Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Critical Digital Literacy (CDL) extends basic digital competence to the ability to critically evaluate and engage with digital media's social and ethical dimensions. This scoping review targeted CDL theory and interventions in early childhood, applying PRISMA-ScR and JBI methods; database searches produced twenty-five studies, analyzed descriptively and using thematic analysis approach. The literature displays varied definitions, few age-specific interventions, and a concentration in educational research from the Global North. Core early CDL capacities identified are sociocultural contextualization, reflective perspective-taking, and constructing/deconstructing multimodal narratives. Educational approaches to building CDL included playful and creative multimodal learning, reflective practices, fostering the understanding and evaluation of sociocultural contexts, varying perspectives and narratives, and building of active, confident digital participation. The review suggests young children can develop foundational CDL skills, and implementing effective practices across policies, education, and home settings could yield long-term benefits. The ever-changing digital landscape necessitates further research and more comprehensive reviews.

Keywords

critical digital literacy early childhood education digital literacy critical literacy critical thinking media literacy

Introduction

The increasing ubiquity of digital technologies has profoundly reshaped childhood experiences, with even the youngest members of society now embedded in digital environments. A recent German study revealed the largest increase in internet usage between the ages six and nine – from 37% up to 67% (Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest, 2025). In the United Kingdom, recent data shows that in 2023, 84% of 3–4-year-olds and 96% of 5–7-year-olds were online, with many possessing personal devices and engaging with social media, streaming platforms, and interactive apps (Ofcom, 2024; Radesky et al., 2020).

While the term “digital natives” has been used to describe younger generations’ seeming fluency in digital contexts, this characterization has been widely critiqued for overstating innate competence and neglecting the complexity and variability of digital engagement (Eynon, 2020). Empirical evidence suggests that children often struggle with recognizing the consequences of their digital behaviors and the underlying power dynamics at play (Livingstone & Rahali, 2022). Furthermore, concerns surrounding children's digital lives, including the risks of addiction and mental health impacts (Khalaf et al., 2023; Montag et al., 2024), are frequently amplified by public discourse, which tends to adopt polarized or emotionally driven perspectives (Laidlaw et al., 2021).

Amid these concerns, there is a pressing need for an evidence-based, educational approach that supports children in developing the capacities required to critically and ethically navigate the digital world. While Digital Literacy (DL) has emerged as a key conceptual framework (Tinmaz et al., 2022), scholars have increasingly called attention to a more nuanced subset – Critical Digital Literacy (CDL).

Theoretical Background

To understand the Concept of CDL and establish a working definition, one must first disentangle the variety of definitions surrounding the field of literacies. In the following section, key concepts in the development of CDL will be explored, and a theoretical foundation explained, to provide the research context of this review.

Traditionally, literacy has been defined as “alphabetization and the ability to use language in reading and writing” (Pötzsch, 2019, p. 222). Following this definition, literacy appears inherently tied to the developmental stage of early childhood. Literacy was, at the turn of the twentieth century, a concept predominantly studied within the field of early modern psychology (Cattell, 1886; Thorndike, 1906). Over time, literacy has become a wider ‘metaphorical’ concept encompassing a lot more than these basic skills and became its own interdisciplinary field of study (Scott & Marsh, 2018). Today's CDL has its theoretical roots in two major concepts: Critical Literacy and Digital Literacy (Bacalja et al., 2021). The term Critical Literacy (CL) was first established in the 1970s by Brazilian educator Paolo Freire. In his work “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” (1970) he argues that literacy education should go beyond decoding words, and include processes of understanding and challenging social, political, and economic structures. This approach was one of the first conceptualizations of literacy, encouraging learners to question the inherent power structures of text and media.

In the following decades, CL theory was further established in educational theory and developed into models. One of the most prominent models was developed by Green (1988), who attributes three dimensions to literacy: operational, cultural, and critical. At the same time, other literacy scholars started to move away from a ‘traditional’ understanding towards more sociocultural methodologies (Heath, 1983) and conceptualizations (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978). This shift gained momentum in the 1990s with the emergence of the Internet (Pötzsch, 2019). In 1996 the New London Group introduced the term “multiliteracies” as an emphasis of the need for a reorientation of pedagogical theory, to adapt to the social, cultural and technological changes of the time (New London Group, 1996). One year later, Gilster first established the term “Digital Literacy” in his eponymous book and defined it as “the ability to both understand and use digitized information” (1997).

The emerging definition of literacy did not encompass a single semiotic mode anymore, or was directed at young children only, but was understood as a broader sociocultural concept involving multiple modalities and media in the process of meaning-making (Wuyckens et al., 2022). Over the years, a variety of different literacy conceptualizations were theorized, including Computer Literacy, Internet Literacy, Media Literacy, Information Literacy, Social Media Literacy and many more (Ilomäki et al., 2023). Simultaneously, some researchers argued for an even broader definition of literacy as the plural, literacies, to acknowledge the multiple processes and practices surrounding the concept (Carrington & Marsh, 2008). Accordingly, the concept of “New Literacies” emerged as an umbrella term, looking to unite different methodological and disciplinary approaches (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). In the early 2000s, scholars began integrating Freirean Critical Literacy principles into DL, recognizing that navigating the digital world safely and actively required not only technical skills but also critical analysis of digital media content (Darvin, 2017). Merchant (2007) was one of the first scholars, who specifically argued for adding a critical component to the Digital Literacy framework. Luke (2012, p. 2) defined CL as the “use of the technologies of print and other media of communication to analyze, critique and transform the norms, rule systems and practices governing the social fields of everyday life”. The term “Critical Digital Literacies” itself was formally conceptualized for the first time by JuliAnna Ávila and Jessica Zacher Pandya (2012, p. 3) in their edited volume “Critical Digital Literacies as Social Praxis”. It proposes a broad understanding of CDL as “skills and practices that lead to the creation of digital texts that interrogate the world”. In 2013 Hinrichsen and Coombs contributed one of the earliest structured frameworks of CDL, which adapted the four-resource model of CL (Freebody & Luke, 1990) into a five-resource literacy model, specific for the digital world (Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2013). In a similar way, Colvert (2015) transferred Green's three-dimensional model into digital space, allowing more research on the critical dimension of DL.

