Content area
Rapid changes in people’s digital practices have significantly influenced the concept of literacy and literacy education, particularly in higher education worldwide. Amid these changes, second language teaching and learning has stepped into a territory of a multimodal system of meaning-making that requires the second language teacher to stay updated with the digital practices of students and an ever-evolving techno-driven knowledge economy led by the Global North. The higher education systems in the Global South are often found uncritically aping the technology-integration systems proving to be successful, effective, and productive in the Global North. Without proper understanding of postdigital literacy practices and training in critical digital literacies, second language teachers may not be able to address the digital divide, promote digital equity and inclusivity, and employ socioculturally relevant digital technology in their classrooms. In such a scenario, the challenge is overwhelming for Global South countries where teacher education systems often struggle to develop second language teachers’ critical digital literacies in higher education institutions. In light of this background, this paper makes a case for focalising critical digital literacies in second-language teacher education in the Global South using an ecological framework. It is assumed that within this flexible and adaptive framework underpinned by postdigital theories, second language teachers’ critical digital literacies can be conceived and developed across this region.
Introduction
With the widespread acceptance of “literacy as a social practice” (Street, 2016, p. 336) has come the acknowledgement that factors such as power, access, and sociocultural norms greatly determine what are considered valuable literacy practices (Capstick, 2019; Wedin, 2004). Technology has dominated, without much doubt, acting as “the fulcrum” (Darvin, 2018, p. 26) of such practices. In fact, technology has influenced and shaped literacy practices into hybrid cultural formations and contributed to its broader representation in the form of multiliteracies. These multi-layered changes in literacy practices transpire in ‘postdigital literacy ecologies’ (Bhatt, 2023, p. 1). According to Bhatt and Gourlay (2024), a postdigital lens situates digital literacy as a culturally-embedded practice, realized through a material-discursive entanglement of technologies, texts, bodies, and spatial presences. Thus, mediated encounters encompassing sticky notes, voice messages, translingual conversations, material artefacts and fluid lesson plans drive second language (SL) pedagogy in such contexts, thereby disrupting the normative divide between digital and analog. The subsequent ‘more-than-digital meaning-making’ (Bhatt & Gourlay, 2024, p. 735) necessitates SL teachers to professionally equip themselves with skills and knowledge to help their students negotiate post-digital meaning-making in a variety of ways in social and educational contexts. While digital technology facilitates multimodal meaning-making and improves students’ learning experiences, it may also reinforce existing inequalities and divides (Calderon Gomez, 2021) and privilege certain linguistic norms (Sharma, 2020) over others. Thus, the role of the teacher is crucial to the practice of educational justice, embracing students’ multimodal and multilingual identities.
Teachers’ ability to integrate technology, as stated in UNESCO’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UNESCO, 2017), is a necessary precondition to mitigate the digital divide, reduce inequality, promote digital access to information and knowledge, and ensure social justice. However, for that to happen, SL teachers must transcend the ‘glottocentric, anthropocentric, and monolingual imaginaries of linguistic practice’ (Bhatt, 2024, p. 745). Thus, there is a widespread reconsideration of teachers’ pedagogic knowledge-base in second language teacher education (SLTE) literature (Freeman, 2020), with growing recognition that the sociocultural dimensions of digital practices and the power, politics, and ideologies involving the production and consumption of digital content necessitate the development of critical digital literacy (CDL) (Hauck, 2019) among SL teachers. Considering the spreading acknowledgement of postdigital concerns across disciplines (Jandrić et al., 2018) and the discussions on postdigital practices in applied linguistics (Bhatt, 2023, 2024; Bhatt & Gourlay, 2024; Bhatt & Mackenzie, 2019; Wang & Canagarajah, 2024), SL teachers’ CDL is required to enable them to navigate the blurring line between online and offline and digital and physical. However, very little has been done to assimilate CDL into the fold of SLTE, particularly in the Global South (GS). Teachers in this region struggle to meet pedagogic challenges stemming from the messiness of postdigital literacy practices. In this regard, an SL teacher’s pedagogic decisions may shape the effectiveness and quality of learners’ participation in multimodal ‘more-than-digital meaning-making’ (Bhatt & Gourlay, 2024, p. 735) processes. Thus, creating a framework to enhance SL teachers’ CDL is socially significant and can potentially contribute to better SL practices.
This conceptual paper attempts to address the research gaps highlighted in the previous paragraph through a few systematic steps. First, it establishes why CDL is essential to SLTE. This argument is driven by calls for recognising post-digital literacy practices, the unequal impact of technology on SL learning, adapting equitable and accommodative pedagogic approaches, and facilitating democratic and fair digital literacy practices by enhancing teachers’ CDL. Second, it discusses how digital equity and justice in SL classrooms in higher education contexts across the GS can be achieved with a context-sensitive and non-patronising approach. Through this connection, it furthers Freeman’s proposal to make the teacher knowledge-base “field-driven” and context-specific (Freeman, 2020, p. 1). Lastly, it introduces a framework for implementing such an initiative. Given the substantial enrolment in higher education in the GS and diverse sociocultural and economic influences on learners’ digital practices, the framework considers factors such as teachers’ pedagogic contexts, professional roles, educational and digital awareness, and awareness of their students’ postdigital meaning-making practices, among others. These considerations may ultimately shape their CDL requirements.
Why critical digital literacies in second language teacher education?
During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a heightened demand for integrating digital tools and online platforms globally (Darvin & Hafner, 2022). This surge in digital reliance further exacerbated the pre-existing disparity in digital access and knowledge of modern digital tools and skills between regions commonly referred to as the Global North (GN) and the GS. While challenges with technology adoption were encountered even in the GN, the GS, characterised by Lammers and Astuti (2021) as countries that have recently undergone or are presently undergoing industrialisation and have a historical background of colonialism, faced fundamental issues concerning internet connectivity, technological accessibility, and access to various resources, including educational applications and software.
