Exploring Teachers' Perspective of Digital Literacy
Pedagogy: Implications for Future Practice
Section 1: The Problem
Introduction
Youth are connected to the world electronically, and they are enveloped in a
constant flow of entertainment, information, and communication. Born into a ubiquitous
technological world, these digital natives daily receive and respond to a variety of stimuli
simultaneously through experiential learning (Ng, 2012). To exist in this digital
environment, these adolescents must develop a growing set of skills that allow them to
process this information and perform complex tasks. Currently, these youth are using
technologies repeatedly to advance their social agendas; yet, they may not use it to
develop academic, creative, or critical thinking (Comba, 2011; Nasah, DaCosta, Kinsell,
& Seok, 2010; Ng, 2012). Although this may be a priority to these digital natives,
participation in this new techno centric reality involves the development of complex
digital literacy skills. Their intellectual capacity to function in the global economy must
be expanded to include new digital competencies. As they mature, these youth need to
participate in authentic learning events and reflect on the experience to successfully
acquire new skills.
Adhering to the responsibility to build, enhance, and elevate the digital capacity of
the next generation of youth, teachers must adapt accordingly to meet the needs of these
digital natives. Based on the National Educational Technology Standards developed by
the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), Calvani, Fini, Ranieri, and
Picci (2012) described a digitally literate learner as a person who can analyze and use
information gained collaboratively through digital media to demonstrate creativity and
critical thinking while adhering to the ethical and social norms related to technology.
Learning tasks initiated in the classroom should address these skills, cognitively
challenging students to analyze and synthesize multiple modes of information by
incorporating technology as an educational tool. Although many students are adept at
accessing information electronically, they lack the ability to effectively and ethically
process and present the information (Greene, Yu, & Copeland, 2014). These attributes of
identifying and extracting key ideas to create new knowledge are mastery skills that need
to be taught (Ellis, Goodyear, Bluic, & Ellis, 2010). As technology advances in the
classroom, teachers are faced with the challenge of successfully integrating technology
with content and pedagogy to address digital literacy skills.
Definition of the Problem
Geographical boundaries have been decreased by technology, creating a new
intermingling of cultures that influences the development of these digital natives. Existing
in a media culture where technology innovations increase the flow of information and the
degree of social integration, students must learn to be critical consumers of new
knowledge. A part of this learning process includes the ability not to just gather
information, but to equip learners with the skills and knowledge needed to actively
construct and cocreate new knowledge (Chu, 2010; Fahser-Herro &
Steinkuehler, 2009). Calvani et al. (2012) indicated that high school students’ ability to
assess credibility of sites and process complex digital information is also low. Many
students seem to be adept at accessing information, but need to develop higher order
thinking and literacy skills.
High school curriculum is not addressing the integration of digital competencies
into pedagogy. Through classroom observations and teachers’ conversations, the
principal of the school study site recognized the lack of effective technology integration
with curriculum (personal communication, April, 24 2014). Although teachers have
access to technology for use in the classroom, it is not being used as an effective
instructional tool for students to cultivate the intellectual competencies needed to function
effectively as global citizens (Fahser-Herro & Steinkuehler, 2009; Henderson, 2011). As
a result, students inherently lack the cognitive digital literacy skills necessary to function
and compete with the pace, complexity, and intensity of technological society. To
compete globally, technology must be leveraged in education to engage students in
critical learning opportunities that prepare them for college and career. The high school
educational setting must reflect authentic learning that mirrors the real-world application
of these digital literacy skills, and high school teachers are not adapting pedagogy to
effectively address these digital literacy skills. To bridge the digital literacy gap between
teacher deficiencies and students’ needs, in this qualitative case study, I explored current
level of understanding, knowledge, and integration of digital literacy skills of high school
in-service teachers in order to identify challenges and supports they need to successfully
shift teaching practices.
To adequately prepare students to function after graduation, high school teachers
must transform current pedagogy to include content area concepts, skills, processes, and
resources relevant to information and communication technology (Ertmer &
OttenbreitLeftwich, 2010) and include digital literacy skills (Eshet-Alkalai, 2004;
McLoughlin, 2011). Educational systems and pedagogical practices have become out of
date or obsolete and are not meeting the learning needs of the new generation of tech
savvy students. It is not enough for students to be able to use the technology; ICT should
be used to facilitate student learning through active participation and collaborative
interaction with content and peers to further develop their ability to assess and assimilate
multiple sources of information related to discipline areas. The learning environment
must be structured to provide learning opportunities where students can begin to build
these skills.
There is a growing disparity between the classroom learning experiences provided
by the teacher to engage students in learning versus the real-world application of skills
required to compete in global economy. Teachers are not adequately preparing students
with these challenging, relevant learning experiences using technology to develop digital
literacy skills (Ellis et al., 2010; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Fahser-Herro &
Steinkeuhler, 2009; Lee & Tsai, 2010; Ng, 2012). There is a difference between
implementing technology as a teaching tool and integrating technology into teaching and
learning practices to engage students in authentic learning experiences. Simply
introducing various technical modalities into the classroom does not ensure successful
nor meaningful integration unless teachers are trained to use technology to enhance
student learning and transform their pedagogical practices (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler,
2009; Koc & Bakir, 2010; Tee & Lee, 2011). Without a blended approach, there is a
mismatch in the vision of educational leaders and how the application of digital literacy
skills is employed in the classroom to develop mental acuity and problem-solving skills.
Although many teachers have increased their use of technology personally and
professionally, it has not been assimilated into pedagogical practices. Researchers (Harris
& Hoffer, 2011; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby, & Ertmer, 2010) have
suggested that teachers only use technology as a support of current practices and to target
communication and administration tasks rather than as an instructional resource. In what
is becoming defined as a second-level digital divide, teachers have been unable to bridge
the connection between past teaching practices and the current digital learning
environment (Project Tomorrow, 2013). From students’ perspective, teachers are stifling
learning due to their unsophisticated use and ineffective technology integration (Project
Tomorrow, 2013). Teachers’ lack of knowledge and skills surrounding this technological
divide will continue to grow until teacher practices and student learning needs are
interactively aligned.
Rationale
Evidence of the Problem at the Local Level
Teachers need to begin to weave technology, content, and pedagogy into the
educational platform to facilitate learning where students’ interaction with new
knowledge cultivates critical thinking and creativity. The U.S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Technology (2010) and the state department of education (DOE)
both advocated for a transformation in current educational practices to include authentic
learning through the integrated use of technology to enhance discipline literacy. This
requires an intentional shift in pedagogical practices, where teachers begin to make
meaningful connections with content and technology to construct new playgrounds of
teaching and learning (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Harris et al., 2009; Lee &
Tsai, 2010). Described as technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK), this
combination of skills and knowledge pose a challenge for teachers because they often
lack the ability to effectively integrate discipline-specific technology to support students’
cognitive development (Harris et al., 2009). Improving technology pedagogy involves
teachers increasing their pedagogical knowledge through all facets of curriculum
development, implementation, and assessment practices (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2010). Effective integration of digital literacy skills with content is a skill that teachers
need learn. As technology evolves, ongoing support is needed in order to keep pace with
advances.