Research shows that since then, new multidimensional concepts keep emerging (e.g., [Critical] Digital Citizenship, Digital Competence), yet also more specific dimensions of digital literacies (e.g., Data Literacy) are being explored (Ilomäki et al., 2023). To this day, the concept of CDL has been further developed and gained importance as an emerging research topic (Gutiérrez-Ujaque, 2024). It is one of the research questions of this review, to synthesize the different existing concepts and theories in a systematic manner. To do this, a working definition of CDL and ‘criticality’ itself are necessary:

Critical Digital Literacy is defined in the present review as a variety of skills, abilities, and social practices connected to the digital world, that enable a person to critically analyze, evaluate and act upon digital media. This definition follows the re-interpretation of the four resources- model (Freebody & Luke, 1990) as a five-resource CDL framework (Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2013), that includes the following distinct resources: Decoding, for understanding digital symbols and interfaces; Meaning Making, for comprehending and interpreting content; Using, for practical and effective application of digital tools; Analyzing, to critically assess and question digital media and its implications; and Persona, for managing identity and agency in digital environment. It therefore encompasses critical, analytical and reflective skills as at least equally important parts, as operational ones. Furthermore, the working definition of “criticality” used in this review will be broadly based off Critical Literacy theories (see Freire, Luke), more specifically, being critical will be defined as “refer[ing] to the practice of socially situated reflection and evaluation […] considering an issue from multiple perspectives, even when these involve self-critique […]; it means being able to identify assumptions and evaluate evidence and issues logically” (Banegas & Villacañas De Castro, 2016, p. 1).

Even though CDL as a scientific topic has been on the rise, there does not seem to be a lot of existing literature on the youngest people in our society, children in early childhood (EC) (Scott & Marsh, 2018) and specifically a lack of systematic reviews (Ilomäki et al., 2023). From a developmental perspective, the plausibility of EC-targeted CDL rests on early social-cognitive capacities from zero to eight years of age. EC is one of the most influential phases of brain development and lays the foundation for character and various abilities later in life (Saracho, 2023). Although the concept of classic literacy seems inherently bound to the developmental stage of EC, there exists an ongoing discussion on whether children of this age are capable of developing more complex skills involved in CDL, like critical thinking (Lai, 2011). However, even if they are not, it can be argued that certain underlying abilities exist that may foster the full development of CDL later in life (e.g., Facione, 1990). Examples for the likely existence of such cognitive precursors are findings in Theory of Mind (ToM) and false-belief/perspective-taking paradigms, that have replicated the onset of ToM around the years 3–5 across cultures (Callaghan et al., 2005). Based off the working definition of CDL in the present review, it can be argued that all the five resources (Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2013) prominent in ‘classic’ CDL-development are not only achievable, but essential parts of a child's development up until middle childhood (Jackson et al., 2020; Kalabina & Progackaya, 2021; Kim et al., 2015; O’Reilly et al., 2022; Sabol et al., 2021).

Researchers have argued that this EC-specific area of DL is not well researched yet, and called for further exploration (Marsh et al., 2017). This scoping review will try to find research gaps in development of CDL in early childhood, by providing an overview of existing definitions, theories and practices on the topic, and laying the foundation for further research.

Accordingly, the following research questions guide this review:

How is Critical Digital Literacy defined?

What are key factors in developing CDL in early childhood?

How can the development of CDL in early childhood be improved through interventions?

Materials and Methods

This scoping review was conducted to explore the state of research concerning Critical Digital Literacy in early childhood. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the topic and the multiplicity of conceptual frameworks (Carrington & Marsh, 2008; Pangrazio, 2016), a scoping review was deemed the most appropriate method. It enabled a broad mapping of the available literature without aiming to appraise the quality of each study in detail (Munn et al., 2022). The review followed the methodological guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) (Aromataris & Munn, 2024) and the PRISMA-ScR reporting standards (Tricco et al., 2018).

Protocol and Search Strategy

An a priori protocol, based on the JBI and PRISMA-ScR frameworks (Pollock et al., 2023), was developed to ensure transparency and reduce bias. It was adapted to fit the scope and resource constraints of this review and is included in the supplementary material. The main deviation from the initial plan was the removal of time limitations, allowing inclusion of all relevant literature regardless of publication date to increase coverage.

The search was conducted on 20.08.2024 using Google Scholar. Two searches using the keywords “early childhood” AND “critical digital literacy” were conducted – one covering the timespan from 2018 to 2024 and another including earlier works. The results were merged and managed using Covidence software, which facilitated the removal of duplicates and the structured screening process. Due to limited resources, the review was conducted using a single database and by a single reviewer. While this approach may have reduced the breadth and peer validation of the process (see Limitations), it was deemed sufficient to provide a meaningful overview of the topic.

The screening proceeded in three phases: title and abstract screening, full-text assessment, and a final snowballing stage that identified further eligible publications from the reference lists of included studies. A total of 372 records were initially retrieved, with 25 ultimately included after the screening process (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Flow chart of the screening process.

Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were guided by the PCC framework (Population, Concept, Context) (Pollock et al., 2023), with additional practical criteria:

Population: The target population, if specified, included children aged 0–8, or individuals (e.g., educators, caregivers) involved in shaping CDL in this age group. Studies concerning older children or unrelated demographics were excluded.

Concept: Studies had to address CDL or a comparable concept such as Critical Digital Competence or Critical Digital Thinking. Studies dealing with general Digital Literacy or with non-digital Critical Literacies were excluded unless the critical digital component was a clearly stated focus.

Context: Eligible studies were set in environments relevant to early childhood, such as preschools, kindergartens, home settings, or community-based learning. Studies without a connection to practice or application in the early childhood context were excluded.

Additional Criteria: Only English- or German-language studies were included. Non-scientific publications such as opinion pieces, editorials, or non-peer-reviewed texts without proper sources were excluded. While formal critical appraisal was not performed, studies needed to demonstrate basic scholarly merit.

Throughout the screening process, the main exclusion reasons were insufficient focus on criticality and irrelevant population. A record of exclusion reasons was maintained to highlight common gaps in the literature (see supplementary material).

Data Extraction and Analysis

Data extraction was conducted in two phases. In the first, descriptive data were organized using a data extraction table, based on JBI's PCC framework, and included categories such as publication year, country, concept, context, population, study type, intervention, disciplinary background, and key findings.

In the second phase, a qualitative content analysis was conducted. While in-depth synthesis is not typically required in scoping reviews (Munn et al., 2022), this review used thematic analysis (Clarke & Braun, 2017) to identify patterns and recurring themes across the included literature. The analysis involved familiarization with the material, coding, categorization, and iterative refinement of themes relevant to the research questions (see Findings).

Results

In the following sections, the key findings from the 25 reviewed studies will be presented. For more available detailed information on each publication and process transparency, all the data extraction tables as well as data visualizations were added to the supplementary material (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Exemplary data extraction table.

Findings: Descriptive Data

The studies spanned several years, with a clear upward trend in publication frequency. The highest number of studies appeared in 2022 (n = 6), and the overall pattern indicates increasing academic engagement with CDL in early childhood up to the search cut-off date of 20.08.2024.

Contributions came from researchers affiliated with institutions in 18 different countries, totaling 41 instances of national contribution across all studies. The UK was the most frequently represented (n = 11 contributions). Based on DAAD world region definitions (Wissenschaft Weltoffen, n.d.) three main regions were represented: Western Europe (n = 24 contributions), Asia and Pacific (n = 11), and North America (n = 6). There was a strong dominance of research from the Global North, while the Global South was less represented.