In the realm of SL learning and teaching in the GS, technology may play a pivotal role in providing learners with an immersive and authentic language experience, particularly through telecollaboration and diverse communication applications (O’Dowd, 2021; Traxler, 2018). These technological tools can enable learners to interact with so-called “native and non-native speakers” of the target language, enhancing their language skills and cultural understanding. Considering how access to technology determines learning experiences, how technology integration invites factors such as ‘surveillance, control, exploitation, misinformation, and disinformation’ (Bhatt, 2023, p. 1) and how SL learning and teaching contexts in the GS suffer from the digital divide, individuals in these contexts are at a significant disadvantage compared to their counterparts in the GN. This divide hinders their ability to fully participate and succeed in a world increasingly reliant on digital technologies. Consequently, there is an urgent need to address this disparity and equip individuals in the GS with essential digital literacies, which refer to “the practices of communicating, relating, thinking and ‘being’ associated with digital media” (Jones & Hafner, 2021, p. 17). As Darvin (2018) states, acquiring essential digital literacies in today’s knowledge-driven economy is crucial to socioeconomic thriving. Without these skills, individuals in the GS may struggle to navigate and harness the full potential of the digital age, impeding their ability to excel in various spheres of life. The rapid evolution of AI-based technologies and the ever-shifting digital landscape further underscore the importance of acquiring digital literacies (Darvin & Hafner, 2022). AI technologies seem to emulate human beings in terms of their ability to process information and produce texts, images and other kinds of meaning-making artefacts that shape educational engagement and output (Miao & Holmes, 2023). Therefore, teachers’ digital literacy needs to keep pace with this process of evolution so that they can facilitate learning and instil a sense of criticality among students in their classroom contexts.
Özcan (2022) views digital literacy as encompassing technical, cognitive, and emotional-social dimensions. In many cases, however, training activities and curricula prioritise the development of technical skills, leaving little emphasis on fostering a critical mindset towards emerging aspects of the digitalised world (Gouseti et al., 2023; Pangrazio, 2016). The lack of attention to this vital aspect of learning is concerning considering SL teachers’ need to support students in acquiring not only the skills to use and navigate digital tools, that is, their “functional technical–technological skills” (Wenninger, 2022, p. 1020), but also the ability to evaluate the abundant information at their disposal (Gouseti et al., 2021) and the sociocultural impact of their digital practices; i.e., their CDL skills. According to Darvin (2017), developing learners’ CDL is essential as it enables them to enhance their awareness of the workings of power in digital environments, shaping their cognitive processes and behaviours that play a role in perpetuating, but also potentially challenging, social and cultural patterns. By honing their critical perspective, learners can scrutinise both verbal and non-verbal aspects of digital media, including their inherent biases and assumptions. Moreover, Burnett and Merchant (2019) note that critical literacy requires understanding the broader implications of digital participation, including personal safety, security, and ethical considerations, which SL teachers should also address. Furthermore, Wenninger (2022) and Darvin and Hafner (2022) highlight that literacy is inherently a social practice; therefore, the term recognises that literacies are never neutral (Darvin & Hafner, 2022). Bhatt (2024), among the very few advocates of postdigital literacy in applied linguistics, draws attention to a few inescapable questions involving how AI-driven models like ChatGPT reinforce beliefs about language use and shape linguistic evolution through recycled patterns, what kind of verbal markers are found in online discrimination and disinformation, how AI reshapes faith and cultural legacies during a time of algorithmic regulation, and whether learning a new language has any relevance in AI-dominated settings. These questions indicate the dynamic nature of ‘postdigital linguistic landscape’ (Bhatt, 2024, p. 752), which lies at the heart of literacy practices. An SL teacher, especially one who teaches in a GS setting, requires training in CDL to traverse these complex terrains. The “fluid and deictic” (Bilki et al., 2023, p. 59) nature of CDL makes its definition and use context-specific (Brown, 2017). Similarly, Bilki et al. (2023) argue that CDL is a dynamic and contextually nuanced concept whose interpretation is contingent upon the specific context in which it is employed.
Considering the above-mentioned arguments, it can be claimed that SL teachers’ digital literacies in the GS are unsettlingly riddled with demands that are contextually irrelevant and originate from issues such as the dominance of English as an SL and as an educational lingua franca in institutions of higher education (Finardi, 2019; Jenkins, 2013). Other demands encompass the difficulty SL learners face in accessing paid software and AI-driven tools (Mahapatra, 2021; Shahzad et al., 2020; Stein & Lazar, 2021), the struggle to publish in academic journals (Alhasnawi et al., 2023) often controlled by the GN, and the challenge of dealing with affective, embodied and situated assemblages divulging imbrications of power and identity in their academic pursuits (Lacković et al., 2024). Since these issues, which are discussed in more depth later in the paper, concern SL teachers, it is essential for them to become aware of the politics around these issues. Thus, there is a need to sensitise teachers about the socioeconomic dimensions of digital practices by developing their CDL. Moreover, existing research (e.g., Mahapatra, 2020; Ballano et al., 2022; Echeverri-Sucerquia, 2020; Impedovo et al., 2019; Takavarasha et al., 2018) has pointed to a lack of digital and critical literacies among teachers in the GS. However, this body of work does not focus on the South-North divide and the corresponding professional ability demands when discussing SL teachers’ digital and critical literacies. Thus, before presenting an accommodative framework for making CDL an essential component of SLTE, it is necessary to delve deeper into the digital divide and unjust practices in SL classrooms in the GS.