In alignment with the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), the state DOE devised the
Department of Education Educational Technology Plan with goals to build school
capacity and to prepare students to compete in the evolving economy, locally and
globally. Isolated geographically in the mid-Pacific, the islands rely on technology for
both industry and economics. Recognizing the gap between the advances of technology
used in the workforce and the lack of related educational experiences in the classroom,
the technology plan can begin to address this disconnect. Based on a vision to empower
learners, the mission for the plan is to provide a system that allows all learners access to
the global community. Incorporating the use of technology with professional
development and other supports, the seven underlying technology education goals include
the following:
•Goal 1. Promote interagency coordination of technology programs and
resources
•Goal 2. Use technology to support national standards and the state Content
and Performance Standards (HCPS)
•Goal 3. Provide support resources needed for effective technology
integration
•Goal 4. Expand access to, and use of, the information infrastructure
•Goal 5. Ensure that technology and resources are implemented as planned
•Goal 6. Provide ongoing evaluation that guides future changes and plans
•Goal 7. Identify funding strategies and resources to support the plan. The
intent of the technology plan is to prioritize tasks and provide support and
resources for both teachers and students focused on connecting technology
and standards-based learning. Technology plays a role in academic
achievement at the school level and requires a paradigm shift on many
levels.
Although the state DOE acknowledges that there is a need to provide public
schools with necessary software, hardware, and training to advance technology, support is
limited. Although some statewide technology training courses are offered, districts and
schools have a choice on whether to participate and must absorb the cost of courses and
travel at the school or teacher level. Online courses are available through Project Inspire,
a credit program designed to help teachers integrate technology in a standards-based
curriculum; however, school-level feedback indicates the need for on-site training and
school-based technology support personnel. The state is unable to keep up with demands
due to high interest and limited qualified trainers. Many schools are in charge of creating
their own technology support plans that include professional development and
schoollevel technology coordinators.
As one of the vehicles for driving this change, the state DOE Strategic Plan
20112018 was focused on the implementation of strategies and activities based on the
achievement of three overarching goals: (a) student success, (b) staff success, and (c)
successful systems of support. Inherent in the underlying core values and beliefs of these
goals is that stakeholders collaborate to create learning opportunities that integrate 21st
century resources and skills to ensure students leave school prepared. Real-world learning
environments should provide meaningful learning experiences relevant to students for
productive citizenship and career success. Objectives within each of the three goals
further define the parameters connected to successfully promoting academic excellence
with the necessary support systems.
Through tiered practices and structures, schools are required to align academic
and financial plans with the blueprint laid out in the state Technology Plan and Strategic
Plan. The most current state Technology Plan is in draft form with the latest version dated
2008. School leaders are tasked with coordinating goals and resources to support the plan
criteria. In informal conversations with the leadership team at the focus school, teachers
indicated several areas of concern related to addressing technology criteria within these
plans. Identified areas of concern included alignment of resources, infrastructure and
training support, ethical and effective use of technology, and finding the appropriate
balance between teaching core content and digital literacy skills. Many teachers recognize
the need for reform, but are uncertain as to how to move forward productively.
Although funds have been allocated and improvements to school infrastructures
statewide have started, it has not yet filtered through to include classroom technology
within the focus school’s district. Access to computers, projectors, interactive white
boards, visual presenters, and various computer programs are limited, and they restrict the
teachers’ ability to align technology components into schoolwide instruction and
collaborate with grade level or content area peers. School leaders at the focus school
recognized the need for differentiated professional development based on current
infrastructure and teacher skills. The leadership team believed that to begin to build site
capacity, further collaboration was also needed with teachers to identify current digital
literacy skills, outline common terms, definitions, and key digital literacy skills to be
emphasized and taught schoolwide (personal communication, April 24, 2014). The
principal also expressed thoughts regarding training needs to address ethical technology
behavior for both students and teachers, as well as provide guidelines for balancing
instruction on content standards and digital literacy skills (personal communication, April
24, 2014). The mentor coordinator and technology coordinator affirmed that teachers
have a range of technology skills and are challenged in preparing lessons to engage
students in interacting with content using technology (personal communication, April 18,
2016). The leadership team agreed that technology is used more for delivery of
information rather than as a learning tool. Teachers are not adapting pedagogy to
effectively integrate digital literacy skills into authentic student learning. Further research
is needed to determine current knowledge and integration of technology and digital
literacy skills.
Incorporating digital literacy skills into pedagogy is also a requirement of the new
Common Core State Standards adopted by 45 states across the United States (National
Governors Association, 2010). Designed to reflect real-world application of the
knowledge and skills needed to graduate college and be career-ready, two anchor
standards in the writing strand for Research to Build and Present Knowledge are
dedicated to incorporating technology into curriculum and instruction:
•CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.7: Conduct short as well as more sustained
research projects based on focused questions, demonstrating understanding of the
subject under investigation (National Governors Association, 2010, para. 24).
•CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.8: Gather relevant information from multiple print
and digital sources, assess the credibility and accuracy of each source, and
integrate the information while avoiding plagiarism (National Governors
Association, 2010, para. 25).
These standards require teachers to incorporate technology effectively into teaching
practices. Teachers need to begin extending their knowledge of appropriate and effective
uses of technology to promote these digital literacy skills, challenging the traditional
method of both teaching and learning. Technology in the classroom should address the
CCSS Anchor Standards to enhance student learning by enabling them to interact with
content to construct new knowledge that applies to real situations (Ertmer &
OttenbreitLeftwich, 2010). This shifts the focus of technology from an entertainment tool
into an educational framework.
Evidence of the Problem from the Professional Literature
Social media, computers, cellular phones, electronic tablets, televisions, game
consoles, and other innovative technology sources inundate youth on a daily basis.
Described as the generation immersed in technology, these digital natives use media to
feed their social and personal interests (Ng, 2012). Although these youth have the ability
to navigate the Internet and access information for personal reasons, they lack the skills
and motivation to use media for scholarly purposes. Growing up exposed to a digital
environment does not mean that they have been taught how to employ the cognitive skills
necessary for mindful learning (Ng, 2012). In an investigation of two independent studies
on the digital literacy skills of high school and college students, Eshet-Alkalai and Chajut
(2010) found that even though students could access information and use technology, it
did not equate to sophisticated use of technology in digital environments. Students were
able to access information online, but evaluating and putting the information to good use
remained a challenge. Meneses and Momino (2010) reported that 72.4% of the 6,602
students surveyed between the ages of 11 and 18 received more Internet training in the
context of tutoring, self-teaching, home, and with peers than in the formal classroom
learning environment. Meneses and Momino also identified that students had more
opportunities to access the Internet outside of the school setting than in school. Equal
access to technology and effective integration in an educational setting are integral
components in affecting change.
As facilitators of learning, high school teachers need to shift pedagogy practices
to incorporate these digital literacy skills so students graduate prepared to function in
these digital environments. In a study of 54 secondary schools in Australia, Neyland
(2011) identified several incongruities of educationalists’ perception of the importance of
information and technology skills and actual use in schools. After evaluating the
implementation levels of online learning within the high school system, Neyland found
that although many teachers viewed this style of learning as effective and were interested,
they did not have the resources, time, or skills to learn the technology or help other
teachers. Furthermore, Lee and Tsai (2010) implied that teachers might not have the
sufficient technological pedagogy needed to link these resources with instructional
materials and objectives. Despite increased access to technology and training, many
teachers still have not built the necessary skills and knowledge needed to change how
they teach (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Fahser-Herro & Steinkeuhler, 2009;
Voogt, Erstad, Dede, & Mishra, 2013). This may be contributing to the lack of change in
teaching practices.
Through goals and recommendations in the five essential areas of teaching,
learning, assessment, productivity, and infrastructure, the National Education Technology
Plan (NETP, 2010) was designed to leverage the use of technology to meet the changing
needs of these digital natives. Educators are challenged with the task of transforming the
current system by improving their expertise and connection to resources to engage
learners in experiences that mirror their daily lives. Through collaborative and continuous
professional development; a comprehensive, sustainable infrastructure; and a transparent
action plan, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology (2010)
paved the path for educational reform that coordinates systematic efforts to address these
areas in need of change. Efforts to actualize this reform require a shift in both
professional and personal practices of the entire education system with an emphasis on
teachers who are already in the classroom.
