Three Frameworks For Data Literacy

Stephen Downes

National Research Council Canada

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT

Data literacy is the ability to collect, manage, evaluate, and apply data, in a critical manner. It
is a relatively new field of study, dating only from the 2010s. It includes the skills necessary
to discover and access data, manipulate data, evaluate data quality, conduct analysis using
data, interpret results of analyses, and understand the ethics of using data. This paper
considers data literacy education across three frameworks: the competency model defining
data literacy, the assessment of data literacy competencies, and methods for the
development of data literacy in an organization. These principles are applied to a discussion
of the development of an open online course supporting the development of data literacy in
the form of a corresponding data structure encompassing the three frameworks identified in
the literature.

KEYWORDS

Data Literacy, Model, Framework, Learning

1. INTRODUCTION

What is the difference between ‘learning’ a discipline or domain when thought of as data,
and supported by the principles of data literacy, as compared to ‘learning’ through of as
analogous to reading, and supported by traditional literacy? In this paper we address this
question through analysis of the concept of data literacy, an examination of how data literacy
is currently assessed, and research and development in the teaching of data literacy for
individuals and organizations.

It is evident that ‘learning’ a ‘literacy’ involves more than learning about the components of
that literacy, and that there is an element of ‘being literate’, which is intended as an outcome
of that learning. To be literate is to embody a set of skills and competencies typically thought
to define that literacy, as reflected in an assessment of that literacy, and which in turn informs
the teaching of that literacy.

But the study of data literacy is nascent, limited to a few (mostly commercial) initiatives, and
not benefiting from a wide-reaching analysis considering all aspects of the definition,
development and application of data. This paper seeks to fill that gap, providing a
comprehensive overview of data literacy as it is taught and learned today, and suggesting a
set of frameworks that will inform future research and development of data literacy learning
initiatives.

1.1 Methodology
Originating as work conducted for the office of the Assistant Deputy Minister (Data,
Innovation and Analytics) in the government of Canada, this paper is a summarization of a
comprehensive literature review and design research project. A formal review was
conducted by the National Research Council information management office of Canada’s
National Science Library for publications related to the definition, application and
development of data literacy. A wider search using the same parameters was undertaken
using Google Scholar. Approximately 150 results were obtained, from which 20 items were
found to contain an identifiable data literacy model, and three major assessment frameworks
were identified. A small number of highly specific data literacy development models were
also identified. The design framework employed draw from previous work by the author on
connectivist massive open online courses (cMOOC) with the specific intent of adapting the
data literacy models table into the connectivist course framework.

2. Three Frameworks

2.1 Competency Model or Framework

Data literacy includes the skills necessary to discover and access data, manipulate data,
evaluate data quality, conduct analysis using data, interpret results of analyses, and
understand the ethics of using data, where by data we mean the representation of facts in
media. These are core skills required to support key competencies in intelligence and trend
analysis, mission-driven metric reporting, health and human response to stress and injury,
training and development functions, deployment, supply management and logistics, and
information warfare, to name a few. The following major themes emerge from the discussion
of data literacy over the last decade: data literacy as a set of skills or competencies; the idea
of deriving meaningful information from data; the data lifecycle or data workflow; complexity
of skills for differing roles; data literacy as individual and corporate capacities.

2.1.1 Competencies

Competencies are commonly defined as “a set of basic knowledge, skills, abilities, and other
characteristics that enable people at work to efficiently and successfully accomplish their job
tasks.” Following Oberländer, et al. (2020) we use the term ‘competencies’ here to draw on a
well-established concept that includes knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics
(KSAO).

The concept of competencies also includes the requirement of evidence for competencies.
Thus, employing a definition using competencies is well suited to a discussion of data
literacy that includes the fostering and assessment of knowledge, skills, and abilities.