The CDL-related concepts used across the 25 studies were categorized into five main groups. The most common was “Critical Digital Literacy” (n = 14), followed by “Critical Dimension of Digital Literacy” (n = 6) and “Critical Digital Literacies” (n = 3). Additionally, eight studies used alternative but related concepts as an additional focus to CDL, including Advertising Literacy, Critical Digital Citizenship, Privacy Literacy, and Critical Digital Engagement. Double counts were applied when no clear dominant concept could be identified.

The context of the studies was categorized into education (n = 7), elementary education (n = 8), and home settings (n = 3), with no double counts. A fourth category, “Not specified,” was assigned to studies that did not clearly define the context (n = 7). Altogether, 60% of the studies (n = 15) took place in clearly educational settings, highlighting the relevance of CDL in early learning environments.

Three main population groups were identified: students and children (n = 13), educators (n = 9), and parents (n = 2). Seven studies did not specify a population. Among those focused on children, ∼76.9% involved children in early childhood. Similarly, among the educator-focused studies, ∼55.6% specifically addressed early childhood educators. Double counts were permitted where studies referred to more than one population group, e.g., targeted at improving CDL in teachers and children alike (Delacruz & Jackson, 2019).

Although the methodology of the 25 papers varied, there was a majority of studies that were either conceptual/theoretical papers (n = 9) or empirical descriptive studies (n = 9), of which six used qualitative, two quantitative and one mixed methods. There were four literature reviews and three intervention studies. Precisely six out of 25 studies included either a conducted (n = 3) or proposed (n = 3) intervention designed to foster CDL or related skills. The remaining 19 studies did not feature any practical interventions, further highlighting the predominantly conceptual or theoretical focus of current research.

Given the interdisciplinary nature of CDL (Pangrazio, 2016), the researchers’ backgrounds were categorized into eight fields, with each study assigned one discipline. The most common were Educational Science (n = 16), Linguistics (n = 7), and Media Science (n = 5).

Findings: Qualitative Data Analysis

The following section will present the findings of the three conducted thematic analyses specific to each of the three research questions: Definitions of CDL, CDL in Early Childhood, and Education, pedagogy and interventions. Due to the scope of the present review, there will not be a step-by-step detailed documentation of Braun and Clarke's methodology (2017, 2023) which will nevertheless be roughly sketched below. The process began with familiarizing oneself with the data, through reading, initial note-taking and re-reading. Following, the authors generated initial codes from the text (e.g., operational, ethical judgement, text analysis, interrogate power, curriculum integration) specific for each question, grouping data segments with similar ideas. Subsequently, these codes were organized into broader categories (e.g., Constructing and Deconstructing Narratives, Creative Production Skills, Reflective Practices) that captured overarching insights. Finally, overarching themes were created from these categories, reviewed, refined, and defined to ensure clarity and relevance to the question, leading to a structured interpretation of the qualitative data. Each category in this section is supported by one exemplary quoted citation. The authors did not use any AI-assisted tools or specific software for Thematic Analysis (e.g., MAXQDA) but instead used Microsoft Word and Excel for coding and creating matrices.

Definitions of CDL

The thematic analysis on this topic led to the most codes generated, due to the interdisciplinary nature and the various definitions in the field (Scott & Marsh, 2018). To enable a precise, yet extensive definition, 16 categories of specific skillsets were created from the codes and then grouped into three overarching themes following a sequential systemizing approach: Decoding, Contextualizing, and Taking Action. It must be mentioned, that even though, the categories themselves reflect the most important definitional aspects of CDL in the literature, the overarching themes in thematic analyses are by default tinted subjectively through the authors’ attempt to create an understandable overview of the concept. Therefore, before exploring these themes in detail, one must look at overall most prominent categories. These were: Technical-Operational Skills (n = 25), Sociocultural Contextualization (n = 25), Questioning Power Dynamics (n = 23), Multimodal Meaning-Making (n = 22), and Self-Reflection (n = 17).

Additionally, there were two other noteworthy aspects of the definitions. Firstly, most of the publications (n = 23) mentioned an inherent “definitional fluidity” surrounding the concept. This finding was true for definitions using the plural ‘Literacies’ as well as the singular ‘Literacy’ definition. Secondly, it was apparent that only a few publications (n = 8) explain what they define as ‘critical’ or ‘criticality’ in the context of CDL. Since concepts like ‘critical thinking’ can be interpreted in very different ways, concepts including the word ‘critical’ were left out of the categories and instead translated into different subdimensions of CDL that together may give a coherent idea of criticality in this review.

Decoding. This theme involves skills related to understanding, analyzing and interpreting digital content at a fundamental level. The three categories are: Technical-operational Skills, Constructing and Deconstructing Narratives, Understanding Intention, Bias and Misinformation. Technical-operational Skills mean all the necessary abilities to engage effectively with digital media. This can range from reading and writing to using complex computer programs and more. It builds the basis for meaningful critical interaction (Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2013). Constructing and Deconstructing Narratives is a more complex skill, which incorporates breaking down digital messages, analyzing content on a subtextual level and creating own narratives (Belda-Medina, 2022). The third aspect of decoding is Understanding Intention, Bias, and Misinformation. This ability refers to interpretation of underlying intentions and biases in the digital world (e.g., on social media) and questioning validity and reliability of sources (Livingstone & Rahali, 2022).

Conceptualizing. This theme emphasizes understanding the broader social, cultural, historical, personal and ethical contexts of digital interactions. It is comprised of the six categories: Sociocultural Contextualization, Questioning Power Dynamics, Moral and Ethical Judgement, Self-reflection, Developing Identity and Persona, Understanding Privacy. Sociocultural Contextualization is the process of understanding the historical, political, social, cultural and economic factors involved in the digital world (Pangrazio, 2016). This understanding can enable a person to question the underlying power dynamics and investigate, for example, commercial interests in advertising and digital products or how the digital content shapes sociocultural realities in response (Livingstone & Rahali, 2022). Moral and Ethical Judgement means applying ethical, moral and, in a broader sense, even legal perspectives to the interpretation of digital content and its context (Darvin, 2017). Self-reflection is the ability to see personal biases, intention and perspectives within digital interactions. It is a crucial skill to enable Perspective-Taking and a basis for critical interpretation of digital interaction and communication (Pandya, 2018). Accordingly, a person can then develop a (digital) identity and a conscious, self-aware online persona (Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2013), based on ethical and sociocultural contexts. Lastly, the category Understanding Privacy summarizes the abilities needed to understand the importance of personal data and recognize personal and shared boundaries in digital space (Pangrazio & Sefton-Green, 2022).