The digital divide in second language classrooms
Often claimed to be rooted in differential access (van Dijk, 2017), the digital divide is a multi-layered phenomenon that unfolds in tandem with social, economic, cultural, educational, and ideological factors affecting digital practices. As pointed out by Gladkova and Ragnedda (2020), digital inequities in the GS can be traced through not only access but also how technology is used, people’s skills to utilise technology, and the benefits through its employment. By using the term ‘epistemology of ignorance,’ Bhatt and MacKenzie (2019) highlight how digital engagement may involve intentional and yet institutionalised neglect of sociotechnical structures such as algorithmic mediation and platform-driven content hierarchies. This phenomenon is particularly important in the case of GS contexts where digital marginality is pervasive and limited infrastructure, inadequate pedagogical frameworks and reflexive digital training coexist with a lack of critical literacies. As a result, the seemingly innocuous digital familiarity subtly exacerbates the divide in terms of the capacity to critically reflect, evaluate and contribute to knowledge production through digital engagement.
The digital divide is often an offshoot of social inequalities resulting from socioeconomic and geographical factors (Devkota, 2021). These factors cut across inter-country and intra-country spaces in the region in various ways. Thus, using one “GS” lens may not be appropriate for examining SL teachers across various GS countries and geographical areas. Nevertheless, research has reported common reasons behind the digital divide. To begin with, it could be the access to the internet, inadequate bandwidth, and the use of smartphones instead of laptops or computers (Asio et al., 2021; Devkota, 2021; Fouche & Andrews, 2022; Gamage & Perera, 2021; Hamid et al., 2021; Iqbal et al., 2022; Kapasia et al., 2020; Olum et al., 2020). At an intra-country level, studies have also highlighted the impact of socioeconomic status on digital access (García-Louis et al., 2022; Kiebler & Stewart, 2022). Considering the significant positive impact of digital tools on students’ language performance, those who possess digital capital have an edge over those who lack it (Darvin, 2017). Starting from infrastructure and continuing to training and spaces for use, the GN almost always sets the trend, and the GS remains a digital subordinate.
A factor that is underexplored in research is the presence of language barriers in digital spaces that hinder SL learning. Since digital technology is often made available in English or other major languages like French or Spanish, learners in the GS who do not often have mastery of these primarily GN languages may find it difficult to sail through digital spaces easily. Moreover, when they do, their mastery of those major languages also permeates the digital space with a GN-led hegemony and the cultural alienation in that space further negatively affects students’ language learning process. Another complementary phenomenon is the prevalence of linguistic diversity in higher education classrooms where the medium of instruction is often English, a second or foreign language for most students in the GS and the most common language of knowledge sharing in education (Makoni et al., 2022). This linguistic diversity does not aid in the smooth integration of technology, as the teacher is left to find a common language of the technologies they use (Grujić & Krneta, 2018). Consequently, the gaps in digital literacies between students and teachers of both regions and pre-existing economic inequalities are reinforced.
Another major factor that accounts for the digital divide is the SLTE in the region. It does not adequately prepare SL teachers with skills and knowledge that can make them independent and critical users of technology (e.g., Lammers & Astuti, 2021). The critical aspect of digital literacy is frequently overlooked in education within the GS, where a greater emphasis is placed on functional technical–technological skills. This disparity consequently places individuals in the GS at a disadvantage compared to their counterparts in the GN. Considering all this, there arises the need to make CDL a compulsory part of all SLTE programmes in the GS. This argument can be supported through a discussion on digital justice, a foundational concept in CDL.
Digital justice
Digital justice has to do with fair and equitable access to technology, the corresponding knowledge to utilise it productively and the skills required to utilise it for the betterment of human life, irrespective of the users’ sociocultural, economic, geographical, political, religious, racial, and ethnic backgrounds. The current models of digital justice or proposals of digital inclusion are mostly North-centric and subtly perpetuate the perceived superiority of the GN by infusing techno-centric aspirations into education systems in the GS (Berrío-Zapata, 2020). These aspirations are reasons why the formal education system is increasingly becoming a laboratory in which the impacts of the aforementioned alienated sense of digital justice are assessed, as many governments in the GS are claiming digital justice status by highlighting their indiscriminate and haphazard supply of digital tools to educational institutions. In the process, they are also becoming reasons for creating further divides within small regional pockets. SL education in higher education institutions reflects and strengthens these phenomena in many ways. First, acquiring digital technologies and demonstrating their possession have gained precedence over language learning, which reflects a tool-centric view (Chao, 2015). Second, during the spread of COVID-19, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) became a new normal, diluting the resistance to technology integration among many teachers. Mobile phones became the primary medium of learning for millions in the GS, and access to them was considered a part of digital justice. Third, the introduction of new media to classroom teaching aiming to democratise the scope of learning has, arguably, widened the existing gaps among students in terms of their ability to utilise the media for language learning and understanding its affordances. Thus, as pointed out by Heeks (2022), digital justice has turned into an “adverse digital incorporation” (p. 688) enacted through “resource inequality, institutional inequality, [and] relational inequality” (p. 696). Further complicating the scenario is a lack of acknowledgement of ‘digital materiality, the fluidity and entanglement of media and modes’ (Lacković et al., 2024, p. 815), a pressing postdigital concern. Ironically, efforts towards inclusion have extended the advantage of the already-advantaged groups, leading to the “exploitation [and] commodification” (Heeks, 2022, p. 692) of the digitally disadvantaged population in the GS. Factors such as the use of language laboratories, pronunciation training through AI-driven software, online language proficiency courses taught by native SL speakers, and free access to international journals for a limited period may have adverse effects on students in higher education. Finally, introducing technology to provide students with an artificial setting to use language skills may democratise opportunity (Rybakova et al., 2019). However, it may sometimes deepen differences among students in the classroom if they do not have a sense of criticality, as many students may have more access to such means at home, contributing to better and faster learning. Thus, it is pertinent to educate teachers about digital literacy within a framework comprising social justice and pedagogical knowledge, as Dyches and Boyd (2017) proposed in their Social Justice Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (SJPACK) model and Bhatt’s (2024) ‘postdigital possibilities in applied linguistics.’