In-service teachers are already immersed in this challenge as they try to maintain
current knowledge of technology while no longer actively enrolled in a formal education
program. Researchers (Fahser-Herro & Steinkuehler, 2009; Spaulding, 2010) showed that
in-service programs and teachers lag behind preservice teachers in the educational use of
technology. Although teachers may have some background knowledge and skills
regarding digital literacy and technology use, experiences, beliefs, and knowledge may
vary. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore the current level of
understanding, knowledge, and integration of digital literacy skills of high school
inservice teachers and to identify challenges and supports they need to successfully shift
teaching practices. Information from focus group interviews, observation, and documents
were used to design a system to support the reform in pedagogy necessary to actualize
change related to digital literacy skills.
Definitions
For the purposes of this study, the following terms and definitions were used:
Common Core State Standards: The knowledge and skills students should have
within their K-12 education careers so that they will graduate high school able to succeed
in entry-level, credit-bearing academic college courses and in workforce training
programs (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2010).
Digital immigrants: People, not born in the digital era, who have developed
technology skills over time (Prensky, 2001).
Digital literacy: The ability to use technical, cognitive, and socioemotional skills
to understand and assimilate information in a digital environment (Bawden, 2001; Eshet
2012; Gilster, 1997).
Digital natives: Generation of youth, born into the digital era, who speak the
native language of technology (Prensky, 2001).
Disciplinary literacy: Literacy skills as they relate to content areas, such as
mathematics, science, history, career and technical education, literature, and other
subjects (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008).
Educational technologies: Technology predominately used by students to interact
with various forms of information and communicate with peers, teachers, and other
audiences (Hechter & Vermette, 2014).
Information and communication technology (ICT): The technological software,
hardware, and communication facilities used as tools in education (Berce, Lanfranco, &
Vehovar, 2008; Wang & Woo, 2007).
In-service teachers: Licensed teachers who are actively employed in an
educational institution.
Instructional technologies: Predominately teacher-driven technology that teachers
use for instruction, assessment, and communication with students, parents,
administration, and other teachers (Hechter & Vermette, 2014).
Literacy: A fundamental act of cognition that involves the ability to read and write
with meaning in a native language (Ferrari, 2012; Gilster, 1997; New London Group,
1996).
Pedagogical knowledge: Knowledge teachers have about teaching methods,
practices, and processes related to student learning, classroom management, and lesson
planning (Koehler, Mishra, & Cain, 2013).
Pedagogical content knowledge: Knowledge of pedagogical practices as
applicable to content where the teacher translates information, determines presentation
methods, and modifies instructional materials as appropriate to learner needs and
background knowledge (Koehler et al., 2013).
Technology: A set of means for instruction and learning that includes devices,
systems, and tools that provides opportunity for learners to access, manipulate, represent,
and communicate information and ideas (U.S. Department of Education Office of
Educational Technology, 2010).
Technological knowledge: Requires knowledge beyond basic computer literacy
where a person can continually adapt to changes in technology and apply it personally
and professionally to achieve a goal (Koehler et al., 2013).
Technological content knowledge (TCK): The knowledge and understanding of
the influence and limitations of the interactions between discipline-specific content and
technology (Koehler et al., 2013, p. 16).
Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK): Knowledge and understanding of
the relationship between the constraints and limitations of education technology tools and
how they affect pedagogy within disciplines (Koehler et al., 2013).
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): The understanding of
how teaching with technology requires knowledge of how content concepts are
represented with technology, teaching and learning strategies associated with technology,
students’ background knowledge, and how everything can be built upon and connected to
help students develop new epistemologies (Koehler et al., 2013).
Significance
This intrinsic and instrumental qualitative case study was significant because it
has the potential to transform pedagogical practices of in-service teachers to include
digital literacy skills connected to 21st century learning. With the continuous progress of
both technology and the concept of literacy, in-service teachers are challenged with
keeping pace and adapting content and curriculum. Having already completed
compulsory education and licensure requirements, these teachers must advance their
knowledge and skills in connecting literacy and technology to adequately prepare
students for post high school reality. Through focus group interviews, teacher
observations, and curriculum planning document analysis, information was gathered to
determine current teacher practices and perceived needs to transform teaching and
learning. This research can contribute to the body of knowledge related to in-service
secondary school teachers and their understanding and practices surrounding digital
literacy skills.
This study was significant to the local setting because I provided information from
the teachers’ perspective that can be used to develop an onsite professional development
plan with additional supports to help them overcome challenges in teaching new
literacies. Bringing a variety of knowledge, skills, and beliefs to the classroom, teachers
may not even realize the extent to which they are already integrating technology and
addressing digital literacy skills. Teachers have insight into both personal and student
strengths and deficiencies related to technology and digital literacy skills. Awareness of
both their personal skills and abilities and student practices will allow them to identify
areas for growth. Data gathered during this project study can be used to identify gaps in
knowledge and practice and seek to align content and pedagogy and transform teaching
and learning in this secondary school. Additionally, local administrators, district
resources teachers, and other curriculum support personnel can use the information and
professional development plan for practical application in other district high schools.
Guiding/Research Questions
The concept of literacy has shifted over the years from basic reading, writing, and
speaking practices to a multifaceted skill set that includes the integration of digital
literacy skills. Effective social and academic communication skills now transcend
personal interactions and often require digital literacy skills to use electronic technologies
to convey information. Educators in all content areas and grade levels must recognize this
shift in literacy skills and modify curriculum and instruction to address this literacy gap.
In an effort to focus progress, this purpose of this case study was to identify in-service
teacher needs in developing digital literacy pedagogy by exploring their current level of
understanding, knowledge, and challenges. The research questions guiding the study were
as follows:
1. RQ1: What are high school teachers’ current level of understanding,
knowledge, and skills related to essential digital literacy skills?
2. RQ2: How are high school teachers currently integrating the essential
digital literacy skills into curriculum, instruction, and assessment across
content areas?
3. RQ3: What challenges do teachers currently face in effectively integrating
the essential digital literacy skills into authentic learning opportunities?
4. RQ4: What kind of support, knowledge, and skills do teachers feel is
essential for them to initiate or advance their use of technology into
curriculum to create discipline-specific learning opportunities that build
students’ essential digital literacy skills?
Review of the Literature
There are four main sections of this literature review that provide a context for
digital literacy in this study. In the first section, I focus on setting a foundation for digital
literacy considering definitions central to the framework. In the second section, I identify
the gaps in education related to digital literacy. In the third section, I examine digital
literacy skills from the teachers’ perspective and explore teacher practice in the classroom
as it relate to integrating these skills. The fourth section provides a review of literature
connected to students’ knowledge and ability to use technology to further their digital
competence.
The research for this study was retrieved primarily from three sources: the Walden
University’s online databases, Google Scholar, and World Wide Web. Databases
accessed within the Walden Library included SAGE Premier, ERIC, Education Research
Complete, ED/IT Digital Library, and ProQuest Dissertations. In addition, several books
were also reserved and downloaded using Ebrary. References from within literature
reviewed provided supplemental resources, most of which were then accessed using
Google Scholar. Key words and phrases that guided searches included digital literacy,
digital literacy defined, digital literacy framework, digital literacy secondary schools,
digital competencies, digital divide, second level digital divide, digital skills, digital
natives, information and communication technology (ICT)/secondary schools,
inservice/teachers and technology integration/secondary schools,
inservice/teachers/digital literacy/secondary schools, and in-service teachers/technology
pedagogy. On occasions, key authors such as Paul Gilster, Yorem Eshet-Alkalai, Colin
Lankshear, Michele Knobel, and Dave Bawden, were also researched. Most research was
conducted using the 5-year parameter when this study began in 2013; however, as the
years to conclude this project study increased, more relevant and recent research has been
added. Primary resources related to the definition and framework of digital literacy dated
as early as 1997. Information acquired using the Internet included state and federal
government reports, local school reports, technology trend reports, and national
technology and education standards. Finally, various qualitative research and case study
literature was reviewed to form the foundation for methodology and design application
for this project study.
