were revised to acknowledge the close relationship existing between Cultural and Critical dimension capabilities.To accommodate this the dimensions were combined, re ecting one of the study's main objectives which was to learn about the young students' ability to critically review -even at an emerging level, the information they were accessing, and display awareness that it represented particular people's perspectives on events, which may or may not be accurate.The combined dimension also accommodated the unit's learning objective to demonstrate basic understanding of appropriate design, layout and use of colour in producing an information artefact to be communicated to a speci c audience.While these objectives may appear broad and ambitious for a single teaching unit, it is important to remember it was not the intention of this study to attribute a speci c measurement to how well students could execute capabilities within the dimensions, or assess any development of these during the teaching unit.Given their young age and some literature suggesting such capabilities are 'developmentally inappropriate' for young students to learn (see Share, 2010), its principal purpose was to investigate the validity of these claims, given increased device access and use by much younger children.

The Lessons
The lessons were planned using the revised and expanded dimensions and capabilities from Durrant and Green's (2000) model (see Figure 3).They focused on: • basic web search skills including using keywords and strings.Examples were recorded on the class whiteboard; • synonyms, as equivalent keywords; • how to use search results page descriptions to judge the potential relevance of information; • how to use the assistive functions and cognitive tools of the iPad to access text they couldn't read or to check their own understanding, and to improve the accuracy of writing (e.g., text-to-speech, auto-correct, word picker, spell checker, predictive text); • how to copy and paste text or images between apps and use the 'app switcher' function; • how to determine what is likely to be 'true' by locating similar information on more than one website (evaluating, verifying); • the internet is an 'open' environment representing people's views and perspectives, and that these may not always be 'true'; • desired qualities of the digital artefacts that make them ' t for purpose' (i.e., presenting to their 'buddy' class).These included layout and visibility attributes for presenting to an audience at a distance, using an IWB.
Of note is that in planning and teaching, the above capabilities were not introduced sequentially-that is, on a 'lesson by lesson' basis.That was because the unit was designed using a project-based approach, with speci c capabilities and understandings being introduced at relevant times during the artefact development process, as opposed to being time-bound within a particular lesson.The 'just in time' instructional approach was intentional, to maximise opportunities for the students to immediately practise and apply the taught capabilities thereby enhancing their relevance, and potentially, their understanding.
Each 40-45 minute lesson followed a similar structure.A 15-18 minute (approx.)whole class introduction was teacher led and comprised various combinations of: revision of previous lessons; direct instruction; modelling and demonstrating task-relevant knowledge and skills; creating learning scaffolds (e.g., recording keywords/strings or question stems on the whiteboard); discussing and demonstrating strategies for checking the accuracy of web-sourced information -and why this is important, and building general understanding of the web as an open information environment.In the remaining lesson time, the pairs completed their online research and artefact authoring using the Pages app as an editing tool, before nalising their 3 facts into either PicCollage or Popplet.As the students worked, both teachers circulated around the pairs providing guidance and direction, as required.

Data Collection and Coding
Data were collected using the native display and audio capture app available in iOS 14, although a tweak was made to its operation so that it continued recording even if the students closed the iPad's cover (which occurred frequently).Recordingsfor each pairwere collected across the 6 lessons, and were organised in 'bundles' of between 2hrs 16 mins and 2 hrs 51 minutes of runtime duration.These data included teacher-student (advice, guidance etc.) and student-student on and off-task actions and dialogue, but excluded introductions and any plenary discussions.Data coding involved 2 coders, and followed conventional inductive methods.First, a sample comprising 8 hours 24 minutes of recorded data was manually reviewed by the author and a postgraduate research assistant (RA) working together, to identify occurrences considered to align with the capabilities outlined in the revised analytical model.The sample was randomly selected, although care was taken to include some data from each pair.Although time consuming, this process was necessary to enhance the accuracy of decisions when coding the full dataset.Furthermore, it was decided that occurrences would be coded as percentages of recorded runtime, rather than as single event counts.This was considered more appropriate, as V-Note timeline analysis indicated occurrences often spanned several seconds or sometimes minutes rather than being 'one off' events, as students discussed, negotiated and trialled different strategies (see Figure 4).
During the initial analysis, the author and RA discussed categorisations and the 'goodness of t' of data with the revised model dimensions and capabilities, using the descriptions recorded in Table 1.While general compatibility was noted, analysis suggested demarcation between dimension capabilities was not as clear cut as represented in the model, but that activities existed between them where capabilities interacted in processes of meaning making, meaning sharing and communication, and assessing meaning quality.Where this was evident, rather than trying to apportion 'weightings' the overlaps were tagged and recorded on the analysis timelines, along with notes describing the interactions and the in uence they had on the students' work processes.Following the initial analysis and re nement of data classi cation descriptions the RA timeline coded the full dataset, including the previously coded sample.In total, 37 hours, 27 minutes of recorded data were coded.Although exceptionally time-consuming, coding the full data set was essential to ensure accurate coding decisions, given the relatively small number of participants.When completed, a randomly selected sample (20%) of coded data was re-coded by the author, and interrater agreement (kappa) calculations performed.To make this process manageable, data were reviewed against the larger dimensions of the model, rather than using individual capabilities.Predictably, while substantial agreement was evident in data coded in the Operational dimension, more modest (although still acceptable) results were apparent in the Knowledge-building and Cultural-critical dimensions.This could be attributed to the more easily identi able data where technical/operational capabilities were being used, as opposed to subjective interpretation of data aligned with the other two dimensions.Table 2 contains a summary of interrater agreement results.

