Digital literacy education is widely recognized as a crucial means of bridging the digital divide among older adults. Applying communities of practice (CoP) to digital literacy education, as implemented by an older adult school in China, has proven to be an effective model. Three teachers and thirteen older learners were observed and interviewed to uncover the characteristics and impacts of this model. The findings reveal that CoP-based digital literacy education fosters positive outcomes in skills, actions, and cognition by cultivating multidimensional interaction, enabling legitimate peripheral participation, and facilitating role transitions.
AzungahT. (2018). Qualitative research: Deductive and inductive approaches to data analysis. Qualitative Research Journal, 18(4), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-18-00035
2.
BartonD.HamiltonM. (2000). Literacy practices. In BartonD.HamiltonM.IvaničR. (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7–14). Routledge.
3.
BawdenD. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In LankshearC.KnobelM. (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 17–32). Peter Lang Publishing.
4.
BlažičB. J.BlažičA. J. (2020). Overcoming the digital divide with a modern approach to learning digital skills for the elderly adults. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09961-9
BuckinghamD. (2008). Defining digital literacy: What do young people need to know about digital media? In LankshearC.KnobelM. (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 73–90). Peter Lang.
7.
CarreteroS.VuorikariR.PunieY. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use (EUR 28558 EN). Publications Office of the European Union.
8.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications.
9.
ChoudharyH.BansalN. (2022). Barriers affecting the effectiveness of digital literacy training programs (DLTPs) for marginalised populations: A systematic literature review. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 14(1), 110–127. https://doi.org/10.30880/jtet.2022.14.01.010
10.
CiesielskaM.BoströmK. W.ÖhlanderM. (2018). Observation methods. In CiesielskaM.JemielniakD. (Eds.), Qualitative methodologies in organization studies (pp. 33–52). Palgrave Macmillan.
11.
DetlorB.JulienH. (2020). Success factors affecting digital literacy training initiatives led by local community organizations. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(1), e331. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.331
12.
EshetY. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93–106.
13.
FlauzinoK. D. L.PimentelM. D. G. C.BatistoniS. S. T.ZaineI.VieiraL. O. B.RodriguesK. R. D. H.CachioniM. (2020). Digital literacy for older adults: Perceptions about teaching-learning. Educação & Realidade, 45, e104913. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-6236104913
14.
FontanaA.FreyJ. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 645–672). Sage.
15.
GattiF. M.BrivioE.GalimbertiC. (2017). The future is ours too”: A training process to enable the learning perception and increase self-efficacy in the use of tablets in the elderly. Educational Gerontology, 43(4), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2017.1279952
16.
GreenB.BeavisC.(Eds.). (2012). Literacy in 3D: An integrated perspective in theory and practice. Australian Council for Educational Research.
17.
HargittaiE.PiperA. M.MorrisM. R. (2019). From internet access to internet skills: Digital inequality among older adults. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18, 881–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-018-0617-5
18.
HaseS.KenyonC. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. Ulti-BASE, 12.
19.
JonesR. H.HafnerC. A. (2021). Understanding digital literacies: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge.
20.
LaveJ.WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
21.
Martins Van JaarsveldG. (2020). The effects of COVID-19 among the elderly population: A case for closing the digital divide. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 577427. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.577427
22.
McGintyJ. M. (2020). Developing a training program for digital literacy coaches for older adults: Lessons learned from the Train-the-Trainer Program. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 8(11), 62–69. https://ideas.repec.org/a/rfa/jetsjl/v8y2020i11p62-69.html https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v8i11.5002
23.
MeuterM. L.OstromA. L.BitnerM. J.RoundtreeR. (2003). The influence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies. Journal of Business Research, 56(11), 899–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00276-4
24.
MillsK. A. (2010). A review of the “digital turn” in the new literacy studies. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246–271. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310364401
OhS. S.KimK. A.KimM.OhJ.ChuS. H.ChoiJ. (2021). Measurement of digital literacy among older adults: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(2), e26145. https://doi.org/10.2196/26145
27.
OpalinskiL. (2024). Older adults and the digital divide: Assessing results of a web-based survey. In LaneS. R.PritzkerS. (Eds.), New advances in technology for social work education and practice (pp. 19–39). Routledge.
28.
PhelpsK. C. (2017). Designing a leadership-based inquiry into community digital literacy initiatives. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 770–772. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401151
29.
Quan-HaaseA.MoG. Y.WellmanB. (2017). Connected seniors: How older adults in east York exchange social support online and offline. Information, Communication & Society, 20(7), 967–983. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1305428
30.
RagneddaM.MutsvairoB.(Eds.). (2018). The digital inclusion: An international comparative analysis. Lexington Books.
31.
RaihanM. M.SubrotoS.ChowdhuryN.KochK.RuttanE.TurinT. C. (2024). Dimensions and barriers for digital inequity and digital divide: A systematic integrative review. Digital Transformation and Society, 4(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1108/DTS-04-2024-0054
32.
RederS.GaulyB.LechnerC. (2020). Practice makes perfect: Practice engagement theory and the development of adult literacy and numeracy proficiency. International Review of Education, 66(2–3), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-020-09830-5
33.
SchirmerW.GeertsN.VercruyssenA.GlorieuxI., & Digital Ageing Consortium. (2022). Digital skills training for older people: The importance of the “lifeworld”. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 101, 104695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2022.104695
34.
SchreursK.Quan-HaaseA.MartinK. (2017). Problematizing the digital literacy paradox in the context of older adults’ ICT use: Aging, media discourse, and self-determination. Canadian Journal of Communication, 42(2), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2017v42n2a3130
35.
SenK.PrybutokG.PrybutokV. (2022). The use of digital technology for social wellbeing reduces social isolation in older adults: A systematic review. SSM- Population Health, 17, 101020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.101020
36.
SmithD. (2003). Five principles for research ethics. Monitor on Psychology, 34(1), 56.
37.
StakeR. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Sage.
38.
The State Council of China. (2020). The General Office of the State Council issued a notice on the implementation plan for practically solving the difficulties of the elderly in using intelligent technology. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2020-11/24/content_5563804.htm
39.
TourE. (2020). Teaching digital literacies in EAL/ESL classrooms: Practical strategies. TESOL Journal, 11(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.458
40.
TourE.CreelyE.WaterhouseP.PhamX.HendersonM.WallaceM. (2023). Navigating challenging digital literacy practices: The settlement experiences of adults from migrant and refugee backgrounds. Adult Education Quarterly, 73(4), 422–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/07417136231180867
41.
TourK.CreelyE.WaterhouseP.HendersonM.PhamX. (2021). AMEP digital literacies framework and guide. Australian Government Department of Home Affairs.
42.
Van DijkJ. A. G. M. (2017). Digital divide: Impact of access. In RösslerP. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media effects (pp. 1–11). Wiley-Blackwell.
43.
WaterhouseP.CorriganM. (2025). Building digital resilience in migrant and refugee communities: Leadership from an adult community education provider. In TourE.CreelyE.WaterhouseP.HendersonM. (Eds.), Digital empowerment for refugee and migrant learners (pp. 132–148). Routledge.
44.
WengerE. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
45.
WengerE.McDermottR.SnyderW. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press.