Need for redefining second language teacher knowledge-base with reference to critical digital literacies
Before presenting a framework for developing SL teachers’ CDL in the GS, it may be appropriate to discuss Freeman’s (2020) proposal of making teachers’ knowledge-base field-driven and context-specific. Freeman argues that teachers’ knowledge should be guided by their identity as sociocultural beings, the content and skills they teach, their students’ academic and personal needs, the prevailing pedagogic practices, and their experiences in both pre-service and in-service education. His proposal aims to address issues of clientelism in teacher education, which fosters a prescriptive approach to the conception of teachers’ knowledge-base. The proposal also aims to delegitimise the prevalent Anglophone-centric and white-dominated view of educators’ knowledge-base while challenging the long-standing “deficit approach” (Valencia, 2010) by subtly prescribing and re-emphasising procedures of training needs analysis and teacher knowledge tests. Freeman’s proposal can be utilised to make a case for inducting CDL into SLTE.
As pointed out by Gouseti et al. (2023), national and local contexts and demands must be given precedence over the global when developing frameworks for teachers’ digital literacies. It is tempting to consider the collaborative approach recommended by Wimpenny et al. (2022) that encourages bringing together teachers and students from the South and the North to disrupt hegemonic systems and facilitate inclusion and equity. However, without proper training in multiliteracies pedagogies, such collaborations may subtly strengthen the perceived digital supremacy of the North. In fact, the politics of digital literacy (Borntrager, 2022) operate and thrive within discourses that normalise the digital differences between the South and the North. A countering measure strengthens local practices and what is feasible and practical in that context. SL education programmes must move in that direction, taking into account, as suggested by Freeman (2020), the existing multimodal digital practices of SL teachers and learners within and outside the classroom and the local, regional, and national policies and demands that shape and get shaped by teachers’ available/emergent/contextual CDL.
Second language teachers’ critical digital literacies in the Global South: a framework
Given the need to address SL teachers’ CDL in the classroom shaped by technopolitical ambitions, the following framework attempts to integrate CDL into teacher education programmes in the GS. In order to achieve this goal, the proposal incorporates and values local digital practices and aims to “engender transformation at the individual, societal and global levels” (Yilmaz & Söğüt, 2022, p. 1). The aim is to break free from prescriptive and top-down models of CDL that often manipulate teachers to ignore the value of their classroom-based, local, and national practices and needs. These models indiscernibly convince educators and policymakers in the GS to accept their existing practices as inherently backward and believe in the superiority of practices in the GN. This framework (see Fig. 1) adopts a constructive approach to counter such “oppressive” (Freire, 1970) strategies by employing six theoretical principles to ground it, as well as encompassing thirteen components under three categories: foundation, core, and sustenance. Each of these aspects is presented in detail in the following two sections.
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 1
CDL framework for SL teachers in the GS
Principles
Criticality The prescription and use of innovative digital tools in the classroom invariably entail political and ideological goals hidden behind the façade of digitalisation of education. Considering the relatively shallow impact of technology use in education on equity, teachers’ critical awareness of how technology shapes students’ learning experiences and societal power relationships is crucial to its effective implementation (Brian, 2021). A critical SL teacher remains alert against using new technology for the sake of it, gathers evidence regarding the benefits and disadvantages associated with the employment of the tools, discusses with other stakeholders and experts the value added by new digital tools, and understands the possible digital divide that might ensue from the integration of the tools. From a postdigital perspective, criticality among SL teachers may involve ‘interrogating the epistemic, ontological and normative assumptions’ (Teaching in Higher Education, 2023, as cited in Luckett & Bhatt, 2024).
Justice Language learning and digital technology are embedded within socioeconomic and political systems. Digital environments meant for facilitating language learning often ‘foster particular formations of literacy’ (Bhatt, 2023, p.4), which may have negative social justice implications. Critically-informed SL teachers (Norton & Toohey, 2004) can raise awareness about these formations among their students and create a democratic, safe, and secure space in their classrooms. In this space, all students’ voices are heard and incorporated into decision-making regarding digital technology use for SL learning. Teachers are, therefore, expected to have a strong sense of social justice since they are responsible for equitably supporting their students and for catering to their diverse personal and academic needs. The idea of social justice in language teacher education has received attention from researchers (Blume & Gerlach, 2025; Wesely et al., 2016), and thus, it can be infused into the CDL education for SL teachers in the form of a principle.
Equity Based on the work of Harvey and Klein (1985), who proposed a goal-oriented approach to equity, the principle of equity has to do with having fair opportunities for participation and access to digital tools irrespective of one’s social class, economic status, gender, cultural beliefs, ethnicity, and religion. In the SL classroom context, teachers can ensure equity by minimising the impact of digital divides (van Djik, 2017) on language learning (Price-Dennis & Sealey-Ruiz, 2021) and curtailing the impact of ‘platform capitalism’ (Bhatt, 2024, p. 751), which thrives on strategic opacity. This goal can be achieved by accommodating diversity (both in connection with students and curricular content), understanding the complexity of the learning context, enhancing awareness of policy goals, adopting equitable pedagogic practices and open language learning resources and applying postdigital sensibilities to decision-making (Bhatt, 2017).
Praxis Though reflection is a vital feature in effective teaching, it should not be an end in itself. Teachers can be more effective by taking appropriate action to transform the existing situation in the classroom. SL teachers’ CDL entails praxis, which, according to Freire (1970), involves deliberate and focused reflection on an issue or situation and meaningful action to transform it if needed. As part of praxis, educators responsively engage learners in meaningful, reflective, and accountable digital practices that can lead to better learning experiences. The aim is to make learning socially sensible and contextually beneficial.