Results
In presenting data, students' names and any potentially identifying details have been changed or removed to maintain anonymity, as required by ethics procedures.Figure 5 summarises the percentage of coded runtime data by dimension, in addition to teacher-pair interaction and off task activity.Of note is the effect of overlap between dimensions, re ecting data indicating, for example, the engagement of Operational dimension capabilities in the process of Knowledge-building, as described previously.This is illustrated by the parallel time coding across more than one dimension in the analysis timeline (see example in Figure 3).These overlaps account for the 'overhang' percentages of coded data for each pair.Table 3 further details these by summarising the percentages of data aligned with speci c capabilities for each pair, while Table 4 provides sample data coded under each dimension and its capabilities.Table 4 comprises a description of the context and prior student activity, a related screenshot from the display recording, and a verbatim transcription of recorded audio.The samples have been purposively selected as representative of coded occurrences, and also because they contain data that clearly illustrates the capabilities engaged in each dimension.
Results indicate a predominance of data coded under Operational dimension capabilities (42.82%) that were frequently, but not exclusively, associated with Knowledge-building.Data indicated the e ciency and effectiveness of students' Operational dimension capabilities varied, which directly affected their knowledge-building capacity by enabling or limiting access to quality information.This particularly related to generating search strings and keywords, and the extent to which students engaged device assistive functions such as text-to-speech to help bridge reading or comprehension 'gaps'.Although sample keywords were recorded on the whiteboard and some direct instruction was provided on how to write search strings using these, the students' capacity and/or willingness to do this was variable.Generally, students who interacted in this process and collaborated to build coherent search strings more targeted at speci c information (e.g., Table 4, row 3), were able to retrieve better search results; whereas those pairs who used 2 or 3 keywords randomly selected from the whiteboard, often struggled.While this nding was predictable, evidence was found indicating most of these students understood what keywords were, how to use them to create an effective search string, and why this was important for retrieving useful and accurate information (e.g., Table 4, row 3).
The text-to-speech function included in iOS 14 was used by all pairs multiple times during the 6 lessons, and appeared to support them for two main purposes.
First, those students who experienced di culty reading text, including summary information contained on search results pages or within the sites themselves, by default opted to use text-to-speech from the outset.These students generally made no or only a super cial attempt to read the text, before defaulting to the assistive function.Other students, however, read fully, or made a very good attempt at reading information, before using text-to-speech to check or con rm their interpretation.While in terms of understanding information the outcome from both uses was the same, arguably the latter represents a more bene cial and educative use of text-to-speech as a reading scaffold, rather than as a substitute.Video and/or oral evidence of applying technology, or technical skills or knowledge to nd potentially relevant online information.
Students selected and used appropriate web browser (Chrome or Safari) and navigated between sites using tabs.
Students discussed and chose appropriate search keywords or phrases and entered them correctly.

Using device assistive functions or tools
Video and/or oral evidence of using device assistive functions (e.g., text-tospeech, autocorrect, spell check) to access and make sense of information, or work with information within or between apps (e.g., copy and paste, text or image editing tools).
Students selected and highlighted text and used text-to-speech function for reading aloud.
Students used 'word picker' function to correct errors, complete sentences or source suitable word.
Students copied and pasted web text into Pages for later use or reference.
Students cropped or edited images.
Students used document layout suggestions in applications.