Taking Action. This theme includes skills for meaningful engagement, creation, and responsible participation in digital spaces. The six categories are: Multimodal Meaning-making, Creative Production Skills, Problem-solving, Social-emotional Abilities, Confidence and Self-efficacy, Civic Participation and Agency. Multimodal Meaning-making is the skill to leverage different modes of communication (e.g., video, text, sound) for effective personal expression and transition between these different, yet often intertwined modes seamlessly (Pandya, 2018). Although it can also be interpreted as a decoding-related category, the focus lies on active self-expression rather than comprehension in this analytical understanding. Connected to this is the ability of Creative Production. It means producing original digital content, while reflecting critical thinking in a creative way (Watt, 2019). The Problem-solving aspect contains the skills necessary for the use of digital tools (beyond operational skill) and cognitive strategies to overcome concrete issues or create innovative solutions (Delacruz & Jackson, 2019). Separately, a person with CDL should develop certain social-emotional skills in specific regard to digital and online interactions. Empathy, social awareness, emotional regulation and other abilities are crucial for meaningful communication and security in cyberspace (Ilomäki et al., 2023). Additionally, the aspect of Confidence and Self-efficacy is deemed important for defining CDL. Without feeling secure and able with one's voice and presence generally and in digital spaces, critical interrogation and meaningful interaction is hardly possible (Dooly & Darvin, 2022). Civic Participation and Agency summarizes the abilities of acting on your beliefs and engaging in the digital world as an informed, purposeful and active citizen (Frechette, 2015).

Overall based on the reviewed literature, Critical Digital Literacy can be defined as an inherently fluid concept of abilities, that incorporates operational-functional skills, multimodal understanding and production, reflecting on personal and sociocultural contexts and power structures and engaging with agency in the digital world.

Critical Digital Literacy in Early Childhood

This following section will outline what aspects of CDL skills can potentially be developed in early childhood according to the reviewed literature. The overarching themes follow the same sequential system of the previous chapter (Decoding, Contextualizing, Taking Action) to ensure comprehensibility but are tailored to the findings regarding EC. There were less counts due to not all papers being EC-specific. Overall, there were again certain core categories that emerged as more dominant than others in the literature: Understanding Sociocultural Context (n = 18), Multimodal Meaning-making (n = 18), Creative Production Skills (n = 15), Constructing and Deconstructing Narratives (n = 15), and Self-reflection and Emotional Intelligence (n = 14).

Decoding. This theme involves two foundational skills for understanding digital content and enabling young children to make sense of digital information: Technical-operational Skills and Multimodal Meaning-making. Technical-operational Skills mean developing the basic abilities to navigate and use digital tools, like reading, writing, typing, interacting with a touchscreen, etc., to lay a foundation for deeper understanding (Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2013). Multimodal Meaning-making goes beyond this dimension and enables children to differentiate and understand different types of digital content. In this categorization it also includes a more basic version of Constructing and Deconstructing Narratives (analogue and digital) as an integral part of meaning-making (Ávila & Pandya, 2012).

Contextualizing. This theme emphasizes understanding the broader personal, social and ethical contexts surrounding digital interactions, guiding children to consider the influences and implications of digital media on themselves. The four categories are: Understanding Sociocultural Context, Ethics and Morality, Self-reflection and Emotional Intelligence, Perspective-Taking Abilities. Understanding Sociocultural Context does in this case only include topics that are graspable for a young child, like for example different cultures, nationalities or a brief history of the digital world and not necessarily complex topics like capitalist commercialism, or underlying political power structures (Kumpulainen et al., 2020). Developing Ethics and Morality in the form of simple concepts to enable distinction of right from wrong in digital interactions and responsible behavior is also considered an important dimension (Darvin, 2017). The category Self-reflection and Emotional Intelligence encompasses the development of abilities to recognize and critique one's own thoughts, feelings and behavior in a digital context (Armanda & Yosintha, 2022). Building on this, Perspective-Taking Abilities refer to the skill of recognizing different points of view within digital content and understanding them, aiding comprehension and empathy (Belda-Medina, 2022).

Taking Action. This theme focuses on empowering young children to express themselves, make choices, and engage in digital spaces with creativity and responsibility. It is constructed out of these four categories: Building Identity, Confidence and Self-efficacy, Creative Production, Civic Participation and Agency. The dimension Building Identity means the exploration and development of a sense of self in digital spaces and an understanding of self-presentation and expression (Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2013). Confidence and Self-efficacy are seen as important traits for meaningful digital engagement and a sense of purpose and control. On this basis, young children can develop Creative Production Skills (e.g., video production) to foster creative problem solving, imagination and self-expression (Watt, 2019). Lastly, Civic Participation and Agency entails the abilities to take active and responsible roles in digital interactions, creating a sense of empowerment and decision-making from an early age (Soyoof et al., 2024).

In light of the findings of this analysis, key factors in developing CDL in early childhood appear to be multimodal technical skills, a contextual understanding of digital media and narratives, reflective and perspective-taking abilities and creative digital participation with agency.

Education, Pedagogy and Interventions

This chapter presents the findings of the thematic analysis of interventions fostering the development of CDL in EC. Due to the lack of concrete interventions conducted, pedagogical approaches and educational strategies were also included and the interventions incorporated in the eleven categories and three overarching themes. The themes are: Fostering Curiosity, Confidence and Creativity, Building Awareness through Reflective and Social Learning, and Creating a Safe and Supportive Digital Ecosystem. Again, it makes sense to take a look at the most common categories, which were: Sociocultural Awareness (n = 24), Teacher Training (n = 22), Reflective Practices (n = 21), Understanding and Developing Narratives (n = 20), Playful and Creative Learning (n = 17), and Perspective-Taking (n = 15).

Fostering Curiosity, Confidence and Creativity. This theme emphasizes child-centered, hands-on creative learning that nurtures digital curiosity and self-confidence in young learners and is comprised of three categories: Playful and Creative Learning, Student-centered Teaching, Digital Self-confidence Practices. The focus is on encouraging children to explore and make sense of digital environments in a way that feels natural, secure and playful (Pötzsch, 2019). Therefore, Playful and Creative Learning approaches can be applied to home, and education and care contexts equally and encourage exploration and creativity in digital contexts through playful practices (e.g., using digital tools like “Kahoot”, digital drawing, video production, see e.g., Watt, 2019). Student-centered Teaching embraces similar values by tailoring learning experiences to the interests and developmental levels of each child, fostering engagement and personal connection to CDL skills. Other teaching methods along this pedagogical logic like inquiry-based learning and discursive teaching are included in this category (Dooly & Darvin, 2022). Finally, Digital Self-confidence Practices are deemed crucial to build up children's comfort and confidence in digital environments through supportive, positive interactions that encourage independent exploration and autonomous problem-solving (Navera et al., 2024).