2.1.2 Analysis

We drew on 20 studies that offered a (more or less) competency-based definition of data

literacy and compared the set of competencies each proposed. The selection of sources was
intended to draw from and be representative of various data literacy models. In assigning the
competencies interpretation was required, as the studies did not all employ the same
terminology. Figure 1 displays the result of the analysis:
 Figure 1

2.1.3 Models

The list of competencies identified also makes it clear that data literacy does not fall into any
single category described above. It contains elements of critical thinking, statistical
reasoning, data management, and scientific research. Data literacy therefore represents a
certain level of competency across a broad range of data-related skills, not a narrowly
defined subset of some other type of literacy. Most work in data literacy falls into one of
several models or interpretations. “They each have a different focus which tends to reflect
the context in which it was derived. They also have a different level of granularity, not just
between the definitions, but also within them” (Wolff, et al., 2016). Schield (2004) describes
these as ‘perspectives’, for example, the ‘critical thinking’ perspective and the ‘social science
data’ perspective:
 • Data Stewardship Model: This model describes approaches to data literacy that
emphasize data acquisition, curation, quality and deployment. A prototypical
example of this approach is the Statistics Canada descriptions of data quality
and the data journey (Statistics Canada, 2020).

• Analysis and Decision-Making Model: This model is focused mostly on the use
of data to support analytics and decision-making, for example, the collection of
approaches taken by members of the Data Literacy Project, including Qlik (a
data analytics company), Accenture, Cognizant, Experian, Pluralsight, the
Chartered Institute of Marketing, and Data to the People.

• Information Literacy Model: “According to Hunt (2004), data literacy education

should borrow heavily from information literacy education, even if the domain of
data literacy is more fragmented than the field of information literacy.“ (Koltay,
2016). Similarly, Maybee & Zilinski (2016) write, “The emerging construct of data
literacy has typically been closely related to information literacy.”

• Science and Research Data Literacy Model: This model of data literacy
emphasizes aspects of data related to computer science, mathematics and
statistics. It defines a set of data skills including data awareness, forms of
statistical representation, the ability to analyze, interpret and evaluate statistical
information, and communication of statistical information (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 2010).

• Social Engagement Model: This model distinguishes between the need for
everyday uses of data from the deeper requirements of data science. It is only
really articulated in a single source (Rahul Bhargava, et. al., 2015), though it has
its origins in a broader definition of literacy, as exemplified by Robinson (2005),
who talks of literacy as enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop
their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and
wider society” (p. 13).

As discussed below, no single model accounts for all aspects of data literacy applicable in a
specific content or role, hence, rather than describe a metric for model selection, a
comprehensive model based on specific skills and competencies defining a job, task or role
is proposed.

2.1.4 Application

In our analysis we looked more closely at the nature of artificial intelligence and machine
learning, two disciplines largely defined by their relation to data, to understand what might be
understood as the full ‘data workflow’. This section makes it clear that data literacy involves
much more than ‘reading’ and ‘writing’ with data and includes but is not limited to the framing
of the problem or context of use, the data set itself, application, and testing.

For example, machine learning engineering describes the construction and use of these
three elements: data engineering, which describes the acquisition, exploration, cleaning,
labeling and management of data; model engineering, which consists of the development or
training of the model, testing and evaluation, and packaging for use in an application; and
deployment, which describes how the model is served and used, performance evaluation,
and performance logging (Visengeriyeva, et al., 2022). Similarly, statistical research methods
workflows emphasize “the importance of asking questions throughout the statistical
problem-solving process (formulating a statistical investigative question, collecting or
considering data, analyzing data, and interpreting results), and how this process remains at
the forefront of statistical reasoning for all studies involving data.” (Bargagliotti, et al., 2020).

Additionally, this study finds that data literacy is a concept that can be applied equally to both
individuals and organizations, though both the description of data literacy as well as the
assessment of data literacy will vary in the given context. Framing elements of data literacy
as competencies, and employing a widely used model describing knowledge, skills and
attitude, an overall framework for describing individual data learning competencies and
organizational data literacy capabilities is proposed.