Evaluating information
Oral and video evidence of students questioning, evaluating, verifying or checking text information or images, before, during or after accessing.

Students compared and contrasted information contained on different sites (checking, seeking veri cation).
Students questioned the accuracy of information.
Students checked 'facts' more than once.
Students critically reviewed and commented on images or text before selecting.
Reading, selecting and using information Oral and video evidence of students reading (with or without assistive functions), selecting and using information (e.g., taking notes, summarising, synthesising).
Students read site summary descriptors before deciding to navigate there.
Students used Pages to collate and re-read/review information before using it to write their three 'facts'.
Students identi ed similarities and differences between text pasted into Pages, before deciding what to use.

Information and knowledge
Oral evidence indicating awareness of the web as an open environment and/or demonstrating concern for the accuracy of sourced information.
Student dialogue indicated they understand the web is an environment in which anyone can post information.
Student dialogue indicated they understand the web is an environment where not all information is true.
Student dialogue indicated the importance of checking information from more than one source.

Purpose and audience
Oral and video evidence indicating consideration of purpose and audience when creating digital artefacts.This included design considerations such as impact, visibility, colour choice and layout.
Student dialogue and/or activity indicated they made artefact design decisions (e.g., colours, font sizes/styles, content spacing/arrangement etc.) based on audience and delivery mode.Poppy & Flynn, 20.98%) tended to spend longer reading and evaluating the quality of what they found, discussing its suitability for their purpose, and showing interest in its accuracy and quality (e.g., Table 4, rows 1 & 2).Conversely, pairs who spent longer searching for suitable information tended to spend less time evaluating its suitability for their purpose, or displaying concern for its quality or accuracy (e.g., Danny & Zara, 41.23%; Oliver & Blake, 39.10%).These students tended to skim multiple sites at a surface level, but failed to engage cognitively with them in any depth.The exception to this was Aria and Maddie, who displayed both breadth and depth in their information seeking and evaluation behaviours.Both of these students were identi ed as "bright and very capable readers" (Sonia, personal communication), whose general reading and comprehension abilities greatly assisted in this respect.This pair also made very modest use of text-to-speech, preferring instead to read the information aloud together before discussing its meaning (see later Discussion).
Data coded under Cultural-critical dimension capabilities aligned with Information and Knowledge and Purpose and Audience were comparatively rare, and indicated pairs who engaged more deeply but with a lesser volume of information tended to show more concern for its accuracy and authenticity, than others who retrieved larger volumes through lengthy web searching.Coding for pairs such as Brieon and Libby (9.05%), Abby and Danika (11.77%) and Poppy and Flynn (10.56%) indicated a considerably above average (6.79%) percentage of occurrences of Cultural-critical capabilities, re ecting their greater willingness and capacity to critically review information, check its accuracy by accessing more than one source, and present it in a way that is appropriate for purpose and audience.Examples of these data are included in Table 4, rows 4-6.Aria and Maddie again displayed the highest percentage of runtime data in this dimension (12.40%), showing particularly sound understanding of desired design and layout attributes of their information artefact (5.23%).Although relatively limited, all pairs displayed some evidence of engaging Cultural-critical capabilities during the unit, suggesting that with appropriate teacher modelling and instruction (e.g., modelling how to check information accuracy by accessing at least two different sources), even very young children can begin to build skills in this very important dimension.