Digital Literacy Framework
The convergence of data in the form of text, graphics, audio, and video from
multiple forms of media are erasing the boundaries of the conventional definition of
literacy. The conceptual boundaries of literacy have traditionally been limited to basic
knowledge of reading and writing skills in a native language from linear printed formats
(Ferrari, 2012; Gilster, 1997; New London Group, 1996). Although still an act of
comprehension, the influx of technology and social media has created a dynamic set of
core competencies that are needed to be digitally literate. The concept of digital literacy
includes the ability to process linear information with and navigate through multiple
resources using technology (Bawden, 2001; Gilster, 1997). It is no longer a simple
dichotomy of literate versus illiterate, but a continuum that spans from basic reading and
writing to critical thinking and reasoning.
Although deictic by nature, since the 1990s, a variety of authors have associated
the term digital literacy with comprehending multimedia and hypertext (Bawden, 2001).
Gilster (1997) referred to digital literacy as the “ability to understand and use information
in multiple formats from a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers”
(p.1). Gilster believed that it is not just about accessing the information, but the mindset
associated with processing, connecting, and assimilating ideas regardless of format.
Eshet-Alkalai and Chajut (2009) further expanded on this definition to include social and
emotional skills. For the purposes of this project study, digital literacy was defined as the
ability to use technical, cognitive, and socioemotional skills to understand and assimilate
information in a digital environment (Bawden, 2001; Eshet 2012; Gilster, 1997). From a
holistic viewpoint, the range covers the competencies necessary to be literate in a digital
environment.
Eshet-Alkalai (2004) and Eshet (2012) identified key competencies that outline a
conceptual framework for digital literacy and align with the complex cognitive,
socioemotional, and technical skills necessary to function in a digital environment. This
holistic model was established to provide guidelines for future designers and researchers
to plan for effective digital learning. This framework was validated by researchers
(Aviram & Eshet-Alkalai, 2006; Eshet-Alkalai & Amichai-Hamburger, 2004;
EshetAlkalai & Chajut, 2009) and revised to incorporate missing skills. Originally
comprised of five digital thinking skills, Eshet (2012) revised the framework to include
“six digital thinking skills: (a) Photo-visual, (b) Reproduction, (c) Branching, (d)
Information, (e) Socio-emotional, and (f) Real-time thinking skills” (p. 268).
The first digital thinking skill, photovisual literacy, refers to the cognitive skill of
decoding visual images and graphics and using them to think (Eshet, 2012; Eshet-Alkalai,
2004). Images, symbols, icons, and graphics are used to portray a variety of messages and
users must be able to read and interpret them to construct meaning. Users with high
photovisual skills are able to translate these messages fluently, and possess
intuitiveassociative thinking and memory (Eshet, 2012). Without this skill, users are in
danger of being misled due to misinterpretations, assumptions, and perceptions.
Photovisual thinking increases the complexity of literacy where users must not only
understand the messages, but think visually, evaluate media, and perform tasks to
communicate.
Related to this ability to read visuals is the skill of editing and reproducing
product from existing information in multiple media formats. The reproduction of digital
skills require users to combine independent, established pieces of information in any
media form to create new meaning or product in both art and writing (Eshet, 2012;
EshetAlkalai, 2004; Gilster, 1997). Writing involves rearranging and organizing
preexisting sentences and information to construct new meaning, while artwork must be
manipulated or edited to craft a new piece. Users must have multidimensional and
synthetic thinking skills to reorganize text and syntax and manipulate art material into an
authentic, creative piece of work that reflects original ideas (Gilster, 1997). Developing
reproduction literacy skills require combining both ethical and cognitive thinking.
With the advent of information-based technology, knowledge construction has
moved away from the traditional linear representation via print to a modern hypermedia
format (Gilster, 1997). This new digital environment provides users with freedom to
navigate through the Internet. This new environment also includes the challenge of
accessing information in a nonorderly fashion. Branching digital skills allow users to
maintain orientation and purpose, despite their elaborate paths through the various
domains (Eshet, 2012; Eshet-Alkalai, 2004). One of the challenges associated with this
navigation are hyperlinks. These links lead users to tiers of information that they must
read, track, analyze, and include in their knowledge construction (Bawden, 2001; Gilster,
1991). People with branching digital skills can use them to form mental mind maps and
models to think metaphorically and create abstract representations as they navigate
Internet cyber structure (Eshet, 2012; Eshet-Alkalai, 2004). Users must improve
searching and organization skills and create personal information strategies to be
successful in managing this multimedia flow.
The exposure to multiple facets of digital material leads to the fourth component of
the framework, information digital skills. Although the skill of evaluation is not new to
literacy, the exponential increase in access to information necessitates that users assess
content and make informed judgments (Bawden, 2001; Gilster 2001). Information digital
literacy refers to the users’ ability to question and filter multiple facets of information by
identifying false, biased, irrelevant, and erroneous content prior to assimilation (Eshet,
2012; Eshet-Alkalai, 2004). Critical consumers of information are cognizant of their
thought process and are able to assess the credibility of sources and draw appropriate
conclusions. This allows consumers to establish a cache of reliable information from
which they can create authentic meaning and products (Gilster, 1991). This new
dimension of thinking is becoming a needed skill to become a literate information
consumer.
The fifth component of the digital literacy framework moves beyond the cognitive
arena into social and emotional skills. With the Internet expanding the knowledge-sharing
and digital communication domain through chat rooms, discussion groups, social
networks, and other online collaborative communities, Eshet-Alkalai (2012) identified
socioemotional digital literacy as the one of most complex skills. Socioemotional literate
users are adept at evaluating evidence and thinking abstractly, sharing knowledge with
others, and collaborating to coconstruct new knowledge (Eshet, 2012; Eshet-Alkalai,
2004). Understanding social etiquette and interacting with peers and other members of
the community also applies to the digital environment for users to be successful in
sharing knowledge. Additionally, users must be mature, analytical thinkers who
demonstrate proficiency in photovisual, branching, and information digital skills (Eshet,
2012; Eshet-Alkalai, 2004). Combining these four skills allows users to safely and
actively participate and communicate in cyberspace.
The final skill in the scope of the framework covers the users’ senses in response
to stimuli. Eshet (2012) referred to real-time digital skill as the ability to divide attention
between simultaneous text, images, and sound occurring on screen while still reacting
accordingly. This includes processing the excess stimuli, staying on task, and responding
to stimuli in real-time (Eshet, 2012). This chaotic sense of reality can lead users astray if
they lack the ability to think critically and effectively while processing simultaneously
stimuli. In the digital environment, users must develop this critical skill in order to
successfully operate and perform in this high-speed setting.
The Digital Gap in Education
As people adapt to new digital trends in the face of advancing technologies,
varying levels of skill related to accessing and interacting with the tools and information
are needed. The divide was originally identified as a digital divide or gap between those
who could access technology and those who could not (Hargittai, 2002; Reinhardt,
Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011; Wei & Hindman, 2011). Now known as the second level
digital divide (SLDD), the new definition has been refined to include how technology is
being used to access information (Wei & Hindman, 2011). Users must not only be able to
operate the technical tools, but successfully navigate the web to perform tasks. In a study
of users from ages 18-80, Hargittai (2002) found that there was a generation gap in
abilities to complete tasks on the Internet with more skill evident in the younger
generation. Users from 18- 20 were able to complete more tasks in a timely manner than
those 30 and older (Hargittai, 2002). Education level and time spent online were also
predictors in skill level (Hargittai, 2002). Participants with higher education and more
prior experience are more innovative and comfortable extracting material online
(Hargittai, 2002; Wei & Hindman, 2011). There is a variation in people’s online skills
with exposure, education, and age as contributing factors relating to the digital divide.