Participation This principle is driven by Pateman’s (1970) theory of participation, which posits that participation fosters autonomous decision-making abilities. In an SL classroom, making the learner an autonomous or independent language user is a supreme goal, which is achieved through participation. SL teachers need to possess the knowledge and skills to understand and execute decision-making involving equitable participation by all learners in their classes. This principle also applies in reference to the integration of digital tools into the pedagogic process. Consequently, all learners should equally be able to avail themselves of the opportunity to benefit from the process, irrespective of their socioeconomic, political, or educational status. This kind of opportunity may help learners achieve their individual learning goals.
Reflection Maximising the transformative potential of digital technology in SL education relies on teachers’ ability to reflect (and guide students to do so, too) on the language learning process and the ways in which digital tools can impact it. Instructor reflection can be achieved by bringing together the experiences of the self, their students and colleagues, and the knowledge of relevant theories (Brookfield, 2017). As proposed by Jasper (2013), the process of reflection is cyclical and comprises experience, reflection, and action. Reflecting on the planning, preparation, implementation, and assessment stages of the digital tool integration process can improve both the quality of teaching and learning. Finally, as rightly pointed out by Wang and Canagarajah (2024), reflecting on the dynamicity, hybridity and fluidity of postdigital semiotic ecologies can strengthen teachers’ CDL.
Components
Guided by the principles presented in the previous section, the following components are classified into three modules that can be incorporated into SL teacher education programmes to enhance teachers’ CDL.
Foundation The objective of the first set of components classified under this category is to develop teachers’ awareness of the institutional context and research on digital technology-assisted SL learning and teachers’ learning. This component first entails practitioners’ understanding of the sociocultural context of SL learning. Inspired by Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978), Lantolf and Appel (1994) highlight the mediating role that sociocultural context plays in SL learning scenarios. In a digitally supported SL learning context, understanding the context may involve exploring learners’ SL needs, the teacher’s and students’ digital practices, and the available support for digital technology integration. The next set of actions within this category focuses on teachers’ content and pedagogic knowledge, which shape a critical approach to using digital technology in the SL classroom. This aspect of foundation is built on Schulman’s theory of pedagogic content knowledge (PCK) (Shulman, 1986), a theoretical model; social justice pedagogical content knowledge (SJPCK), proposed by Dyches and Boyd (2017); and Mishra and Koehler’s (2008) technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). An SL teacher needs to have conceptual and practical knowledge of language skills and components, SL pedagogy and the suitability of the desired technology integration so that they can facilitate learning in a socially just manner. Thus, before introducing teachers to the core components of CDL, it may help to analyse relevant literature on technology-assisted SL learning and teacher education.
Core The core of the proposed CDL framework comprises the second set of components related to what SL teacher education programmes in the GS should include in their curriculum. Knowing the affordances and constraints of digital tools and the corresponding practices can help the teacher identify and choose the right kind of tool, which, in turn, reduces the forced or manipulated influx of digitalisation in SL education. It can be aided by explicit knowledge of digital divides, leading to critical reflection on the issue among future teachers and more judicious decision-making related to digital technology use on their part. In fact, such a mindset can usher in equitable and empathetic digital innovations in the classroom, which can be realised through collaborative decision-making with colleagues and students. The last of the core components is critical multiliteracies pedagogy (Kim et al., 2020), which brings together the advantages of critical pedagogy and multiliteracies pedagogy. Critical pedagogy emphasises raising critical consciousness about power, hierarchy, and identity through classroom interactions and engagement with texts (Luke & Dooley, 2011). It facilitates equitable participation and power sharing in the classroom. In a classroom that operationalises critical multiliteracies pedagogy, teachers can encourage students to utilise their critical consciousness when applying their learning to real-life contexts through various semiotic modes (Kim, 2021). Along with the nuanced development of understanding of emerging and widening view of literacy practices (Paesani & Allen, 2020), SL teachers can invest in what Cope and Kalantzis (2024) call ‘critical framing’ (p. 2), an approach to examining the ‘social interests of meaning makers’ (p. 2).
Sustenance CDL’s dynamic nature calls for measures to make SL teachers’ professional development in this direction sustainable and independent. Since countries in the GS do not necessarily have adequate formal facilities for SL teachers to stay professionally updated, it may be wise to orient teachers to pursue self-inquiry-based professional development activities such as action research (Edwards & Burns, 2016). Teachers can maximise the benefits of action research if they collaborate with other teachers (Banegas et al., 2013) and engage in self and peer assessment (Singh & Mahapatra, 2022). The goal should be to create communities of practice in which teachers come together, discuss their practices with other teachers, share artefacts from their classrooms, seek help from experts, make their learning continual and take ownership of their professional growth (Mak & Pun, 2015).
Conclusion
The proposed framework is an outcome of the discussions on CDL, postdigital literacies, digital divide, and digital justice in SL teacher education in higher education across the GS. It attempts to break free from prescriptive and decontextualised tool-driven approaches to developing SL teachers’ digital literacy, frequently found in various teacher education programmes. Underpinned by postdigital theories and a situated approach to CDL, the framework flexibly accommodates diverse digital practices, policies, and aspirations across SL classrooms, states, provinces, and countries. The model can be put into practice when designing, offering, and assessing SL teacher professional development programmes focusing on CDL. The guiding principles, which are in line with social justice education, can help make locally relevant decisions, keeping in mind various sociocultural factors ranging from SL learning needs of students and their social and digital practices to teachers’ pedagogic content knowledge and digital literacy. Obtaining first-hand information from students, practitioners, teacher educators, and policy-makers can make the programme-designing process democratic and participatory, which may contribute to its effectiveness and sustenance. Furthermore, stakeholders can collaboratively work with local experts to determine the scope of components mentioned under three categories: Foundation, core, and sustenance, suggesting relevant additions and/or changes. This can be done periodically to meet new demands owing to changes in local access to digital tools, digital practices, literacy practices, SL teachers’ knowledge base, and students’ SL needs.