Building Awareness through Reflective and Social Learning. This theme focuses on developing early critical thinking and social skills, helping children understand that digital content can represent different perspectives and values. It promotes empathy, reflective thinking, and basic ethical understanding suited to their developmental stage through four different categories: Reflective Practices, Perspective-Taking and Sociocultural Awareness, Ethics and Morality, Understanding and Developing Narratives. Reflective Practices are considered crucial for developing CDL. They should encourage children to think about their own thoughts, feelings and actions in digital spaces (e.g., digital autobiography, see Pandya, 2018), laying a foundation for self-awareness and perspectives, differing from their own. Perspective-Taking and Sociocultural Awareness means using relatable digital content and pedagogical techniques (e.g., guiding questions for textual analysis, see Delacruz & Jackson, 2019) to help children understand and respect different viewpoints, fostering empathy and early awareness of sociocultural contexts. Introducing basic concepts of kindness, fairness, and responsibility in digital contexts and helping young children understand right from wrong (with regard to their individual opinions) in digital contexts can foster understandings of Ethics and Morality (Ilomäki et al., 2023). The final segment of this theme is Understanding and Developing Narratives. It entails educational practices of deconstructing digital storytelling and encouraging children to produce their own narrations using different digital media (Scott & Marsh, 2018).

Creating a Safe and Supportive Digital Ecosystem. This theme emphasizes the role of educators, families, and policymakers in establishing a child-appropriate and supportive environment for early childhood CDL. It includes the four categories: Teacher Training, Informing Parents and Caretakers, Updating Curricula and Policies, Using Non-commercial Digital Tools and Platform Regulations. Teacher Training is a strategy to directly provide early childhood educators with skills and teaching practices (like the abovementioned) to foster CDL through direct interventions, courses and trainings (Lo et al., 2024). On a wider scale, Informing Parents and Caretakers is an important step towards building CDL. Through direct programs or indirect information (Livingstone & Rahali, 2022) CDL practices can be integrated in a family context. To ensure extensive implementation of CDL practices, Updating Curricula and Policies by developing frameworks that address CDL in early childhood, emphasizing specific educational approaches and interventions, is deemed necessary (Navera et al., 2024). Ultimately, the category Using Non-commercial Digital Tools and Platform Regulations focuses on prioritizing child-friendly, non-commercial tools (e.g., Firefox browser, see Pötzsch, 2019) and advocating for safe, privacy-friendly platform practices to protect young learners from inappropriate content and financial exploitation (Livingstone & Rahali, 2022).

Based on the analysis presented above, how could the development of CDL in EC be improved through interventions? The majority of the reviewed literature proposes interventions in various forms of educational approaches, with only six studies proposing specific strategies. The most efficient educational approaches to build CDL include playful and creative multimodal learning tailored towards the children's needs and interests, reflective practices, tasks fostering the understanding and evaluation of sociocultural contexts, varying perspectives and narratives, and the building of an active, confident digital participation. According to the analysis, the best ways to pursue these educational changes are specific teacher trainings, curriculum and policy integration of CDL and the adaptation of CDL practices in the home and family context. The specific interventions were mostly video creation, reflective narrative-building and story-telling tasks implemented by pre-service or in-service primary educators (Pandya, 2018). Only one publication (Livingstone & Rahali, 2022) specifically addressed other stakeholders with interventions like parent information, platform regulations and policy updates.

Overall, the three thematic analyses yielded specific results regarding all three research questions, even though methodological limitations must be considered. When comparing the three analysis results, it becomes apparent that certain common themes overlap in research regarding development of CDL in EC. The most prominent codes and categories surrounded the following overarching themes: Sociocultural Contextualization, Self-reflection and Perspective-Taking, Constructing and Deconstructing (multimodal) Narratives.

Discussion

The findings of this scoping review broadly mirror developmental research trends noted in prior literature while also illuminating critical gaps. One key observation is the geographical concentration of studies in English-speaking and Western European countries, pointing to a persistent imbalance in academic representation (Martins, 2020). Although the language filter contributes to this skew, it also reflects broader structural inequities in research production. This imbalance poses risks to developing culturally sensitive, globally relevant educational frameworks. Thematically and methodologically, the field remains narrowly focused. Most studies are grounded in educational science, media studies, and linguistics (Scott & Marsh, 2018), often to the exclusion of broader interdisciplinary perspectives. Nearly all analyzed studies were of a conceptual nature or relied on qualitative methods, with no use of statistical or high-validity designs like randomized controlled trials (Bothwell et al., 2016). As a result, there is a lack of empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of interventions. The predominance of theoretical rather than applied work is especially evident: only six studies proposed or implemented specific interventions. This reflects ongoing struggles to establish shared definitions and developmental models of Critical Digital Literacy (CDL) in early childhood (Ilomäki et al., 2023), likely due to the topic being so diverse in research, technology moving so fast and local policies and approaches so different (Gouseti et al., 2023).

The review also confirms that research specifically targeting children aged 0–8 is sparse, likely due to enduring assumptions from classical developmental psychology (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958) that view young children as cognitively unfit for critical evaluation. Especially surrounding cognitively challenging topics such as critical thinking there has been a strong focus on secondary or even post-secondary education in the past (Marin & Halpern, 2011). Newer evidence increasingly challenges old developmental assumptions and shows how we may have been underestimating young children's cognitive abilities (Lai, 2011). And although it would be foolish to claim that children as young as eight years old already have fully developed CDL or related complex psychological capacities, several key CDL skills, like assessing reliability of information (Koenig & Harris, 2005), correctly identifying advertisement intentions on screen (Neuss, 1999), developing analytical thinking through critical narratives (Fisher, 1997), or identity-building (Jackson et al., 2020), can be developed during EC. Among theoretical frameworks, Theory of Mind (ToM) stands out as particularly promising for understanding CDL development in young children. ToM research suggests that by ages 3–5, children are already capable of recognizing that others may hold beliefs and intentions different from their own (Wellman et al., 2001). These foundational cognitive skills: perspective-taking, understanding intention, and interpreting emotional or mental states, are also central to CDL (Ho et al., 2022). ToM not only supports the idea that young children can begin developing CDL capacities earlier than previously thought but also aligns with cognitive neuroscience findings on early reflective abilities (Wade et al., 2018). It is important, to specifically educate young children on such CDL-related skills, to pre-emptively bridge knowledge gaps later in life and prepare them for the digital age that they are born into (Pan et al., 2025).

Despite definitional ambiguity, a thematic convergence emerged across the literature. Three core developmental capacities were identified as central to fostering CDL in early childhood: Sociocultural Contextualization, Self-reflection and Perspective-Taking, and Constructing and Deconstructing (Multimodal) Narratives. These capabilities are captured in the interpretive framework Decoding, Contextualizing, and Taking Action. This model suggests that children must first develop basic operational and narrative skills to engage with digital content meaningfully, then build the capacity to interpret, question, and eventually act upon their understanding (Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2013; Pangrazio, 2016). While this framework is presented sequentially, the skills are understood to be overlapping and mutually reinforcing (Gouseti et al., 2023). Identity formation and narrative comprehension are particularly foundational, supporting more abstract processes such as reflection and critical evaluation (Ávila & Pandya, 2012). Alternative models such as Colvert's Ludic Authorship framework also highlight relational and dynamic aspects of CDL but share similar core concepts (Colvert, 2020).