Discussion
This section discusses the Results by responding to each research question.Share, 2010).While it would be fair to say this study's results were mixed, evidence was present suggesting that most of these young students, with the support of a developmentally-appropriate curriculum where skills were introduced, taught and immediately applied, were capable of engaging basic criticalevaluative Knowledge-building and Operational capabilities.Central to achieving this was the design of the curriculum -particularly the authentic and purposeful nature of the task (developing an artefact to present to a 'real' audience), and the way capabilities were strategically revised, introduced, practised and applied at appropriate stages.The 'spiral' nature of the curriculum helped students better understand the relevance and purpose of the capabilities they were learning, and how the application of these improved the quality and accuracy of their work.
Teacher modelling was the dominant pedagogical strategy used throughout the unit, and wherever possible, this involved active student participation during introductory and plenary discussions, and through use of the iPad's display mirroring capability and the interactive whiteboard.Using this function, the teachers could call on selected students to demonstrate modelled skills to others during introductions and lessons, or review and discuss their progress in plenaries.Furthermore, modelling extended to practical demonstration of why particular capabilities or understandings were important to produce quality artefacts, such as asking students to evaluate the visibility of different layouts and colour combinations from an audience distance, and showing how different combinations of search terms can return different results.The combination of a progressive curriculum supported by teacher modelling which maximised student participation, was highly effective in teaching this unit.
The results, perhaps unsurprisingly, indicated students with well-developed reading capabilities (e.g., Aria & Maddie; Poppy & Flynn) were better able to source potentially relevant information, and evaluate its accuracy and appropriateness for their artefacts.These students also showed greater awareness of Culturalcritical capabilities, such as understanding the need to verify information and the internet as an 'open' information environment.While generally these students e ciently applied their reading skills to the task, others with lesser reading ability used iPad assistive functions such as text-to-speech, to help them access information.Several pairs used text-to-speech in this way as the default option, while others used it to check or con rm their own reading or comprehension accuracy.
On this matter, some may question the merits of this study, given the limited existing reading ability of some students which restricted their capacity to independently access online information.While it is not the position of the author to diminish the importance of independent reading capability to the effective use of online information, as some literature indicates, equally important is students' capacity to generate accurate meaning from information through learning and applying systematic strategies to determine its authenticity and credibility, and use that information productively (e.g., Klomsri & Tedre, 2016; Ozor & Toner, 2022).In this study, students used the assistive text-to-speech function very effectively for meaning-making, both as a default means of accessing text, and for checking their independent reading of text.In this respect the function served as a cognitive tool (Jonassen, 1995), supporting students in their efforts to generate knowledge from text, and also by providing a means of checking their independent reading of text.Given the study's main goal was investigating the young students' capacity to demonstrate -even at an emerging level, basic online information search and evaluation capabilities, use of the text-to-speech assistive function was considered appropriate.
2. How did Technoliteracy capabilities integrate in researching and developing the digital information artefacts?
Durrant and Green's (2000) l(IT)eracy model indicated the interrelationship existing between Critical, Cultural and Operational dimensions of students' use of technology for accessing and processing information, and creating and communicating meaning from it.They represented this as an interactive, circular relationship (Figure 1) where school "policy and practice [needs] appropriate engagements with all three dimensions" (p.98).They speci cally comment on the importance of school curriculum engaging capabilities in all three dimensions, as technology-facilitated practices move from "text participation… into the realm of text usage" (p.102) and students increasingly become producers and not just consumers of digital information.Figure 6 illustrates how the different capabilities within each dimension of the revised Technoliteracy model, integrated in students' meaning making, meaning sharing and communication, and determining meaning quality aspects of their work in the teaching unit.
In this study, Operational capabilities equipped students with the practical means through which outcomes in the Knowledge-building and Cultural-critical dimensions could be achieved.For Knowledge-building, well developed Operational capabilities facilitated access to information from different online sources, and supported students' efforts to edit, synthesise and present that information using different apps.They also enhanced the accuracy of information students used in their artefacts by improving the quality of keywords and strings used as search terms.Operational capabilities were also central to Culturalcritical capabilities, particularly when making decisions about appropriate artefact content, design and layout for the intended audience.Well-developed Operational capabilities provided students with more options to improve the quality of information they used (for meaning making), and how this was shared and communicated (for meaning sharing and communication).
Knowledge-building and Cultural-critical capabilities also improved the quality of meaning communicated via the artefacts.These capabilities comprised cognitive and dispositional attributes that students applied to determine the relevance, accuracy and quality of information, occasionally by reference to understandings indicating the web as an open information environment, which may not always contain 'the truth' (e.g., Table 4, row 5, column 5).The intersection of capabilities in these two dimensions re ected a concern for meaning quality, determined through a combination of practical knowledgebuilding strategies such as checking multiple information sources or effective use of search results descriptors, and cognitive and dispositional attributes such as questioning the accuracy of information, and understanding that information artefacts may have different features according to audience and purpose (e.g., Table 4, row 6, column 5).Although data coded under Cultural-critical capabilities were comparatively rare, it was still present in data from all pairs.In this respect, data illustrated the important role teacher modelling and the practical learning scaffolds created during the lesson introductions, played in shaping the strategies students applied to evaluate the quality of online information.Question stems recorded on the whiteboard were frequently used by students as starting points or 'triggers', and catalysed discussions about the quality or accuracy of information (e.g., Table 5, row 5, column 5).Similarly, the qualities of examples used during lesson introductions illustrating appropriate layout, colour contrasts, font sizes and so on, were frequently referred to by students when authoring their artefacts (e.g., Table 5, row 6, column 5).These indicated an at least emerging awareness of basic design and layout conventions associated with producing an artefact suitable for presenting to an audience.This study's results con rm Durrant and Green's original argument suggesting school curricular should aim to integrate capabilities from all three dimensions, to improve the Technoliteracy of students.Although results were variable, evidence was found that most of these students were able to meaningfully apply capabilities from across the three dimensions to the authoring task, providing tentative support to calls for these capabilities to be introduced at a younger age (e.g., Share, 2010).