2.2 Evaluation or Assessment Framework

It is important to be able to evaluate or assess the level of data literacy competencies

individually or across the organization for the purpose of assessing operational readiness
and for the purpose of planning future training and development. Here we first provide an
overview of some data literacy assessment programs, then consider some data literacy
assessment models, and finally consider some data literacy methods.

2.2.1 Assessment Programs

We analyzed major skills and data literacy assessment programs, including the following:

• OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies

(PIAAC) literacy assessment asks participants to “access and identify tasks
require respondents to locate information in a text, integrate and interpret tasks
involve relating parts of one or more texts to each other, and evaluate and reflect
tasks require the respondent to draw on knowledge, ideas or values” (Kirsch &
Thorn, 2016, 2.2.1.3)

• Endorsed by the American Statistical Association, the Guidelines for

Assessment and Instruction in Statistics Education (GAISE) emphasize that
there is no one route to teaching and assessing statistical literacy and notes that
“mastering specific techniques is not as important as understanding the
statistical concepts and principles that underlie such techniques” (GAISE, 2016,
8).

• By contrast with the OECD and GAISE programs, the Eckerson Group
describes data literacy assessment specifically and includes assessment not
only of individual data literacy but also of the organization (Wells, 2021).
Assessments are based initially on a comprehensive Data Literacy Body of
Knowledge (DLBOK) defined by the organization.

2.2.2 Data Literacy Model-Based Assessment

In the analysis of data literacy competencies described in the first section of this report we
obtained an unstructured list of competencies. These competencies were organized into
different categories by various studies, but there was no consistency whatsoever in the
categorization scheme from study to study. What is offered here is a model based on a
slightly modified full list of competencies drawn from the data literacy studies
cross-referenced with a comprehensive skills taxonomy as suggested by the assessment
programs considered above.

For the sake of consistency with much of the work done previously a slightly modified
version of Bloom’s taxonomy is used (Bloom, 1956). Bloom’s three separate taxonomies -
cognitive, affective and psychomotor - can be thought of corresponding with the
already-described taxonomy of knowledge, attitudes and skills, respectively. This taxonomy
needs to be extended to accommodate both individual and organizational competencies.

Table 1.

2.2.3 Role-Defined Data Literacy

It is arguable that a single-factor measure of data literacy is insufficient to account for the
variability in both the set of data literacy competencies and also the varying degree to which
each competency is required in different job functions or roles. Accordingly, a role-defined
data literacy model is proposed here.

This figure illustrates the calculation of a role-defined data literacy profile. It consists of a
combination of the set of competencies as defined in the data literacy model with the actual
job or function description. This allows for a definition of the relative importance of each
competency for that function, demonstrated here in the form of a radar chart (also known as
a spider chart).
 Figure 2.

Job or function descriptions may be obtained from extant text (the example in the diagram is
from the forces.ca Careers page) or drafted as text by managers and those occupying the
position. The competency profile may be created by a simple counting of the frequency of
relevant terms, or by a more nuanced analysis, perhaps using machine learning.

The same process may be used to create actual competency profiles for each individual
evaluated, by employing test results or actual communications generated by the person in
question (such a process would be subject to ethical and privacy considerations). A similar
process may be used to generate organizational level competency profiles.

It is arguable that a single-factor measure of data literacy ‘levels’ as employed by numerous

data literacy assessment schemes is insufficient to account for the variability in both the set
of data literacy competencies and also the varying degree to which each competency is
required in different job functions or roles. Accordingly, a role-defined data literacy model is
proposed. This model illustrates the calculation of a role-defined data literacy profile, as well
as the process used to create actual competency profiles.

2.3 Teaching Framework

There are few data literacy training initiatives extant, and no organization or institution-wide
examples were found. So, in the context of data literacy development two areas of
consideration are important: models and designs for data literacy program development in
general, and examples of extant data literacy training programs and curricula.