The reviewed literature advocates a range of pedagogical approaches for fostering these abilities. These include multimodal, playful learning environments, activities that build reflective thinking and social awareness, and exercises in narrative construction and analysis. Some interventions, such as Wohlwend et al.'s (2013) playful digital learning strategies, have shown promise, while others, like creative engagement with social media, remain under-researched (Navera et al., 2024). Several existing interventions for older children (e.g., Talib, 2018) could serve as adaptable templates for early childhood if tailored to developmental needs.

Limitations and Future Directions

What do these interpretations of the findings imply? Generally, “in a scoping review no rating of the quality of evidence is provided, therefore implications for practice or policy cannot be graded” (Aromataris & Munn, 2024, p. 178). It also must be repeated that the topic of CDL development and similar concepts like Media Literacy is a huge and contested field that involves many different developmental processes. Although it is hardly possible to answer all research questions extensively in the scope of this review, it can still provide an overview of existing research, give indications for future research and potentially effective strategies. It is necessary to first outline the biases and limitations present in this review. Firstly, the conducted search excluded many potentially related search terms like “Critical Media Literacy”, “Digital Citizenship”, or “preschool children”, hereby reducing the potential results. The decision to exclude these search terms was made for two reasons, to specifically synthesize CDL definitions, and also for a lack of resources. Secondly, while literature reviews in Psychology and Medicine conventionally resort to renowned databases and search engines like EBSCO or PubMed, Google Scholar can be a useful alternative if the area of interest is interdisciplinary or deals with a specific or under-researched topic (Heck et al., 2024). Since all these qualities apply to the current review topic and resources were limited, Google Scholar was used as the sole database, providing the most search results and access to grey literature (Haddaway et al., 2015). Nonetheless, this focus represents a drawback, and future reviews are strongly encouraged to include more databases and search terms. Thirdly, no critical appraisal through a peer review was conducted in the review process or the thematic analysis due to limited resources, making the results less objective. The use of helpful software specific to the thematic analysis approach like MAXQDA is advised for future research. Using AI-assisted tools throughout the process was considered but ultimately decided against. Although there is significant evidence pointing towards AI being useful and resource-efficient, if used correctly (Fabiano et al., 2024; Fütterer et al., 2026), there are still certain drawbacks to using such a new and rapidly changing technology, like confabulations and overall worse performance than humans using proper methodology (Meliante et al., 2025). In the future, controlled approaches like implementing AI to replace the second human extractor appear promising (Helms Andersen et al., 2025). Considering these limitations, it follows that even though the authors strived to make the process as transparent as possible, the following interpretations should be taken with a grain of salt.

It appears, that the most important aspects to the development of Critical Digital Literacy in early childhood – apart from technical-operational skills – are the abilities of Sociocultural Contextualization, Self-reflection and Perspective-Taking, Constructing and Deconstructing (multimodal) Narratives. According to the literature, these core abilities seem to lay the foundation for critical thinking and analysis in the digital world. The system of Decoding, Contextualizing, and Taking Action provides an in-depth interpretation of additional involved skills for general CDL and CDL in EC, that can potentially be fostered by several different interventions and strategies. These can be grouped into the themes: Fostering Curiosity, Confidence and Creativity; Building Awareness through Reflective and Social Learning and Creating a Safe and Supportive Digital Ecosystem.

Future research on the topic and in particular EC-specific interventions is necessary, while more valid research methods (e.g., RCTs) are encouraged to evaluate the efficiency of these methods (Gouseti et al., 2023). A life-span approach, such as recently implemented for the first time for DL by Pan et al. (2025) seems promising to investigate age-specific developments and potential intervention programs for CDL (see also Wong et al., 2023). Inviting current research from disciplines and theories like the abovementioned and others (e.g., Kuhn's Developmental Model of Critical Thinking, 1999), and a variety of so far underrepresented countries and regions is encouraged. Moreover, it must be noted that non-educational approaches could help to better grasp this emerging topic and put it into practice effectively. Indeed, Researchers, policymakers, digital platforms, politicians, educators, and parents should work together on all levels to establish a regularly updated framework of CDL, that enables swift implementation with concrete strategies. Therefore, determining an overarching, but regularly updated definition of CDL and criticality is advised (Villar-Onrubia et al., 2022). Shifting the focus from a mostly operational to a more critical one could not only help young adults to inhabit digital spaces but foster psychological well-being on a broader spectrum and make them “citizen[s] of the world” (Darvin, 2017, p. 12). Lastly, CDL has been critiqued for its tendency to be modeled after “one commonly perceived reading of political correctness” (Pangrazio, 2016, p. 165), where educators are portrayed as the liberators of pupils who have been manipulated by the media (Navera et al., 2024). Therefore, it's imperative, this does not happen, and the individual needs and interests of children are always put first (Pötzsch, 2019).

To conclude, it can be said that the development of Critical Digital Literacy in early childhood is still an evolving topic and an academic field with several research gaps. The existence of a multitude of definitions and concepts, as found in this review, reflects its various dimensions and may guide future research. The thematic analyses identified certain core aspects and corresponding intervention approaches that appear to be more relevant in the reviewed literature. When looking at similar concepts and psychological research on the developmental stage of early childhood, it can be argued that even young children are able to develop CDL or at least a preliminary version of it. Implementing effective CDL practices for young children in policies, educational, and home contexts can lead to far-reaching benefits and prevent them from being “digital naïves”. It is crucial that future research addresses these findings as quickly as possible since the context surrounding them is rapidly changing. More studies using quantitative and valid experimental methodologies are encouraged, to identify effective intervention methods. Finally, future reviews on the topic are advised since the resources were limited in this scoping review.

Supplemental Material

sj-zip-1-dev-10.1177_2192001X261420874 - Supplemental material for “Digital Naïves” – The Development of Critical Digital Literacy in Early Childhood: A Scoping Literature Review

Supplemental material, sj-zip-1-dev-10.1177_2192001X261420874 for “Digital Naïves” – The Development of Critical Digital Literacy in Early Childhood: A Scoping Literature Review by Silas Mecklenburg and Herbert Scheithauer in International Journal of Developmental Science

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Silas Mecklenburg

Herbert Scheithauer

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Dr. Herbert Scheithauer is an Editorial Board Member of this journal but was not involved in the peer-review process of this article nor had access to any information regarding its peer-review

Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and in its and agree to the Sage guidelines regarding that material.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Silas Mecklenburg is a postgraduate researcher in Developmental Psychology at Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany. His research interests are early childhood digital literacies, critical thinking and intervention design.

Herbert Scheithauer is Professor for Developmental and Clinical Psychology at Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany, and Head of the Unit “Developmental Science and Applied Developmental Psychology”. His research interests are on bullying, cyberbullying, and the development and evaluation of preventive interventions.

References

Armanda

M. L.

Yosintha

(2022). The role of critical digital literacy in foreign language learning: A survey on young learners. ETERNAL (English, Teaching, Learning, and Research Journal), 8(1), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.24252/Eternal.V81.2022.A11

Aromataris

Munn

(2024). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01

Ávila

Pandya

J. Z.

(2012). Critical digital literacies as social praxis: Intersections and challenges. New Literacies and Digital Epistemologies, Vol. 54. Peter Lang Inc.