Researchers (Chapman, Masters, & Pedulla, 2010; Fasher-Herro & Steinkuehler,
2009; Goode, 2010; Henderson, 2011; Voogt et al., 2013) claimed that SLDD was
evident in the K-12 setting in both the United States and abroad. In a review of research
surrounding new literacy classroom practices in the United States, Fahser-Herro and
Steinkuehler (2009) found that although the access gap may be lessening, the skill gap is
widening between students’ in-home technology use compared to technology instruction
in schools. At home, students had experienced more in-depth communication, built
stronger relationships, and had more variety in choice of technology while classroom
instruction was concentrated on drill and practice, information retrieval, or completing
work previously started. Henderson (2011) also noted a gap in how teachers and students
perceived the usefulness and purpose of technology and found that teachers were more
focused on the computer as a tool rather than on developing relevant aspects of literacy in
processing information. Overall, chances to develop digital literacy were superficial and
lacking in “authentic content creation opportunities, shared expertise, and dynamic
multimodalities” (Fahser-Herro & Steinkuehler, 2009, p. 58). Teachers must broaden
their approach to instruction in developing students’ digital competencies to address more
complex literacy skills.
Scholars (Chapman et al., 2010; Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010; Reinhardt et al.,
2011) who examined socioeconomic status as a factor in teachers’ ability to use
technology found similar results. Although teachers have adequate access to technology
for personal use and classroom instruction, there were inequalities in their technical
abilities and use of technology in instruction. Teachers in high needs (HN) schools
reported that they use technology less in instruction (Gray et al., 2010), and use was basic
and did not promote higher order thinking skills (Chapman et al., 2010; Reinhardt et al.,
2011). In contrast, teachers in non-HN schools reported more frequent use and
demonstrated integrated advanced thinking skills. Gray et al. (2010) found that fewer than
52% of teachers engaging their students in the education use of technology. Reinhardt et
al. (2011) further noted that, regardless of high needs status, teachers’ perception of use
did not match reality. Differences in teacher technology background, experience, and
pedagogy must be considered to design differentiate support.
A gap in proficiency and use is also evident when examining the trends in digital
fluency of high school students and those in their first year of undergraduate school.
Scholars from Canada (Smith, Given, Julien, Ouellette, & DeLong, 2013) and the United
Kingdom (Miller & Bartlett, 2012) demonstrated that students performed poorly when
required to access and analyze quality information, recognize bias, and verify sources
when using technology. In an information literacy test, 19% of 103 12th grade students
achieved proficiency with a mean score of 50.7% (Smith et al., 2013). Although a
majority of primary and secondary teachers regarded information literacy as a critical
skill they believed they taught, they rated student performance in the same area as poor to
average (Smith et al., 2013). Students are still struggling with complex tasks involving
digital literacy, and teachers need more support with integrating strategies to enhance
digital learning.
There are further inequalities between what colleges expect students to know and
actual skill. Goode (2010) found that although university students in California were
entering college with an ingrained sense of technology for social and academic purposes,
digital competencies were varied, and many still lacked critical skills. Goode concluded
that students with low technology efficacy were less likely to enroll in courses with
challenging technology requirements, thereby increasing the margin of knowledge and
skill between other more tech savvy students. Additional scholars (Jones, Ramanau,
Cross, & Healing, 2009; Waycott, Bennett, Kennedy, Dalgarno, & Gray, 2010) of
firstyear undergraduate students also supported the differences in students’ and teachers’
technology use. Although students primarily use computers and mobile devices for
communication, social networking, and access to materials for courses, teachers viewed
technology as an administrative tool and means to augment student learning. Waycott et
al. (2010) concluded that although teachers and students may use similar technology, they
engage in activities for different reasons. There is a difference between education
technologies and everyday technologies, and teachers need to consider this when
planning curriculum. Understanding the divide between how students currently use
technology and the complex skills required to participate in 21st century is necessary for
practitioners to make changes to academic curricula and pedagogy.
Current Teacher Trends
The conflux of students, teachers, and technology in the educational setting has
created new academic trends. The academic profile of learning has shifted as teachers
have tried to adapt to this progression and innovation of technology and redefine how
digital technologies fit into curriculum, instruction, and assessment. While data (Bradley
et al. 2010) demonstrated that teachers’ use of technology both in and out of the
classroom has increased, the application towards digital literacy is still lacking (Meneses
& Momino, 2010; Fahser-Herro & Steinkuehler, 2009). Affecting both in-service and
preservice teachers, several contributing factors have constrained progress.
In-service vs. Preservice Teachers. When comparing technology use,
selfefficacy, and classroom integration between in-service and preservice, researchers
have found similarities and differences. In a study of 112 preservice teachers and 118
inservice teachers, Spaulding (2010) concluded that there was a significant difference in
confidence levels related to completing basic and complex computer tasks with
preservice teachers self-reporting more confidence in their abilities to adapt instruction
and impact learning using technology. Additionally, preservice teachers demonstrated
more readiness and competency regarding integrating technology into the classroom.
Scholars (DeSantis & Rotigel, 2014; Moore-Hayes, 2011; Pan & Franklin, 2011)
presented different findings related to technology integration and self-efficacy. When
tasked with evaluating software for teaching and learning and determining which
educational technologies to use in supporting instruction, both preservice and in-service
teachers felt they were less than adequately prepared to merge technology and pedagogy
(Moore-Hayes, 2011). Although DeSantis and Rotigel (2014) indicated little difference in
self-efficacy between the two groups of teachers, further evidence from scholars
(Desantis & Rotigel, 2014; Pan & Franklin, 2011) demonstrated that participants in both
groups believed they were more competent in the application of basic technology tools
than advanced tools. Basic tools (Web 1.0) included skills such as word processing, drill
and practice, and web searches, while advanced tools (Web 2.0) consisted more of
collaboration, application, and integration of knowledge to create or design products. In a
study involving 461 in-service teachers, Pan & Franklin (2011) also concluded that most
participants rarely used these Web 2.0 tools and reported low confidence in their abilities.
Additionally, participating teachers stated that they have limited resources, knowledge,
experience, and support, which discourages them from embracing these tech tools.
Without the application of advanced technology tools in the classroom, students lack the
opportunity to strengthen their digital literacy skills. The combination of these results
indicated the need to further explore teacher perception and how they are applying
educational technologies to further student learning.
DeSantis and Rotigel (2014) also noted significant differences in how teachers at
various career levels approach and use technology. Results from their survey evinced that
preservice and early career teachers focused more on using the Internet for
communication, social networking, and entertainment while veteran teachers used it more
for software productivity and educational research purposes. DeSantis and Rotigel (2014)
concluded that as teachers advanced in their career levels, technology use also shifted as
teachers increased Internet use for productivity and less on communication. Although this
demonstrated a shift in teachers’ mindset and use, the development of digital literacy
skills called for a combination of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 skills including communication,
collaboration, entertainment, and productivity. Evidence from the research indicated that
there is a generational difference in technology use between preservice and in-service
teachers that invite further investigation.
Teacher Perceptions. Teachers faced many challenges as they attempted to
maintain pace with the constant flux of technology and resources in the educational
setting. Although they incurred curricular revisions periodically according to state and
federal mandates, technology changes so frequently and swiftly, many teachers were
reluctant to assimilate these new tools and resources into pedagogy (Ertmer &
OttenbreitLeftwich, 2010). Stakeholders from the students to the community have
expectations that the learning environment has been adapted to embrace new
competencies related to the latest digital trends. To close this expectation gap (Mize &
Rogers, 2012), teachers’ perceptions of technology related to the academic environment
must be considered and addressed in order to facilitate more authentic learning.