The effectiveness of the framework can be assessed by keeping track of different aspects of its implementation, relying on evidence pertaining to teachers’ digital technology integration strategies, their awareness of students’ SL needs and their multimodal meaning-making practices, their choice of SL teaching methods, materials and assessments, their attitude towards new digital technology, and students’ learning experiences. If teachers maintain e-portfolios containing artefacts related to their critical use of digital technology in the classroom, engage in self-, peer- and group-assessments, and reflect on the sociocultural impact of their digital pedagogic practices because of their participation in professional development programmes based on the proposed model, the framework can be considered impactful. The evaluation of the framework may involve teachers, teacher educators, students, and experts. Information collected from various stakeholders can be used to further the utility of the framework for developing context-sensitive CDL training modules.
While the framework aims to create a flexible and liberating space where the CDL needs of SL teachers in the GS are critically reconsidered, it may be challenging to make it foolproof. With postdigital practices across disciplines leading to a blurring of boundaries among a wide range of literacy practices, it is difficult to predict how teachers, teacher educators, and researchers across the GS would react to it in its current form. Thus, a few points of critical reflection are worth mulling over. First, the framework is ambitious and, so far, empirically unverified. It may, therefore, attract debate, discussion, and criticism and needs to be tested at a small scale in divergent GS contexts with SL teachers working in institutions of higher education, which would strengthen it. Second, though the framework is designed as a flexible proposal or blueprint, it may be perceived as prescriptive, making it a target of its own principles. Thus, its implementation may require the support of experts in digital literacies, multiliteracies pedagogy, and social justice education. The fear of it being uncritically applied for creating teacher professional development programmes looms large unless a context-specific approach is adopted. Since, in many GS contexts, expertise in the aforementioned areas is not available, the utilisation of the framework may require cross-disciplinary collaboration among researchers. Third, SL teacher professional development programmes in the GS countries are often generic in terms of their focus areas, and thus, bringing SL learning and critical digital technology integration together could pose a challenge. Thus, the successful use of the framework may largely depend on policymakers’ intentions. Last, there can be arguments against the inclusion of all the components of the framework in a teacher education syllabus, which could be based on the perceived role of technology in the education system in their context. Feedback from various stakeholders could help in addressing the issue. Overall, the authors have addressed the pressing need to develop the CDL of SL teachers in the GS by tight-roping across various aspects of CDL while avoiding being normative and rigid. Future researchers can theoretically finetune and empirically test the framework.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr Carolyn Blume for her helpful comments on the manuscript at various stages of its preparation.
Author contributions
Santosh, the first author (also the corresponding author), has conceived the idea of the CDL framework. Svetlana, the second author, and he have collaboratively written all the sections of the article. Both authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
The authors have not received any funding for the study.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Abbreviations
Critical digital literacy
Global North
Global South
Second language
Second language teacher education
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Alhasnawi, S; Uysal, HH; Selvi, B. English as the academic lingua franca (ELFA) for research publication purposes: Voices from Iraq and Turkey. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca; 2023; 12,
Asio, J. M. R., Gadia, E. D., Abarintos, E. C., Paguio, D. P., & Balce, M. (2021). Internet connection and learning device availability of college students: Basis for institutionalising flexible learning in the new normal. Studies in Humanities and Education, 2(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.48185/she.v2i1.224
Ballano, VO; Mallari, NT; Sebastian, RRR. Tomczyk, Ł; Fedeli, L. Understanding digital literacy, digital competence, and pedagogical digital competence: Implementing online teaching for Filipino tertiary educators during COVID-19. Digital literacy for teachers; 2022; Springer Singapore: pp. 391-409.
Banegas, D; Pavese, A; Velázquez, A; Vélez, SM. Teacher professional development through collaborative action research: Impact on foreign English-language teaching and learning. Educational Action Research; 2013; 21,
Berrío-Zapata, C. (2020). The digital divide: Observations from the South about a failed dialogue with the North. In M. Ragnedda. & A. Gladkova (Eds.), Digital inequalities in the Global South (pp. 289–318). Palgrave Macmillan.
Bhatt, I. (2017). Assignments as controversies: Digital literacy and writing in classroom practice. Taylor & Francis.
Bhatt, I. (2023). Postdigital literacies. In P. Jandrić (Ed.), Encyclopedia of postdigital science and education (pp. 1–5). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35469-4_15-2
Bhatt, I. Postdigital possibilities in applied linguistics. Postdigital Science and Education; 2024; 6,
Bhatt, I; Gourlay, L. Postdigital/more-than-digital meaning-making. Postdigital Science and Education; 2024; 6,
Bhatt, I; MacKenzie, A. Just Google it! Digital literacy and the epistemology of ignorance. Teaching in Higher Education; 2019; 24,
Bilki, Z; Satar, M; Sak, M. Critical digital literacy in virtual exchange for ELT teacher education: An interpretivist methodology. ReCALL; 2023; 35,
Blume, C; Gerlach, D. Biel, A; Esleben, F. Searching for social justice in English language learning and teaching in Germany. Social justice in language education: Taking action; 2025; Multilingual Matters: pp. 19-35.