Bacalja

Aguilera

Castrillón-Ángel

E. F.

(2021). Critical digital literacy. In Pandya

J. Z.

Mora

R. A.

Alford

J. H.

Golden

N. A.

De Roock

R. S.

(Eds.), The handbook of critical literacies (1st ed., pp. 373–380). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003023425-43

Banegas

D. L.

Villacañas De Castro

L. S.

(2016). Criticality. ELT Journal, 70(4), 455–457. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw048

Belda-Medina

(2022). Promoting inclusiveness, creativity and critical thinking through digital storytelling among EFL teacher candidates. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2011440

Bothwell

L. E.

Greene

J. A.

Podolsky

S. H.

Jones

D. S.

(2016). Assessing the gold standard—lessons from the history of RCTs. The New England Journal of Medicine, 374(22), 2175–2181. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMms1604593

Braun

Clarke

(2023). Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health, 24(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597

Callaghan

Rochat

Lillard

Claux

M. L.

Odden

Itakura

Tapanya

Singh

(2005). Synchrony in the onset of mental-state reasoning: Evidence from five cultures. Psychological Science, 16(5), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01544.x

10.

Carrington

Marsh

(2008). Forms of literacy. Beyond current horizons.

11.

Cattell

J. M.

(1886). The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind, 11(41), 63–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/os-XI.41.63

12.

Clarke

Braun

(2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613

13.

Colvert

(2015). Ludic authorship: Reframing literacies through peer-to-peer alternate reality game design in the primary classroom [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. UCL Institute of Education.

14.

Colvert

(2020). Presenting a new hybrid model of ludic authorship: Reconceptualising digital play as ‘three-dimensional’ literacy practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(2), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2019.1660307

15.

Darvin

(2017). Language, ideology, and critical digital literacy. In Thorne

May

(Eds.), Language and technology (pp. 1–14). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02328-1_35-1

16.

Delacruz

Jackson

(2019). Preservice elementary teachers engaging in digital critical literacy practices to advocate for critical perspectives of text. Literacy Practice & Research, 44(2), 5–17.

17.

Dooly

Darvin

(2022). Intercultural communicative competence in the digital age: Critical digital literacy and inquiry-based pedagogy. Language and Intercultural Communication, 22(3), 354–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2022.2063304

18.

Eynon

(2020). The myth of the digital native: Why it persists and the harm it inflicts. In Burns

Gottschalk

(Eds.), Education in the digital age: Healthy and happy children (pp. 131–143). OECD.

19.

Fabiano

Gupta

Bhambra

Luu

Wong

Maaz

Fiedorowicz

J. G.

Smith

A. L.

Solmi

(2024). How to optimize the systematic review process using AI tools. JCPP advances, 4(2), e12234. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcv2.12234

20.

Facione

P. A.

(1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report). The California Academic Press.

21.

Fisher

(1997). Stories for thinking: Developing critical literacy through the use of narrative. Analytic Teaching, 18(1), 16–27.

22.

Frechette

J. D.

(2015). Top ten guiding questions for critical digital literacy. ISIS Summit Vienna 2015—The Information Society at the Crossroads, Vienna, 3–7 June 2015. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/isis-summit-vienna-2015-S3019

23.

Freebody

Luke

(1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(7), 7–16.

24.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.

25.

Fütterer

Campos

D. G.

Gfrörer

Lavelle-Hill

Murayama

Scherer

(2026). AI Tools for systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses in educational psychology: An overview and a practical guide. Learning and Individual Differences, 126, 102849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102849

26.

Gilster

(1997). Digital literacy. Wiley.

27.

Gouseti

Lakkala

Raffaghelli

Ranieri

Roffi

Ilomäki

(2023). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of critical digital literacies and how these are manifested in their teaching practices. Educational Review, 76(7), 1751–1785. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2159933

28.

Green

(1988). Subject-specific literacy and school learning: A focus on writing. Australian Journal of Education, 32(2), 156–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494418803200203

29.

Gutiérrez-Ujaque

(2024). Towards a critical digital literacy and consciousness in higher education: The emancipatory role of critical digital pedagogy. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 19(3), 337–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2024.2379787

30.

Haddaway

N. R.

Collins

A. M.

Coughlin

Kirk

(2015). The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS One, 10(9), e0138237. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138237

31.

Heath

S. B.

(1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge University Press.

32.

Heck

Keller

Rittberger

(2024). Coverage and similarity of bibliographic databases to find most relevant literature for systematic reviews in education. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 25(2), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-023-00364-3

33.

Helms Andersen

Marcussen

T. M.

Termannsen

A. D.

Lawaetz

T. W. H.

Nørgaard

(2025). Using Artificial Intelligence tools as second reviewers for data extraction in systematic reviews: A performance comparison of two AI tools against human reviewers. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods, 3(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70036

34.

Hinrichsen

Coombs

(2013). The five resources of critical digital literacy: A framework for curriculum integration. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21.21334

35.

M. K.

Saxe

Cushman

(2022). Planning with Theory of Mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(11), 959–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.08.003

36.

Ilomäki

Lakkala

Kallunki

Mundy

Romero

Romeu

Gouseti

(2023). Critical digital literacies at school level: A systematic review. Review of Education, 11(3), e3425. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3425

37.

Inhelder

Piaget

(1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the construction of formal operational structures (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315009674

38.

Jackson

Noble

Anzai

Mitchell

Cloney

(2020). Assessment of children as having a strong sense of identity in early childhood education and care: Literature review. Future in Educational Reseach. Wiley.

39.

Kalabina

I. A.

Progackaya

T. K.

(2021). Defining digital competence for older preschool children. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 14(4), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2021.0411

40.

Khalaf

A. M.

Alubied

A. A.

Khalaf

A. M.

Rifaey

A. A.

(2023). The impact of social media on the mental health of adolescents and young adults: A systematic review. Cureus, 15(8), e42990. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.42990

41.

Kim

Kwon

K. A.

(2015). The role of home literacy environment in toddlerhood in development of vocabulary and decoding skills. Child & Youth Care Forum, 44(6), 835–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-015-9309-y

42.

Koenig

M. A.

Harris

P. L.

(2005). Preschoolers mistrust ignorant and inaccurate speakers. Child Development, 76(6), 1261–1277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00849.x

43.

Kuhn

(1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–46. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028002016

44.

Kumpulainen

Sairanen

Nordström

(2020). Young children’s digital literacy practices in the sociocultural contexts of their homes. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 20(3), 472–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798420925116

45.

Lai

E. R.

(2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson’s Research Reports, 6(1), 40–41.

46.

Laidlaw

O’Mara

Wong

S. S. H.

(2021). ‘This is your brain on devices’: Media accounts of young children’s use of digital technologies and implications for parents and teachers. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 22(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949119867400

47.