Although studies have been conducted abroad about teachers perceptions and
factors affecting integration of technology in education in Africa (du Plessis & Webb,
2012; Ramorola, 2013), Spain (Badia, Meneses, & Sigalés, 2013; Gisbert-Cervera &
Álvarez, J, 2015), Malaysia (Afshari, Bakar, Luan, Samah, & Fooi, 2009), Taiwan (Lee
& Tsai, 2010), Australia (Honan, 2012); Singapore (Chai, 2010), and the United
Kingdom (Hansford & Adlington, 2008; Perrotta, 2013), limited studies have been
conducted on secondary teachers in the Unites States. Results of research performed
suggested several factors affecting adoption should be considered to advance digital
literacy instruction. These dynamics included perceived usefulness and attitude towards
technology (Capo & Orellana, 2011; Hutchison & Reinking, 2011); limited time and
training (Hutchison & Reinking, 2011; Kirkscey, 2012); and administrative and other
supports (Hutchison & Reinking, 2011). In a study that spanned 31 states and included a
range of teachers from K – 12, Hutchison & Reinking (2011) found a gap in participants’
perception of the importance of technology and integration into instruction. Although
teachers believed that use of technology was important, instructional practices rarely
demonstrated integration. Additionally, teachers viewed technology as a delivery tool
instead of a means for students to meet a curricular goal or standard, indicating that use is
more teacher-centered rather than student-centered. Capo and Orellana (2011) supported
these findings, noting that more than 50% of 137 teachers surveyed from five high
schools had no plans to integrate Web 2.0 tools into instructions even though they
thought it might improve student learning. Participants indicated concerns that centered
on liability, feasibility, perceived usefulness, and compatibility with classroom instruction
and content goals. Capo & Orellana (2011) and Hutchison & Reinking (2011) concluded
that teachers’ beliefs and attitudes were the most important factors to successful
technology integration.
Findings from Project Tomorrow (2013) documented this digital conversion
progression in the classroom demonstrating the need for continued support in several
areas. In the 2012 national trend analysis report of 102,070 educators spanning 8,000
schools, 55% of administrators and teachers indicated a growing concern about having
sufficient access to devices and Internet (Project Tomorrow, 2013). Although 55% of
administrators were concerned about teachers lacking knowledge of high quality digital
content to support learning, teachers expressed more varied concerns regarding learning
the use of tablets, student devices, mobile applications, and integration into curriculum
and instruction (Project Tomorrow, 2013). Results of the study demonstrated growth
since 2008 with 45% of teachers developing interactive lessons that integrate technology
(Project Tomorrow, 2013). In order to sustain this digital conversion, both teachers and
administrators recognized the need for high quality professional development and support
to address these issues and begin building instructional capacity.
Student Perspective on Digital Literacy in the Classroom
Results of research on students also indicated a need for change in this digital
conversion movement. In a study of high school students in Texas (Boriack, Alford,
Brown, Rollins & Waxman, 2012) and recent graduates in New York (Esposito,
Impagliazo, Podell, Bracchio, & Morote, 2011), researchers found that students did not
believe they were receiving adequate technology knowledge to prepare them for college.
Lacking appropriate skills in “creative, communication-based, netiquette, and tools-based
technology” (Esposito et al., 2011, p. 612), 47 – 54% of students felt their high school
learning experiences were not aligned with college expectations. Comparatively, results
from a detailed analysis of hardware, software, and internet skills (HSIS) and analyzing
and information gathering skills (AIGS) demonstrated that students perceived a decrease
in their abilities over a two year period (Boriack et al., 2012). Disaggregated by core
subject areas, students reported learning with technology more frequently in English than
in other courses (Boriack et al., 2012) and rated teacher technology competence lower in
math and science courses (Dornisch, 2013). Lack of confidence in teacher ability and
opportunities to practice and master technology skills in the secondary setting created a
deficiency as students tried to access 21st century learning and advance their
technological knowledge.
Stefl-Mabry, Radlick, & Doane (2010) found that high school and middle school
students perceived teachers were not using ICT effectively in classroom instruction.
Results from focus group interviews of 48 students indicated that they believed Internet
access and computer use was restrictive, infrequent, and hindered their ability to complete
assignments (Stefl-Mabry et al., 2010). Students further believed that teachers were
challenged technologically and lacked skills to successfully integrate ICT into classroom
instruction which created a disconnect between teacher-student relationship and learning.
Dornisch (2013) suggested that this connection between a student’s perception of
teachers’ comfort with technology and a student’s positive affect towards technology
could be a factor in future teacher evaluations. As students have become more affluent
and dependent on technology, their expectations to be immersed in a digital learning
environment increased (Dornisch, 2013). Teachers need to become more innovative and
proactive in meeting these needs.
Implications
Although preservice teachers have the benefit of coursework and programs
designed specifically for entering the education field, in-service teachers must search and
enroll in supplemental professional development on their own. Exploring in-service
teacher perspectives provided valuable insight as to their explicit needs associated with
the integration of digital literacy skills into curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Qualitative focus group interviews, observations, and document study by content area
afforded teachers the opportunity to reflect on their knowledge, skills, habits, and frames
of references, to provide contextual input that was used to align supports with teacher
needs. As high school curriculum, instruction, and assessment are governed by discipline
specific content and standards, authentic integration of digital literacy skills into
individual content areas varied. Input provided by teachers was used to design discipline
specific digital literacy professional development. Building a framework for this type of
support plan from the inside can empower teachers and contribute positively to their
motivation to transform current pedagogical practices.
In addition to a professional development plan, implications for the study
included a supplemental support plan to address other identified gaps and challenges in
this pedagogical shift. This supplemental support plan connected specific challenges
teachers faced with correlating solutions designed to address their concerns and needs.
The combination of teacher learning needs with other institutional barriers to digital
literacy integration at the school level was used to create a holistic development plan to
drive change. Results of this case study can potentially improve teacher pedagogical
practices by engaging them in a process of critical reflection that can further the digital
literacy skills of students.
Summary
The review of literature demonstrated that although the gap may be narrowing
between the digital natives and the digital immigrants, in this case teachers, there is still a
need for further support in transforming the learning environment to include digital
literacy skills (Prensky, 2001). A combination of research revealed that although a
majority of studies related to digital literacy in secondary schools were conducted
nationally, limited research is available in the United States. Teachers have become more
comfortable with their use of basic technology skills for communication and delivery of
content but still lack confidence in using technology as an instructional tool to provide
students with authentic learning experiences that allow them to analyze information,
collaborate, communicate, and create products. As a result, students reported not feeling
adequately prepared to enter college or careers with skills necessary to successfully
navigate and participate in this technological based society. Exploring how digital literacy
skills are being integrated into pedagogical practices and identifying teacher needs
relevant to this paradigm shift through this qualitative case study provided insight
necessary to potentially actualize this digital conversion.
Section 2 expands on the qualitative case study methodology for this project study
and includes explanations of the research design, participants, data collection procedures,
and data analysis. Detailed descriptions are presented for participants including selection,
ethical considerations, and the researcher’s relationship. Additionally, information is
provided regarding the three phases of data collection comprised of focus group
interviews, observations, and document study. Methods of data collection, quality of
evidence, and means of addressing discrepant cases are also discussed.
Section 2: The Methodology
Introduction
As basic communication and access to information is being redefined by
technology, so is learning in the traditional classroom setting of K-12 schools.
Information and communication technologies are transforming not only what it means to
work, research, and socialize, but also what it means to think and learn. This raises
questions about what educators are doing to support student development related to the
skills and knowledge needed to survive in the digital environment. In the interest of
studying the integration of digital literacy skills, an intrinsic and instrumental qualitative
case study was used to explore high school in-service teachers’ current level of
knowledge, understanding, and integration of digital literacy skills to identify challenges
and supports needed to addresses integrating technology into pedagogical practices to
improve students’ digital competency. Investigating the problem through the lens of
inservice teachers will offer a perspective germane to those who are the agents of change.