2.3.1 Developing Data Literacy

The development of data literacy in an organization occupies a space between two

extremes. On the one hand, we may find data literacy among other types of information and
communication competencies, such as digital literacy or information management programs.
On the other hand, we might think of data literacy as a first step in the development of
higher-level competencies such as data architect or information management. Either
approach envisions a large-scale and complex learning initiative.
But it need be neither, provided we think of data literacy not as knowledge or content to be
used, but rather, as a part of other processes and strategies employed to achieve real
objectives or outcomes. This accords with the recommendations found in the literature, for
example, to focus on performance rather than content knowledge and to ensure it
encompasses real operational challenges using authentic data and examples.

The development of data literacy in the context of this report is tantamount to the
development of individual and organizational data literacy, which consist of knowledge, skills
and attitudes, or their analogues, in each of the data literacy competencies, defined as
described in the first section, such that the achievement of these competencies can be
reliably and validly assessed and detected using the assessment methodologies described
in the second section.

2.3.2 Data Literacy Programs

There is not yet an established infrastructure for data literacy development; we mostly find
commercial training courses and online resources. So, in the context of data literacy
development, two areas of consideration are important: models and designs for data literacy
program development in general, and examples of data literacy training programs and
curricula.

Models and designs for data literacy program development: some universities have
conducted background research and there are numerous data literacy program development
roadmaps provided by commercial consultants. For example:

• The Data Information Literacy project funded by the Institute of Museum and
Library Services (IMLS) which proposes a four-step methodology of planning,
development, implementation, and assessment’ (Carlson & Johnston, 2015).

• QuantHub provides a methodology for developing individual and team data

literacy learning and development plans. There are two major components: a
series of ‘foundational steps’ to develop a data literacy vision and roadmap; and
an iterative process of assessment, planning, learning and practice (Cowell,
2020).

• Dave Wells of Eckerson Group offers a comprehensive data literacy program

development methodology (2021) arguing that organizational data literacy is not
merely a sum of individual data literacies but requires in addition factors such as
tools and systems, incentives and motivators.

• Gartner, by contrast, offers a report describing a three-phase methodology for

the development of an institutional program (Panetta, 2021) consisting of
assessment, data literacy training, and then evaluation of the outcome.

Data literacy training programs and curricula: After a brief surge in the mid 2010s, data
literacy is enjoying a resurgence in 2023.

• While no longer extant, the Data Literacy Project, founded in 2015 at Dalhousie
University, proposed “a transdisciplinary examination of existing strategies and
 best practices for teaching data literacy, synthesizing documented explicit
knowledge using a narrative-synthesis methodology and identifying areas where
additional research is needed.” (DataLiteracy.ca, Internet Archive, 2021).

• Conducted online between January and March 2022, the EDUCAUSE Data
Literacy Institute consisted of a series of eight synchronous online meetings to
discuss resources, activities, and projects in support of seven key data literacy
competency areas (Kleitz & Shelly, 2022).

2.3.3 Teaching and Learning Methods

Data literacy is new enough that specific pedagogies have not been broadly developed or
applied. However, in many ways, data literacy training is similar to that in other disciplines,
and especially those characterized as ‘literacies’. Thus, recommendations for, say, digital,
information or statistical literacy instruction may apply more broadly to data literacy in
general. Some specific trials of different methods applied to the teaching of data literacy
have been undertaken. The following is not a comprehensive listing of all methods but
serves to illustrate how to apply the principles described just above in specific teaching
contexts.