Borntrager, C. (2022). Media ideologies and the politics of digital literacy: Discourses on technology and media in a small school district in the U.S. heartland [Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas]. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/4662
Brian, T. (2021). Educational equity and the application of technology: A critical approach. Learning and Teaching, 10, 83–89. https://doi.org/10.34074/scop.4010009
Brookfield, SD. Becoming a critically reflective teacher; 2017; Wiley:
Brown, M. (2017). Exploring the underbelly of digital literacies. OEB Insights. https://oeb-insights.com/exploring-theunderbelly-of-digital-literacies
Burnett, C; Merchant, G. Revisiting critical literacy in the digital age. The Reading Teacher; 2019; 73,
Calderon Gomez, D. The third digital divide and Bourdieu: Bidirectional conversion of economic, cultural, and social capital to (and from) digital capital among young people in Madrid. New Media & Society; 2021; 23,
Capstick, T. Literacy, power and practices: Taking a discourse-ethnographic approach to exploring adult literacy practices in Pakistan and the UK. International Journal of Lifelong Education; 2019; 38,
Chao, CC. Rethinking transfer: learning from call teacher education as consequential transition. Language Learning & Technology; 2015; 19,
Cope, B; Kalantzis, M. Zapata, GC; Kalantzis, M; Cope, B. Towards education justice: The multiliteracies project revisited. Multiliteracies in international educational contexts; 2024; Routledge: pp. 1-33.
Darvin, R. (2017). Language, ideology, and critical digital literacy. In S. Thorne & S. May (Eds.), Language, education and technology (pp.17–30). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02237-6_35
Darvin, R. (2018). Social class and the unequal digital literacies of youth. Language and Literacy, 20(3), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.20360/langandlit29407
Darvin, R; Hafner, CA. Digiliteracies in TESOL: Mapping out the terrain. TESOL Quarterly; 2022; 56,
Devkota, KR. Inequalities reinforced through online and distance education in the age of COVID-19: The case of higher education in Nepal. International Review of Education; 2021; 67,
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2017). Digital divide: Impact of access. In P. Rössler, C. A. Hoffner, & L. Zoonen (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media effects (1st ed., pp. 1–11). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0043
Dyches, J; Boyd, A. Foregrounding equity in teacher education: Toward a model of social justice pedagogical and content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education; 2017; 68,
Echeverri-Sucerquia, P. A. (2020). Critical pedagogy and L2 education in the hemispheric South: Down to its roots, out to new possibilities. L2 Journal, 12(2). 21–33. https://doi.org/10.5070/l212246621.
Edwards, E; Burns, A. Language teacher action research: Achieving sustainability. ELT Journal; 2016; 70,
Finardi, K. R. (2019). English in the South (1 ed.). Eduel.
Fouche, I; Andrews, G. Working from home is one major disaster: An analysis of student feedback at a South African university during the Covid-19 lockdown. Education and Information Technologies; 2022; 27, pp. 133-155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10652-7]
Freeman, D. Arguing for a knowledge-base in language teacher education, then (1998) and now (2018). Language Teaching Research; 2020; 24,
Freire, P. Pedagogy of the oppressed; 1970; Continuum:
Gamage, KAA; Perera, E. Undergraduate students’ device preferences in the transition to online learning. Social Sciences; 2021; 10,
García-Louis, C; Hernandez, M; Aldana-Ramirez, M. Latinx community college students and the (in)opportunities brought by Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Latinos and Education; 2022; 21,
Gladkova, A; Ragnedda, M. Exploring digital inequalities in Russia: An interregional comparative analysis. Online Information Review; 2020; 44,
Gouseti, A., Bruni, I., Ilomäki, L., Lakkala, M., Mundy, D., Raffaghelli, J. E., Ranieri, M., Roffi, A., Romero, M., & Romeu, T. (2021). Critical digital literacies framework for educators. DETECT project report 1. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5070329
Gouseti, A; Lakkala, M; Raffaghelli, J; Ranieri, M; Roffi, A; Ilomäki, L. Exploring teachers’ perceptions of critical digital literacies and how these are manifested in their teaching practices. Educational Review; 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2159933]
Grujić, T., & Krneta, L. (2018). English language as education barrier in using information technology. The International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education, 2, 463–470. https://doi.org/10.12753/2066-026X-18-136
Hamid, MM; Alam, T; Rabbi, MF; Hasan, K; Kuzminykh, A; Amin, MR. Emergence of polarisation and marginalisation in online education system of Bangladesh due to Covid-19: Challenges and policies to ensure inclusive education. Design, User Experience, and Usability: Design for Diversity, Well-Being, and Social Development. HCII; 2021; 12780, pp. 224-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78224-5_16]
Harvey, G; Klein, S. Understanding and measuring equity in education: A conceptual model. Journal of Educational Equity and Leadership; 1985; 5,
Hauck, M. Virtual exchange for (critical) digital literacy skills development. European Journal of Language Policy; 2019; 11,
Heeks, R. Digital inequality beyond the digital divide: Conceptualising adverse digital incorporation in the global South. Information Technology for Development; 2022; 28,
Impedovo, MA; Malik, SK; Kinley, K. Global south teacher educators in digital landscape: Implications on professional learning. Research on Education and Media; 2019; 11,
Iqbal, SA; Ashiq, M; Rehman, SU; Rashid, S; Tayyab, N. Students’ perceptions and experiences of online education in Pakistani universities and higher education institutes during COVID-19. Education Sciences; 2022; 12,
Jandrić, P; Knox, J; Besley, T; Ryberg, T; Suoranta, J; Hayes, S. Postdigital science and education. Educational Philosophy and Theory; 2018; 50,
Jasper, M. Beginning reflective practice; 2013; Cengage Learning:
Jenkins, J. (2013). English as a lingua franca in the international university: The politics of academic English language policy (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203798157
Jones, R. H., & Hafner, C. A. (2021). Understanding digital literacies: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003177647
Kapasia, N; Paul, P; Roy, A; Saha, J; Zaveri, A; Mallick, R; Barman, B; Das, P; Chouhan, P. Impact of lockdown on learning status of undergraduate and postgraduate students during COVID-19 pandemic in West Bengal, India. Children and Youth Services Review; 2020; 116, pp. 105194-105194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105194]
Kiebler, JM; Stewart, AJ. Student experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives from first-generation/lower-income students and others. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy; 2022; 22,
Kim, S. Transmodalising pedagogy: Developing STEM disciplinary literacy for young emergent bilingual learners. Bilingual Research Journal; 2021; 44,
Kim, S; Ramos, KA; Chung, H; Choi, S. Integrating critical multiliteracies pedagogy in ESL/EFL teaching. Journal of English Learner Education; 2020; 11,
Lacković, N; Olteanu, A; Campbell, C. Postdigital literacies in everyday life and pedagogic practices. Postdigital Science and Education; 2024; 6,
Lammers, JC; Astuti, P. Calling for a global turn to inform digital literacies education. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy; 2021; 64,
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygotskian approaches to second language research. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 1–32). Ablex
Luckett, K; Bhatt, I. Getting critical about critique in higher education: Provocations on the meanings of ‘critical perspectives’. Teaching in Higher Education; 2024; 29,
Luke, A; Dooley, K. Hinkel, E. Critical literacy and second language learning. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning; 2011; Routledge: pp. 856-868.