Research Design
Approach
Case studies allow the researcher to deconstruct layers through a variety of lenses
from within context of the phenomena and then reconstruct the data to make new
meaning (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Yin, 2014). Using this constructivist approach to case
study research, Stake (1995) and Yin (2014) believed that people’s perception of truth is
relative to individual perspectives, and it is socially constructed. Enabling participants to
express their viewpoints, concerns, and realities affords the researcher a better
understanding of the phenomena. Each teacher brings unique and complex background
experience and knowledge to the situation that must be examined within context, thereby
framing the case in study.
Description
As described by Yin (2014), the scope of a case study promotes inquiry into
situations with many variables and multiple sources within the real-world context.
Meaning is derived from an in-depth investigation of the case as related to those
involved. The case in this study was bounded by the content areas defined by the high
school setting: science, social studies, English language arts (ELA), career and technical
education (CTE), math, world languages, fine arts, and physical education/health. As
every content area has a set of standards to address and every teacher has distinctive skills
and knowledge, the application of digital literacy skills will vary. In this study, I explored
teachers’ (a) current understanding, knowledge, and skills; (b) current integration of
digital literacy skills; (c) challenges they face in integration; and (d) supports needed in
shifting pedagogical practices to address this change. Generating data from the
experiences, perceptions, and interpretations of in-service teachers in their field validates
a relativist approach to case studies, acknowledging their view of multiple realities with
multiple meanings (Yin, 2014). Comparing and contrasting data points from these
multiple perspectives will generate a broad understanding of the phenomena.
An intrinsic and instrumental qualitative case study design was used to explore
multiple layers of the digital literacy phenomena within a local high school learning
environment. Stake (1995) categorized case studies into the three fields of (a) intrinsic,
(b) instrumental, and (c) collective. Central to both intrinsic and instrumental designs is
the opportunity to learn and understand; yet, the purpose for gathering evidence is
different. Arising from the desire to understand the depth and breadth of digital literacy
skills in a high school setting, I selected an intrinsic inquiry to allow real-time
collaboration between the researcher and practitioners to investigate current pedagogical
practices in comparison to student needs and to identify areas to make focused changes.
Focused on exploring the nature and complexities of the case, intrinsic studies are guided
by interest in the case (Grandy, 2010b). Researchers use an instrumental case study to
focus on research questions and sample participants to help build related theory (Grandy,
2010a; Stake, 1995). Combing the two designs enabled me to explore the case and
increases the ability to generalize findings. As this is a single case study of one high
school, a collective approach was not appropriate.
Other qualitative research designs considered and rejected included grounded
theory and phenomenology. Although grounded theorists also follow an inductive process
and triangulate similar qualitative data points, the primary focus is on identifying a core
category and building a substantive theory (Merriam, 2014). Because the outcome of this
project study was to identify or create a support model to help teachers integrate digital
literacy skills and not to develop a theory, this approach to research was rejected. The
other approach considered was phenomenology. In phenomenology, a scholar defines
principles of life’s experience; this approach links phenomena to the essence and
emotions of the experience (Merriam, 1998, 2014). Researchers employ this design to
understand the structure and meaning of the experience and participants’ interpretation of
the experience. This approach was also not appropriate as the purpose of this research
was to explore teacher knowledge, skills, current use, and perceived challenges related to
a topic.
Participants
Criteria for Selection
Qualitative data were gathered from participants within the total population of 87
high school classroom teachers at the focus school. As dictated by the nature of
qualitative research, purposeful sampling was used to increase the efficacy of information
accessed for an in-depth case study as it allowed me to target a specific population.
Homogenous sampling was combined with random sampling to access participants with
similar characteristics as related to the content area they taught. Grouping teachers
homogenously by content area afforded me the opportunity to delve deeper into
perspectives on digital literacy based on discipline-specific characteristics For random
sampling, representatives from eight content areas of social studies, science, math, fine
arts, P.E./health, world languages, ELA, and CTE were asked to volunteer to participate
in content area focus group interviews, classroom observations, and provide archival
documents for analysis.
The number of participants varied for each of the three data points. The largest
sample size was through the six focus group interview sessions. Although the
recommended group size varies from four to 12, the suggested range of participants is
between six and 10 members (Creswell, 2012; Lichtman, 2006; Merriam, 2014). For the
purposes of this project study, groups ranged from four to eight with a total possible
sample of 55 participants out of the 87 classroom teachers. This large sample size was
due to the interest in exploring teachers’ perspectives from the viewpoint of each high
school content area. Three of the departments within the school were small because they
only had five members with some as long-term substitutes. Participants for observations
and document study were based on members from each of the eight focus groups
resulting in a variable sample size depending on the number of participants
Access to participants was gained through both Walden University and the state
DOE research protocol. In addition to institutional review board (IRB) approval from
Walden University, consent was obtained from three levels within the state DOE: (a) the
Data Governance and Analysis Branch, (b) site school principal and, (c) teacher
participants. The state DOE required a data sharing agreement (DSA) work plan with
project details, IRB approval, and authorized signatures be submitted prior to beginning
the study. The process was streamlined because the principal granted verbal approval to
the Governance Branch. IRB approval (08-10-16-0275877) was granted, the DSA was
submitted and the study began.
Participants for this project study were recruited through a series of steps
including a staff briefing, an e-mail letter documenting the study objectives and process,
and an electronic and printed informed consent document. An overview presentation
provided site teachers with a basic outline of the study and afforded them the opportunity
for an initial question and answer session regarding the purpose, data collection process,
confidentiality, and reporting methods. I sent out a follow up e-mail to invite teachers to
ask additional questions and submit a letter of informed consent. The letter of informed
consent was attached to the e-mail and a print form was placed in teachers’ internal
school mailboxes. From there, Phase I focus group interview sessions, Phase II classroom
observations, and Phase III document study were scheduled.
Participant/Researcher Working Relationship
As an employee for the site school of this study for over 13 years, I have
established a working relationship with most of the teachers in the capacity as both an
English teacher and as curriculum coordinator. As curriculum coordinator for the past 6
years, I have been responsible for facilitating teacher professional development, aiding in
the implementation of state mandates, as well as coordinating the accreditation process,
student personal transition plan (PTP), and other various projects. Although I serve on the
leadership team with other department chairs, I have no authority over teachers in my role
as curriculum coordinator. Throughout this time, I have built positive relationships and
established trust. Through open and honest communication, I honored these relationships
in my role as researcher in this qualitative case study. All participants were advised of the
nature of the study and were provided an informed consent form prior to the study. They
were assured that participation was completely voluntary and multiple measures were
taken to assure confidentiality. This included the means to review transcripts, observation
descriptions, and data analysis results prior to publishing.
Ethical Considerations
In anticipation of ethical concerns that may arise, several precautions were taken
throughout the study to ensure a safe social environment, confidentiality, and protection
of participants.
Informed consent. Beginning with informed consent, all participants were
educated about the process, procedures, and contact information for the study including
how confidentiality will be maintained. During an initial meeting, I outlined the contents
of the letter, timeline of the study, and three data points. Additionally, teachers were
provided with both electronic and print versions of a letter of consent. In the letter, I also
assured teachers that participation was completely voluntary and they may remove
themselves from the study at any time. Classroom teachers who submitted consent letters
within the week allotted were randomly selected to participate in department level group
interview sessions.
Confidentiality. Due to the nature of the researcher and participant relationships,
confidentiality was important. Several precautions were undertaken to maintain
confidentiality. Although interviews were recorded, all information were
passwordprotected and stored on a home computer or locked in a secure filing cabinet.