● Datastorming: This is a way to think about how to create designs using data that
uses non-digital media. "To overcome their unfamiliarity to data, we aimed to craft
abstract data into hands-on design materials in the form of cards.” (Lim, et al., 2021)
● Simulations and Interactive Technologies: Biehler, et al. (2016) describe pre-service
teachers' reasoning about modeling a family factory with TinkerPlots, “a data
visualization and modeling tool developed for use by middle school through university
students.”
● Case-Based Teaching Method: Case‐based teaching is “an active learning strategy
in which students read and discuss complex, real‐life scenarios that call on their
analytical thinking skills and decision‐making.” (Riddle, et al., 2017).
● Utilising affordances in real-world data: Based on the Teaching for Statistical Literacy
Hierarchy, this method analyzes statistical literacy lessons that use real-world data
from the perspective of the affordances in the data presentation (Chick & Pierce,
2012).
● Data-Driven Decision-Making: According to Abbott, et al. (2015), this team-based
approach combines a number of competency requirements in a single activity:
expertise in data collection, management in a variable environment, allocation of
space and time for the process, and the need to ensure process fidelity. This specific
activity helps teachers design child literacy instruction, but the approach can be
generalized to other data-driven decision-making activities.

2.2.4 Data Literacy MOOC

To a significant degree, discussions of data literacy focus on individual competencies and

skills. Nowhere is this more evident than in the development of data literacy learning
resources and environments, as just discussed, though with some notable exceptions this
trend may be identified throughout.
As an experiment in conceptual design based on the findings of this study we developed a
‘Data Literacy Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)’, which may be found at [website
redacted for peer review]. The course follows the structure described here, addressing each
of the three frameworks in turn. In turn, associated concepts and resources identified in the
study comprised separate contents for each of the three frameworks.

The model of a connectivist MOOC was employed because, unlike traditional courses, which
are structured in a linear or book-like fashion, consisting of sequential modules and lessons,
a connectivist MOOC is structured as a graph of connected people, resources, and
concepts, in other words, much more like a collection of data.

Technically, a data-based MOOC (dMOOC) organizes content and resources in a structure

suggested by the literature being studied in the course. Figure 3 is a sample of the structure
used in a similar dMOOC on ethics and analytics (ethics.mooc.ca):

Figure 3

Student activities in a dMOOC consist less of learning and remembering content and more
of working with relevant data, and specifically:

● Classifying and labeling major sets and subsets of data

● Identifying and labeling specific instances of data subjects (for example: an article
describing ‘care’ as a legal concept)
● Identifying and labeling relations between sets and subsets of data, either view
argument threds in extant literature, or through data analytics of relevant bodies of
literature
● Assessing the resulting data model, identifying significant threads, and interpreting
the resulting model

In the ethics MOOC diagrammed in Figure 3 this activity was undertaken by a single
individual, while in the corresponding data literacy MOOC this activity was undertaken
collectively by the course participants.

Ideally, participation in a cMOOC does not involve individual study and retention of a
pre-defined body of knowledge. Rather, it requires working with others in order to develop
not only individual capacities and skills, but also social or community capacities and skills.
These typically resist definition prior to the course, as the consequence of such social
interaction and application of a skill or practice is often the development of knew knowledge,
approaches, and competencies.

3. CONCLUSION

Above we asked what the difference is between ‘learning’ a discipline or domain when
thought of as data, and supported by the principles of data literacy, as compared to ‘learning’
thought of as analogous to reading, and supported by traditional literacy?

3.2 What We Have Learned

What we have learned is that there is no single or simple definition of data literacy. What we
think of as ‘data literacy’ is characterized by a set of widely divergent competencies, and the
importance of one or another set of competencies varies according to the task or role in
which data literacy is required. This is reflected not only in the many definitions of data
literacy that we found, but also in the models of assessment offered by (mostly) commercial
providers. Not only is a literacy an embodiment of the skills and competencies typically
thought to define that literacy, ‘data literacy’ is something that can characterize both an
individual and an organization.

But it is not yet taught that way. While the practices and pedagogies of data literacy being
researched today address the question of use and immersion in a data-rich environment,
they are addressed toward individual learning, and not the development of data literacy as
an organizational or social skill. To this end we recommend developing and piloting
non-hierarchal cooperative learning environments, such as the cMOOC, for the development
of organizational and social competencies required for data literacy.