7.
There are several limitations to the results of this study.First, although a substantial corpus of data were collected and analysed, the student cohort from which it was collected was small.Second, data were collected from a single source -namely, display and audio recordings.While it could be argued these data accurately re ected the students' naturalistic work processes and provided 'uncontaminated' information, their analysis was still a subjective process, despite dual coding and interrater agreement being undertaken.Third, the project-based curriculum design and related teachers' pedagogy were integral to the success of the unit.Given the highly contextual and individualised nature of these, they are unlikely to be universally reproducible in other contexts.Finally, this study was exploratory, and as such did not attempt to identify levels of student capability or changes or improvements arising from the unit.Similarly, there was no intent to quantify the effect of, for example, reading ability, on the young students' capacity to better use online information.Given the relative success of this exploratory work, studies examining such phenomena appear warranted.

Conclusion
Increased access and use of digital devices by younger children both in school and in other contexts, highlights the need to teach basic Technoliteracy capabilities as soon as possible.Historically, reluctance to do this appears related to perceived limitations in young children's cognitive abilities to undertake basic online research and information evaluation, master needed technology skills, or general dangers associated with their use of technology (e.g., Cordes et al., 2000).There is also debate by some who suggest perspectives about what is and is not 'appropriate' to teach young children, hampers exploration of the potential to further their learning in areas such as critical media literacy (Share, 2010).However, the intensive data and analysis methods used in this study arguably provided deep and accurate insights into the capacity of young students to begin to develop important Technoliteracy capabilities.
Its results build on the earlier work of researchers such as Share (2010), Durrant and Green (2000) and Lankshear et al. (2000) by extending investigation of young students' critical and evaluative capabilities from interacting with traditional and digital media, into online research, information use, and digital artefact development.Like Share (2010) it concludes that in the contemporary context of basic online research "both [young] students and teachers have the ability to understand many of these complex ideas when they are taught through active media production and developmentally appropriate analytical activities" (p.114).Given increasingly ubiquitous access to devices from a young age, it is important that basic Technoliteracy capabilities are taught and learnt as soon as possible.

Statements and Declarations
Due to participant dentiality, the involvement young children, and the presence in data of potentially identifying information including names and images of students, ethical permission was not granted for data to be openly shared.
This research has been approved by the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee [ID 2552] and the New South Wales Education Research Application Process [ID 2017505].

Figures
Figures

Figure 3 The
Figure 2 Tour's Adaptation of Durrant and Green's (2000) L(IT)eracy Model in the Context of EAL Learning (from Tour, 2010)

Figure 4 A
Figure 4 A Sample V-Note Timeline for Pair A&M

Figure 5 Percentage
Figure 5 Percentage of Runtime Data for Each Pair, by Dimension

Table 1
Code Descriptions and Examples Aligned with Revised Dimensions and Capabilities (based on Durrant and Green, 2000; Lankshear et al., 2000)

Table 2
Interrater Agreement by Dimension 1. To what extent are young students able to operationalise Technoliteracy capabilities in online research and digital information artefact development?While some contemporary literature argues the importance of children learning basic Technoliteracy capabilities at a young age (e.g., Spink et al., 2009), other reviewed studies indicate a reluctance to do this.This reluctance appears associated with perceived limitations in very young children's capacity to cope with more abstract and cognitively demanding critical and evaluative thinking processes, and decisions about what is and is not 'appropriate' to teach at this level (e.g.,

Table 4 is
available in the Supplementary Files section