Previous literature (e.g., Leu et al., 2013) has stressed the overlapping nature of the various types of literacies and their scholarly conceptual understandings. In this section, we attempt to briefly define the interwoven key concepts of the current study: literacy, digital literacy and multiliteracy.

Literacy has already been defined through UNESCOʼs (2006) four theoretical understandings: 1) as skills, with an emphasis on the cognitive skills involved in reading and writing; 2) as an applied, practiced and situated approach to literacy; 3) as a process of learning; and 4) as a text, for example, genres, subject areas and even representations of ideological content. In the current study, we utilised the concept of reading literacy to observe how the pre-service teachers conceptualised reading literacy alongside digital literacy and multiliteracy.

Digital literacy has been divided into three main categories (List, 2019). The first is digital literacy as an automatic process that reflects the idea of digital natives (Prensky, 2001), in which literacy is acquired while being exposed to digital environments as one is growing from childhood into adulthood. The second category views digital literacy as a set of skills, which is a common way to structure the concept, and refers to various frameworks and taxonomies. For example, Ng (2012) defines digital literacy through cognitive, technical and social-emotional dimensions. Third, sociocultural perspectives on digital literacy (e.g., Lankshear & Knobel, 2006) stress literacy as an intentional and situated social practice that is learned in social online communities that are meaningful to their participants. List (2019) states that this perspective is the opposite of the digital native perspective, yet it deepens the skill perspective by offering a context in which the skills can be practiced. In their meta-analysis of digital literacy constructs, Martínez-Bravo et al. (2020) discover that the concept is related to the skills and competences of technology use but also to teaching, learning and related strategies. In addition to previous definitions, it is essential to note that digital literacy is now the basis for being able to operate as an active citizen, that is, to engage in civic and political activities online (Kahne et al., 2012).

Multiliteracies, which are closely connected to digital literacy (Martínez-Bravo et al., 2020), is a key concept representing the literacies fostered in the Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNCCBE; NBoE, 2014). Multiliteracy (in the singular form) is defined as follows:

In the Finnish context, multiliteracy differs somewhat from the original concept (New London Group [NLG], 1996), which introduces the multimodal and multicultural aspects of multiliteracies. In the FNCCBE definition, multimodality is accentuated, but multicultural diversity is mentioned only briefly. The relationship between the Finnish concept of multiliteracy and the international literacies debate is problematic, and there has not been an attempt to bring the original concept into Finnish pedagogy. However, the term is compact, novel and relatively neutral in the Finnish context (Mertala, 2018).

Linguistic issues add to the challenges of conceptualising literacy. In the Finnish language, a direct translation of ʻliteracyʼ does not exist; instead, ʻreading and writingʼ are commonly used together or individually. Moreover, the Finnish term ʻlukutaitoʼ (ʻlukuʼ meaning ʻreadingʼ; ʻtaitoʼ meaning ʻa skillʼ) in the singular form means ʻreading literacyʼ, but ʻlukutaidotʼ, its plural form, is a wider concept that refers to different types of reading/interpreting and writing/producing skills. However, the FNCCBE utilises the singular form of the concept of multiliteracy (ʻmonilukutaitoʼ), even though it includes both the interpretative and productive side of the concept. According to Mertala (2018), these widely discussed linguistic challenges affect all the purposes for which literacy concepts are translated and used in the Finnish language.

Recent research on pre-service teachersʼ and pupilsʼ understandings of literacies in digital environments is scarce. For example, List et al. (2020) state that pre-service teachersʼ conceptions concerning digital literacy have not been extensively studied. Instead, earlier studies have focused on their attitudes towards technology adoption, beliefs regarding their own digital literacy skills and level of professional competence that will be needed in future work. For example, List (2019) states that, in their beliefs, pre-service teachers comprehended digital literacy as mostly skill-based by nature. More attention was placed on technology skills than cognitive skills, such as criticism of sources, the digital native perspective was quite prominent, and socio-emotional aspects (e.g., communication) were almost completely missing. Similarly, in those studies on pre-service teachersʼ concepts of digital literacy, both List et al. (2020) and Nabhan (2021) show that understandings of digital literacy are often narrow and superficial, and digital literacy is seen as the fluent use of technology, instead of being comprehended on a more sophisticated level, for which critical reasoning is needed.