That said, these are assertions that need to be empirically tested before being widely
adopted and applied. This paper offers the conceptual framework within which such
assertions may be tested, but does not itself constitute a test of them, beyond the very
limited application of the model in the development of the data literacy MOOC. And even so,
much wider participation in such a MOOC would be required before any definitive assertions
could be made.

3.2 Implications and Limitations

Models of data literacy found in specific domains, and especially scientific domains, do not
encompass the full spectrum of data literacy skills and competencies. Hence, the teaching of
data literacy should not be based on models originating from a specific discipline, but should
rather be designed based on an analysis of the role or skills being taught more broadly, with
a wide consideration of the corresponding data literacy competencies found across a range
of models.

The small range of materials describing models and methods for teaching subjects related to
data literacy tend to favour hands-on active learning, however, these were applied only in
very narrow contexts. Accordingly, a course-wide model for developing data literacy was
developed and proposed, whereby the course contents themselves are organized as a
database, such that students participate by constructing and interpreting the data model.
While there is reasonable confidence that the list of data literacy models is comprehensive, it
is possible that additional models of data literacy may be extant, and these may include
competences not identified in the current study. Thus this work should be seen as a first draft
of a wider survey by the data literacy survey as a whole. Though role-defined data literacy
has antecedents in the literature, it should be clear that there is scope for alternative
multi-model approaches to data literacy. Finally, while the application of the data literacy
frameworks identified in this paper allowed for the development of an instructional model,
this model has not been adequately tested, and should be applied in pilot form before being
adopted.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Mary, et al. 2015. “A Team Approach to Data-Driven Decision-Making Literacy

Instruction in Preschool Classrooms: Child Assessment and Intervention Through Classroom
Team Self-Reflection.” Young Exceptional Children, vol. 20, no. 3, Sept. 2015, pp. 117–32,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250615602297.

Bargagliotti, Anna, et al. 2020. Pre-K-12 Guidelines for Assessment and Instruction in
Statistics Education II (GAISE II): A Framework for Statistics and Data Science Education.
American Statistical Association, 2020,
https://www.amstat.org/docs/default-source/amstat-documents/gaiseiiprek-12_full.pdf.

Bhargava, Rahul, et al. 2015. “Beyond Data Literacy: Reinventing Community Engagement
and Empowerment in the Age of Data.” Data-Pop Alliance, Data-Pop Alliance, Nov. 2015,
https://datapopalliance.org/item/beyond-data-literacy-reinventing-community-engagement-an
d-empowerment-in-the-age-of-data.

Biehler, Rolf, et al. 2016. “Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Reasoning about Modeling a
‘Family Factory’ with Tinkerplots - A Pilot Study.” Statistics Education Research Journal, vol.
16, no. 2, Nov. 2017, pp. 244–86, https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v16i2.192.

Bloom, B. S. 1956. “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives”, Handbook: The Cognitive

Domain. David McKay.
https://www.scirp.org/(S(i43dyn45teexjx455qlt3d2q))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?Ref
erenceID=1506705.

Canada School of Public Service (CSPS). 2022. How Data Literate Are You? Government of
Canada, Apr. 2022,
https://catalogue.csps-efpc.gc.ca/product?catalog=DDN302&cm_locale=en.

Carlson, Jake, and Lisa R. Johnston. 2015. “Data Information Literacy: Librarians, Data, and
the Education of a New Generation of Researchers.” Purdue University Press, 2015,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt6wq2vh.

Chick, Helen L., and Robyn Pierce. 2012. “Teaching for Statistical Literacy Utilising
Affordances in Real-World Data.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, vol. 10, no. 2, Apr. 2012, pp. 339–62, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9303-2.
Cowell, Matt. 2020. “A Roadmap for Creating a Data Literacy Program - QuantHub.”
QuantHub, QuantHub, 18 June 2020, https://quanthub.com/data-literacy-program.