Mahapatra, SK. Impact of digital technology training on English for science and technology teachers in India. RELC Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research; 2020; 51,
Mahapatra, SK. Online formative assessment and feedback practices of ESL teachers in India, Bangladesh and Nepal: A multiple case study. Asia‑Pacific Education Researcher; 2021; 30,
Mak, B; Pun, SH. Cultivating a teacher community of practice for sustainable professional development: Beyond planned efforts. Teachers and Teaching; 2015; 21,
Makoni, S; Severo, CG; Abdelhay, A; Kaiper-Marquez, A. Makoni, S; Severo, CG; Abdelhay, A; Kaiper-Marquez, A. Introduction. The languaging of higher education in the Global South: De-colonising the language of scholarship and pedagogy; 2022; Routledge: pp. 1-10.
Miao, F. & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008, March). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York City.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (Eds.). (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning. Cambridge University Press.
O’Dowd, R. Virtual exchange: Moving forward into the next decade. Computer Assisted Language Learning; 2021; 34,
Olum, R; Atulinda, L; Kigozi, E; Nassozi, DR; Mulekwa, A; Bongomin, F; Kiguli, S. Medical education and e-learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Awareness, attitudes, preferences, and barriers among undergraduate medicine and nursing students at Makerere University, Uganda. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development; 2020; 7,
Özcan, M. Evaluation of prospective teachers’ digital literacy levels and mobile learning attitudes. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning; 2022; 5,
Paesani, K; Allen, HW. Teacher development and multiliteracies pedagogy: Challenges and opportunities for postsecondary language programs. Second Language Research and Practice; 2020; 1,
Pangrazio, L. Reconceptualising critical digital literacy. Discourse; 2016; 37,
Pateman, C. Participation and democratic theory; 1970; Cambridge University Press:
Price-Dennis, D., & Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2021). Advancing racial literacies in teacher education: Activism for equity in digital spaces. Teachers College Press.
Rybakova, K; Rice, M; Moran, C; Zucker, L; McDermott, M; McGrail, E; Loomis, S; Piotrowski, A; Garcia, M; Gerber, HR; Marlatt, R. A long arc bending toward equity: Tracing almost 20 years of ELA teaching trends in CITE Journal. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education; 2019; 19,
Shahzad, SK; Hussain, J; Sadaf, N; Sarwat, S; Ghani, U; Saleem, R. Impact of virtual teaching on ESL learners’ attitudes under COVID-19 circumstances at post graduate level in Pakistan. English Language Teaching; 2020; 13,
Sharma, S. A poststructural analysis of study abroad as teacher preparation pedagogy: Thinking through theory for generative practice. Theory into Practice; 2020; 5,
Shulman, LS. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher; 1986; 15,
Singh, S; Mahapatra, S. Online self‑ and peer‑assessment for teacher professional development: A case study of the process and the perceived impact. TESOL Journal; 2022; 13,
Stein, MA; Lazar, J. Stein, MA; Lazar, J. Introduction. Accessible technology and the developing world; 2021; Oxford University Press: pp. 1-10.
Street, B. Learning to read from a social practice view: Ethnography, schooling and adult learning. Prospects; 2016; 46, pp. 335-344. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11125-017-9411-z]
Takavarasha, S; Cilliers, L; Chinyamurindi, W. Navigating the unbeaten track from digital literacy to digital citizenship: A case of university students in South Africa’s Eastern Cape province. Reading & Writing-Journal of the Reading Association of South Africa; 2018; 9,
Traxler, J. Learning with mobiles: The global South. Research in Comparative and International Education; 2018; 13,
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444
Valencia, R. R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wang, C; Canagarajah, S. Beyond the online and offline in language learning. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics; 2024; 5, 100111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100111]
Wedin, Å. (2004). Literacy practices in and out of school in Karagwe: The case of primary school literacy education in rural Tanzania [Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University]. Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:191315/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Wenninger, C. Skill versus social practice? Some challenges in teaching digital literacy in the university classroom. TESOL Quarterly; 2022; 56,
Wesely, PM; Glynn, C; Wassell, B. Equity, access, and social justice: From pain to possibility. Modern Language Journal; 2016; 100,
Wimpenny, K; Finardi, KR; Orsini-Jones, M; Jacobs, L. Knowing, being, relating and expressing through third space global South-North COIL: Digital inclusion and equity in international higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education; 2022; 26,
Yilmaz, A; Söğüt, S. Language education for social justice: Reproductions or disruptions through technology. Computers & Education; 2022; 187, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104535] 104535.
© The Author(s) 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.