Regarding multiliteracy, previous research has focused mainly on projects implemented in classrooms and on classroom pedagogy, not on teachersʼ conceptualisations per se (Kulju et al., 2018; Kulju et al., 2020). However, there are some studies about teachersʼ (Hankala et al., 2022) and expertsʼ (Matveinen et al., 2021) conceptions of multiliteracy. Accordingly, childrenʼs and adolescentsʼ conceptions of digital literacy and multiliteracy have still not been directly studied; instead, their interpretations of the internet and computers have gained more research interest (e.g., Eskelä-Haapanen & Kiili, 2019; Wennås Brante & Walldén, 2021).

The research data consist of 38 concept maps and complementary descriptions created by pre-service teachers who were going to teach at the primary school level (grades 1 to 6). These first and second-year students participated in a multidisciplinary course combining health education and mother tongue and literature. The course, which was a compulsory part of their Master of Education degree programme, focused on enhancing their digital literacy skills, allowing them to guide pupils in digital environments concerning mental well-being.

The concept maps were created individually and by hand during the courseʼs first meeting. The pre-service teachers were asked to create a concept map about the definitions of literacy concepts ʻlukutaitoʼ (ʻreading literacyʼ), ʻmonilukutaitoʼ (ʻmultiliteracyʼ) and ʻdigitaalinen lukutaitoʼ (ʻdigital literacyʼ) and the relations between these concepts. They were also asked to write a few sentences of complementary description about the main points of their maps. We then conducted a qualitative data-driven content analysis that included quantification (Schreier, 2012) to analyse the concept maps from two perspectives: the relations between the three literacy concepts and the expressions associated with literacies.

Relations between literacy concepts: two authors studied the 38 maps and 33 complementary descriptions separately, after which they compared their results, which were similar, for the triangulation of the data. Both authors analysed the concept maps by placing the maps and their associated descriptions side by side. They considered which concepts from each map were labelled as the main concept, sub-concept or parallel concept, and then compared the maps with the complementary descriptions. Generally, the authorsʼ interpretations of the maps were in line with the complementary descriptions. In cases in which a map could be understood in multiple ways, the description written by the pre-service teacher guided the researchersʼ interpretation. Five studentsʼ descriptions were missing; hence, only their concept maps were analysed.

Expressions associated with literacies: The expressions mentioned in the concept maps were listed and then classified into categories. An expression typically consisted of one word (ʻpicturesʼ) or of a meaning-carrying compound of a few words (ʻthe ability to read different kinds of text typesʼ), although in some cases there were complete sentences. Each expression was examined in relation to what literacy or literacies it referred to. Quite often, one expression was related to more than one literacy. Thus, a single expression may have been counted one, two or three times, depending on the situation. This resulted in the total number of expressions (761) being higher than the actual number of expressions that were mentioned. 

The data consist of 85 written answers created by 143 comprehensive school pupils from four schools: 21 group answers from 79 primary school (PS) pupils (ages 9–10, grades 3 and 4) and 64 individual answers from lower secondary (LS) school pupils (ages 13–15, grades 7–9).

PS and LS pupils participated in three workshops in which they designed digital environment scenarios for the promotion of mental well-being. The workshops were co-organised by the authors and teachers as part of the schoolsʼ general curriculum. To ground the scenarios, in the first workshop (1.5 h), the pupils were asked to write down their thoughts on the literacies (ʻlukutaidotʼ − plural form) that they felt they needed in digital environments. In cases where this question was too difficult, the assignment included an additional question: ʻwhat skills do you need while using different digital environments, for example websites or applications?ʼ The pupils answered by creating written presentations with Book Creator (PS) and Google Slides (LS), and the data were subsequently analysed using data-driven content analysis (Schrier, 2012). The responses were presented as the number of mentions, which were usually single words (ʻwritingʼ) or short sentences (ʻYou need to know how to behaveʼ).

In the current study, the data collection method varied between groups. Thus, the authors could only examine indicative explorations of the similarities and differences. The pre-service teachers were assumed to have a more complex understandings of literacies than the school pupils, and for this reason, their assignment required them to engage with a more conceptual level that the pupils. PS pupils were allowed to answer in groups of three to five because earlier studies (e.g., Eskelä-Haapanen & Kiili, 2019) have shown that, in interviews, childrenʼs answers might remain scarce. The LS pupils were considered capable of producing answers individually.