DataLiteracy. 2021. “About This Project - DataLiteracy.Ca.” DataLiteracy.Ca, Internet

Archive, 22 Dec. 2021,
https://web.archive.org/web/20211222131031/http:/dataliteracy.ca/about-this-data-literacy-pr
oject.

GAISE College Report ASA Revision Committee. 2016. Guidelines for Assessment and
Instruction in Statistics Education (GAISE). American Statistical Association.
https://www.amstat.org/docs/default-source/amstat-

Kirsch, Irwin, and William Thorn. 2016. Technical Report of the Survey of Adult Skills
(PIAAC) (2nd Edition). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
2016,
https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/PIAAC_Technical_Report_2nd_Edition_Full_Report.pdf.

Kleitz, Lauren, and Joe Shelley. 2022. EDUCAUSE Data Literacy Institute. EDUCAUSE, 24
Jan. 2022,
https://events.educause.edu/educause-institute/data-literacy-institute/2022/online-1.

Koltay, Tibor. 2016. “Data Governance, Data Literacy and the Management of Data Quality.”
IFLA Journal, vol. 42,
no. 4, Nov. 2016, pp. 303–12, https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035216672238.

Maybee, Clarence, and Lisa Zilinski. 2016. “Data Informed Learning: A next Phase Data
Literacy Framework for Higher Education.” Proceedings of the Association for Information
Science and Technology, vol. 52, no. 1, Jan. 2015,
pp. 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2015.1450520100108.

Oberländer, Maren, et al. 2020. “Digital Competencies: A Review of the Literature and
Applications in the Workplace.” Computers & Education, vol. 146, Mar. 2020, p. 103752,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103752.

Panetta, Kasey. 2021. “A Data Literacy Guide For D&A Leaders.” Gartner, Gartner, 26 Aug.
2021,
https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/a-data-and-analytics-leaders-guide-to-data-litera
cy.

Riddle, Derek R., et al. 2017. “Making a Case for Case-Based Teaching in Data Literacy.”
Kappa Delta Pi Record, vol. 53, no. 3, July 2017, pp. 131–33,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2017.1334479.

Ridsdale, Chantel, et al. 2015. Strategies and Best Practices for Data Literacy Education.
Dalhousie University, 2015,
https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/64578/Strategies%20and%20Best%2
0Practices%20for%20Data%20Literacy%20Education.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

Robinson, Clinton. 2005. Aspects of Literacy Assessment: Topics and Issues from the
UNESCO Expert Meeting. 2005, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000140125.
Schield, Milo. 2004. “Information Literacy, Statistical Literacy and Data Literacy.” IASSIST
Quarterly, 2004, http://www.statlit.org/pdf/2004-Schield-IASSIST.pdf.

St. Mary’s. 2018. St. Mary’s Practice Test 2017/2018. 2018,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LsDbvAy_YHepMVD9VVEEWH6w5U_Dk1-E/view.

Statistics Canada. 2020. The Daily - Begin Your Data Journey with Data Literacy Training
Videos. Government of Canada, 23 Sept. 2020,
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200923/dq200923f-eng.htm.

Visengeriyeva, Larysa, et al. 2022. An Overview of the End-to-End Machine Learning

Workflow. MLOps.org, Dec. 2021, https://ml-ops.org/content/end-to-end-ml-workflow.

Wells, Dave. 2021. Building a Data Literacy Program. 4 Jan. 2021,

https://www.eckerson.com/articles/the-data-literacy-imperative-part-i-building-a-data-literacy-
program.

Wolff, Annika, et al. 2016. “Creating an Understanding of Data Literacy for a Data-Driven
Society.” Journal of Community Informatics, vol. 12, no. 3, Aug. 2016,
https://doi.org/10.15353/joci.v12i3.3275.

Yi Min Lim, Delia, et al. 2021. “Datastorming: Crafting Data into Design Materials for Design
Students’ Creative Data Literacy.” C&C ’21: Creativity and Cognition, Association for
Computing Machinery, 2021, pp. 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1145/3450741.3465246.