Lankshear

Knobel

(2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Open University Press.

48.

Livingstone

Rahali

(2022). #SponsoredAds: Monitoring influencer marketing to young audiences. Media Policy Briefs (23). London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.

49.

H.-C.

Wang

T.-H.

Chen

R.-S.

(2024). Enhancing critical digital literacy of preservice preschool teachers through service learning: The moderator of online social capital. Sustainability, 16(6), 2253. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062253

50.

Luke

(2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory Into Practice, 51(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2012.636324

51.

Marin

L. M.

Halpern

D. F.

(2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002

52.

Marsh

Mascheroni

Carrington

Brito

Dias

Kupiainen

(2017). The online and offline digital literacy practices of young children. DigiLitEY.

53.

Martins

(2020). Reimagining equity: Redressing power imbalances between the global north and the global south. Gender & Development, 28(1), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2020.1717172

54.

Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest. (2025). KIM-Studie 2024: Kindheit, Internet, Medien. Retrieved July 23, 2025, from https://www.mpfs.de/fileadmin/files/KIM/KIM-Studie_2024.pdf

55.

Meliante

Coco

Rabiolo

De Cillà

Manni

(2025). Evaluation of AI tools versus the PRISMA method for literature search, data extraction, and study composition in glaucoma systematic reviews: Content analysis. JMIR AI, 4, e68592. https://doi.org/10.2196/68592

56.

Merchant

(2007). Writing the future in the digital age. Literacy, 41(3), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9345.2007.00469.x

57.

Montag

Demetrovics

Elhai

J. D.

Grant

Koning

Rumpf

H. J.

Spada

Throuvala

van den Eijnden

(2024). Problematic social media use in childhood and adolescence. Addictive Behaviors, 153, 107980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2024.107980

58.

Munn

Pollock

Khalil

Alexander

Mclnerney

Godfrey

C. M.

Peters

Tricco

A. C.

(2022). What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 20(4), 950–952. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-21-00483

59.

Navera

J. A. S.

Valdez

P. N.

(2024). Criticality and TikTok. In Sanjakdar

Apple

M. W.

(Eds.), Engaging critical pedagogy in education (1st ed., pp. 195–210). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003307570-14

60.

Neuss

(1999). Alles Werbung oder was? Vermittlung von Werbekompetenz an Vorschulkinder. Kind, Jugend, Gesellschaft, 44(2), 49–53.

61.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u

62.

Ofcom. (2024). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report 2024. Retrieved November 11, 2024, from https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/261607/children-and-parents-media-use-and-attitudes.pdf

63.

O’Reilly

Devitt

Hayes

(2022). Critical thinking in the preschool classroom - A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 46, 101110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101110

64.

Pan

Reichert

Liang

de la Torre

Law

(2025). Measuring digital literacy across ages and over time: Development and validation of a performance-based assessment. Education and Information Technologies, 30(15), 22065–22100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13592-8

65.

Pandya

J. Z.

(2018). Exploring critical digital literacy practices: Everyday video in a dual language context (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315102672

66.

Pangrazio

(2016). Reconceptualising critical digital literacy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.942836

67.

Pangrazio

Sefton-Green

(2022). Learning to live with datafication: Educational case studies and initiatives from across the world (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003136842

68.

Pollock

Peters

M. D. J.

Khalil

McInerney

Alexander

Tricco

A. C.

Evans

De Moraes

ÉB

Godfrey

C. M.

Pieper

Saran

Stern

Munn

(2023). Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21(3), 520–532. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00123

69.

Pötzsch

(2019). Critical digital literacy: Technology in education beyond issues of user competence and labour-market qualifications. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 17(2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v17i2.1093

70.

Radesky

J. S.

Weeks

H. M.

Ball

Schaller

Yeo

Durnez

Tamayo-Rios

Epstein

Kirkorian

Coyne

Barr

(2020). Young children’s use of smartphones and tablets. Pediatrics, 146(1), e20193518. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-3518

71.

Sabol

T. J.

Busby

A. K.

Hernandez

M. W.

(2021). A critical gap in early childhood policies: Children’s meaning making. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 7(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000241

72.

Saracho

(2023). Theories of child development and their impact on early childhood education and care. Early Childhood Education Journal, 51(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01271-5

73.

Scott

Marsh

(

2018). Digital literacies in early childhood. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.97

74.

Soyoof

Neumann

M. M.

Reynolds

B. L.

(2024). Exploring maternal perceptions of critical digital engagement practices in Iranian children. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(2), 1322–1338. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2370458

75.

Talib

(2018). Social media pedagogy: Applying an interdisciplinary approach to teach multimodal critical digital literacy. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(2), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753018756904

76.

Thorndike

E. L.

(1906). The principles of teaching based on psychology. A G Seiler. https://doi.org/10.1037/11487-000

77.

Tinmaz

Lee

Y. T.

Fanea- Ivanovici

Baber

(2022). A systematic review on digital literacy. Smart Learning Environments, 9(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00204-y

78.

Tricco

A. C.

Lillie

Zarin

O’Brien

K. K.

Colquhoun

Levac

Moher

Peters

M. D. J.

Horsley

Weeks

Hempel

Akl

E. A.

Chang

McGowan

Stewart

Hartling

Aldcroft

Wilson

M. G.

Garritty

Straus

S. E.

(2018). PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

79.

Villar-Onrubia

Morini

Marín

V. I.

Nascimbeni

(2022). Critical digital literacy as a key for (post)digital citizenship: An international review of teacher competence frameworks. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 18(3), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135697

80.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Vol. 86). Harvard University Press.

81.

Wade

Prime

Jenkins

J. M.

Yeates

K. O.

Williams

Lee

(2018). On the relation between theory of mind and executive functioning: A developmental cognitive neuroscience perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(6), 2119–2140. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1459-0

82.

Watt

(2019). Video production in elementary teacher education as a critical digital literacy practice. Media and Communication, 7(2), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i2.1967

83.

Wellman

H. M.

Cross

Watson

(2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72(3), 655–684. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00304

84.

Wissenschaft Weltoffen. (n.d.). Structure of the world regions. Wissenschaft Weltoffen. Retrieved November 5, 2024, from https://www.wissenschaft-weltoffen.de/en/about-the-project/structure-of-the-world-regions/

85.

Wohlwend

K. E.

Buchholz

B. A.

Wessel-Powell

Coggin

L. S.

Husbye

N. E.

(2013). Literacy playshop: New literacies, popular media, and play in the early childhood classroom. Teachers College Press.

86.

Wong

G. K. W.

Reichert

Law

(2023). Reorienting the assessment of digital literacy in the twenty-first century: A product-lifecycle and experience dependence perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(6), 2389–2412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10278-1

87.

Wuyckens

Landry

Fastrez

(2022). Untangling media literacy, information literacy, and digital literacy: A systematic meta-review of core concepts in media education. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 14(1), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2022-14-1-12