Regarding the ethics of the study, the pre-service teachers gave their consent to participate in digital form. As the comprehensive school pupils were minors, and the project topic as a whole addressed mental well-being, the research group applied for an ethics clearance that was approved by the universityʼs Ethics Committee. In addition, the pupils themselves and their parents gave their consent for the children to participate.

This section features pupilsʼ understanding of literacies in digital environments. In their written answers, on average, the PS pupil groups mentioned six factors concerning literacies. One group supplied only two factors, while a few other groups provided 10. LS pupils contributed one to three factors concerning literacies. Table 2 presents the categories of literacies needed in digital environments according to the number of mentions in PS pupilsʼ answers.

Understanding, interpretation and reading of multimodal texts. The PS groups described the uses of literacies in a versatile manner (in 37 mentions). They characterised literacies as multimodal skills and most often described a diverse selection of literacies that they believed were necessary in digital environments: ʻwe need our literacy, for example, math literacy, normal literacy, sign literacy, image literacy, digital language, voice literacy (note emoji) and to recognise vibration [of a device].ʼ These pupils especially experienced the need for the ability to read images and symbols (16). Other responses included literacy for guidelines and commands (ʻYou need to understand commands…ʼ), game literacy (ʻYou need to understand hints in gamesʼ), mathematical literacy and the listening skills necessary to comprehend internet texts. Only four LS pupils mentioned diverse literacies, and none responded with image reading.

ICT skills, including netiquette. Both the PS groups (28) and the LS pupils (20) described literacy in terms of the abilities needed to act in digital environments. They most often mentioned ICT skills that they deemed necessary to operate technical devices, diverse applications, and the internet. Both groups brought up general technical skills, such as the mere ʻability to use computers and mobile phonesʼ (LS), and more concrete skills, such as ʻYou need to know to push the right tabs…ʼ (PS). PS pupils more often mentioned the latter. Both PS and LS pupils described safety skills (e.g., decency of the content utilised). Regarding netiquette, they referred to knowing and acting according to the rules and behaving well on social media. 

Language skills. Both pupil groups (PS 15, LS 30) categorised language skills as necessary in digital environments: ʻyou need to know foreign languagesʼ (PS). For the LS pupils, this tied with critical attitude as the most mentioned category. English was especially dominant among the languages in both groups.

Reading skills. Another common literacy area for both pupil groups was reading literacy per se (PS 14, LS  21). The PS pupil groups mostly only mentioned the word ʻreadingʼ or connected it with writing. In some cases, they highlighted the importance of the pace of reading, especially when browsing internet sites. LS pupils brought forth reading comprehension, reading of different texts and reading fluency: ʻyou need to know how to read quickly by browsing and find essential issues from the text.ʼ

Critical attitude was mentioned by only two PS pupil groups. In contrast, the LS pupils mentioned it most often (30 mentions; tied with language skills). In numerous answers, they explained the importance of evaluating the trustworthiness of different texts: ʻin the use of digital environments, you need to distinguish what is true and what is not. Is the information in the news reliable and is the image I see real or edited?ʼ

There were several skills or issues with fewer than 10 mentions. Both groups stated the need for information retrieval skills and criticism of sources (PS 7, LS 5). The answer provided by one PS group could be interpreted as multimodal information retrieval because they expressed the ability to navigate YouTube when looking for interesting video content: ʻin YouTube, you need to look at the title, and you can also read imagesʼ.

Production skills, especially writing, were mentioned by only a few pupils. The PS groups briefly mentioned writing on its own or with reading. The LS pupils also noted writing and speaking in English (e.g., in games) as a prerequisite for communication: ʻit is good to know how to write and speak English. Otherwise, communication in games does not work!ʼ The latter example also mentions ʻcommunicationʼ, which was part of the category Interaction and communication that was mentioned by some LS pupils. This category includes a mixture of mentions, including ʻin digital environments, you need a thick skin; it is not good for you if you get offended from all that exists on the internetʼ.

Some PS pupil groups mentioned expressions that can be classified as thinking skills (5), such as ʻreasoning and memoryʼ. In addition, various single mentions were sorted into Other mentions.