A systematic review of frameworks and measurement instruments for data literacy in higher and adult education

IF 10.3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Educational Research Review Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-07-28 DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2026.100828
Marlene Ganz, Marco Kalz
{"title":"A systematic review of frameworks and measurement instruments for data literacy in higher and adult education","authors":"Marlene Ganz,&nbsp;Marco Kalz","doi":"10.1016/j.edurev.2026.100828","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The concept of data literacy suffers from a persistent theoretical and definitional fragmentation. To contribute to more coherence in the field, we introduce two systematic literature reviews. Together, they provide an integrated overview of how data literacy is conceptualized in competency frameworks and represented in measurement instruments. The first review analyzed 15 frameworks developed for higher education and related contexts after applying rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria. The content analysis focused on target groups, structural characteristics, and competency dimensions. The second review examined six instruments designed to assess data literacy after applying rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria. The content analysis focused on targeted competencies, validation approaches, and provided a quality appraisal. The synthesis shows that frameworks describe data literacy in broad and multidimensional terms, whereas instruments capture only a narrower subset of competencies, often emphasizing technical skills while reflective and ethical dimensions remain underrepresented. Most instruments rely on self-report formats and provide limited validation evidence, raising concerns about their ability to capture applied and context-dependent competencies. Building on these insights, the study proposes a Core–Periphery Framework (COPERDALE) that distinguishes a stable core of fundamental skills from more flexible, context-dependent competencies. This structure clarifies which dimensions can be universally assessed and which require contextual adaptation. Beyond conceptual clarification, the findings underscore the need to diversify assessment practices, moving beyond self-reports toward approaches that better capture applied, reflective and ethical aspects of data literacy. The review thereby offers both a structured conceptual foundation and directions for advancing research and educational practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48125,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research Review","volume":"52 ","pages":"Article 100828"},"PeriodicalIF":10.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Research Review","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X26000679","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The concept of data literacy suffers from a persistent theoretical and definitional fragmentation. To contribute to more coherence in the field, we introduce two systematic literature reviews. Together, they provide an integrated overview of how data literacy is conceptualized in competency frameworks and represented in measurement instruments. The first review analyzed 15 frameworks developed for higher education and related contexts after applying rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria. The content analysis focused on target groups, structural characteristics, and competency dimensions. The second review examined six instruments designed to assess data literacy after applying rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria. The content analysis focused on targeted competencies, validation approaches, and provided a quality appraisal. The synthesis shows that frameworks describe data literacy in broad and multidimensional terms, whereas instruments capture only a narrower subset of competencies, often emphasizing technical skills while reflective and ethical dimensions remain underrepresented. Most instruments rely on self-report formats and provide limited validation evidence, raising concerns about their ability to capture applied and context-dependent competencies. Building on these insights, the study proposes a Core–Periphery Framework (COPERDALE) that distinguishes a stable core of fundamental skills from more flexible, context-dependent competencies. This structure clarifies which dimensions can be universally assessed and which require contextual adaptation. Beyond conceptual clarification, the findings underscore the need to diversify assessment practices, moving beyond self-reports toward approaches that better capture applied, reflective and ethical aspects of data literacy. The review thereby offers both a structured conceptual foundation and directions for advancing research and educational practice.
对高等和成人教育中数据素养的框架和测量工具的系统审查
数据素养的概念一直存在理论和定义上的分歧。为了促进该领域的一致性,我们介绍了两个系统的文献综述。它们共同提供了数据素养如何在能力框架中概念化并在测量工具中表示的综合概述。第一次审查分析了在应用严格的纳入和排除标准后为高等教育和相关背景开发的15个框架。内容分析侧重于目标群体、结构特征和胜任力维度。第二次审查审查了六种旨在评估数据素养的工具,这些工具采用了严格的纳入和排除标准。内容分析集中于目标能力、验证方法,并提供质量评估。综合分析表明,框架从广泛和多维的角度描述了数据素养,而工具只涵盖了能力的一个较窄子集,往往强调技术技能,而反思和道德层面仍然没有得到充分体现。大多数工具依赖于自我报告格式,并提供有限的验证证据,这引起了人们对其捕获应用和上下文相关能力的能力的关注。基于这些见解,该研究提出了一个核心-外围框架(COPERDALE),该框架将稳定的核心基本技能与更灵活的、依赖于环境的能力区分开来。这种结构阐明了哪些方面可以普遍评估,哪些方面需要上下文适应。除了概念澄清之外,研究结果强调了多样化评估实践的必要性,从自我报告转向更好地捕捉数据素养的应用、反思和道德方面的方法。因此,该综述为推进研究和教育实践提供了结构化的概念基础和方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Educational Research Review
Educational Research Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
19.40
自引率
0.90%
发文量
53
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Educational Research Review is an international journal catering to researchers and diverse agencies keen on reviewing studies and theoretical papers in education at any level. The journal welcomes high-quality articles that address educational research problems through a review approach, encompassing thematic or methodological reviews and meta-analyses. With an inclusive scope, the journal does not limit itself to any specific age range and invites articles across various settings where learning and education take place, such as schools, corporate training, and both formal and informal educational environments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书