Participants were identified in results using aliases coded by content area such as
“science1”, “science2,” etc. Care was also taken to remove all identifying personal
character traits from transcribed content and data analysis. Additionally, throughout the
study and before results were finalized, participants were provided the opportunity for
member checks and review of all analysis and findings.
Protection from harm. Ethical issues in any research are in constant flux and the
key to heightened awareness of potential harm is continuous reflection and assessment of
personal behaviors and responsibilities (Lichtman, 2006). Using a relativist approach, I
evaluated my personal conduct to identify and resolve potential dilemmas on an ongoing
basis. To further preserve researcher integrity, I also maintained a journal with
selfreflections after interviews and observations while also providing a continuous
documentation of the process.
Data Collection
Triangulation of qualitative data sources that are interactive and noninteractive
will allow for exploration and comprehension of the complexity of the case (McMillan &
Schumacher, 1997). Using an emergent planning design in which each phase is
determined by data from the prior phase data were gathered in three phases and then
shared with the participants of the study. This sharing allowed for further corroboration of
initial findings and helped to reduce researcher bias. Qualitative data sources are
discussed in the subsections following the identified phases:
Phase I–Focus Group Interviews
1. Conduct eight semistructured focus group interviews; one for each content
area.
2. Analyze data to determine coding and identify themes and answer the research
questions.
Phase II–Classroom Observations
1. Conduct classrooms observation for each content area based on participant
volunteers from the focus group interviews.
2. Begin gathering documents relevant to classroom observations conducted
3. Analyze data to determine coding and identify themes and answer research
questions.
Phase III–Document Collection
1. Continue gathering documents for study based on classroom observed and
course taught by participants.
2. Analyze documents gathered using the document study rubric and compare
findings to focus group interviews and classroom observations
Data from the focus group interviews were used to address all four research questions
while additional data from the classroom observations and documents study were used to
supplement RQ2.
Focus Group Interviews
A semistructured focus group interview consisting of open-ended and probing
questions was used to “collect shared understanding from several individuals” (Creswell,
2012, p. 219) and gain multiple perspectives of both the problem and possible
professional development topics. Conducting this type of interview will help shift the
focus from the interviewer to the conversation and allow for thoughts and ideas to build
upon one another (Creswell, 2010; Lichtman, 2006). To facilitate the semistructured
interview process, a digital literacy focus group interview protocol (Appendix B) with 29
questions was created to guide the project study using research questions and sample
questioning stems from Lichtman (2006), Creswell (2010), and Merriam (1998). The
protocol was divided into four sections with questions corresponding to each research
question in the designated section: (a) RQ1 questions 5-13, (b) RQ2 questions 14-19, (c)
RQ3 questions 20-25, and (d) RQ4 questions 26-29. To increase reliability, this protocol
was shared with the school leadership team and an outside provider for further input and
validation on questioning stems and word choice.
Focus group participants were divided into eight interview sessions, one for each
department. Interview sessions were conducted in an onsite meeting room over the course
of 2 to 3 days. Depending on the size of each group and conversation generated by
interview questions, sessions lasted from 50–90 minutes. Audio recordings of the
interview session were used to aid in the transcribing and coding process. Data from the
focus group interviews were transcribed and analyzed through a coding process to
identify categories and to narrow themes based on the research questions. Tools used for
coding and analyzing data included a qualitative software program, MAXQDA, and a
transcribing application, transcribewreally.com. The findings were validated through
participant member checks to ensure accurate interpretation and representation of content.
Qualitative data were presented using visual displays and narrative and thick descriptions.
Observations
In conjunction with focus group interviews, observations of participants were
conducted to determine the extent to which digital literacy skills were being integrated
into curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Directly addressing RQ2, the data gathered
during observations were used to complement information from the interviews and
document study, providing more illustrations of actual events occurring in the classroom.
Members from the interview sessions will be asked to volunteer to participate in these
observations. The goal was to observe one to three teachers from each of the focus groups
for a total of 24 or more observations.
In the role of observer as participant, I gathered data in the form of both
descriptive and reflective field notes in electronic and print form. In lieu of a formal
observation protocol, a simplified digital literacy observation protocol (Appendix C) was
created to include basic demographic information and to record detailed descriptions of
activities, interactions, settings, comments, people, and illustrations. Full notes were
written up for later coding and analysis based on the six digital literary skills with
MAXQDA following each observation. As with transcribed interviews, participants had
the opportunity to conduct member checks on their individual observations.
Document Study Data
The third data point that was used for triangulation in this project study to address
RQ2 was teacher-created documents, such as curriculum maps, pacing guides, and lesson
plans. Used to verify information gained from interviews and supplement observations,
document data can provide insight and connections about the topic (Merriam, 1998; Yin,
2014). For the purpose of this study, documents mined included both electronic and print
form as Google Docs was used as a communication and collaboration tool at the site
school. In addition to Google Docs access, participants were asked to share other related
print documents including, but not limited to, curriculum maps, pacing guides, lesson
plans and books, assignments, and other instructional and assessment materials. Actual
documents gathered and analyzed depended on what participants from the focus group
interviews and observations were willing to share. All documents were analyzed using a
three-point document study digital literacy skills rubric (Appendix D) created based on
the six digital literacy skills. Once themes and codes were generated based on these six
skills for the document study, data were compared to the focus group interviews and
observations findings to determine commonalities.
Researcher’s Role and Potential Bias
As curriculum coordinator at the site school, I had an established relationship with
current faculty and staff. Throughout the years I have worked with classroom and
nonclassroom teachers and administration on a variety of state initiatives and school
projects where we have built mutual trust and professional relationships. In this position,
I did not hold any authority over teachers and am considered on the same level as a
certificated teacher. For the purposes of this qualitative case study, my role as
investigator was to interview, observe, record, and analyze data. To preserve these
relationships and strive for credibility, I worked continuously protect participants from
harm and maintain confidentiality through open and honest communication; member
checks; peer examination and collaboration; and personal identification of biases as
suggested by Merriam (1995) and Yin (2014). Participants examined transcripts and
observation protocols to validate transcription and provide feedback and comments.
Participants were also asked to comment on findings throughout the study. To heighten
awareness of potential biases and other ethical concerns, I maintained a reflective journal
to clarify and record thoughts, assumptions, and other personal commentary.
Data Analysis
To build a comprehensive case, qualitative data was gathered and triangulated
from multiple sources representing multiple perspectives. Using an inductive process to
analyze and compare findings, data from content area focus group interviews,
observations, and documents were compared to identify conceptual links between
categories. The process included both discovery and interim analysis of data as it was
received throughout the study to develop preliminary categories and distinguish patterns
in order to answer the research questions.
Collection Process
According to McMillan and Schumacher (1997) qualitative data analysis is
inductive and cyclical occurring continuously in all phases of research. Following the
steps of inductive analysis, data gathered during the focus group interviews, observations,
and documents study segments of this research was coded using the six digital literacy
skills and compared after each phase. In addition to the six digital literacy skills, the focus
group interview results was analyzed to determine minor themes related to RQ3 and RQ4.
Interview sessions were transcribed using transcribwreally.com and coded with
MAXQDA software following the sessions. Initial coding for both interviews and
observations was conducted following discovery and interim analysis protocols and
guided by relevant research questions. Resulting codes and categories from each data set
were compared and contrasted to determine distinctive characteristics and patterns.
Relevant documents were gathered via Google Docs and printed from participants who
volunteer to share items. Information from the interviews and observations was
triangulated with data from the document study to further identify patterns until themes
emerge.
Evidence of Quality
Central to building a comprehensive picture and extending findings from case
study research is the validity and credibility of the data and process (McMillan &
Schumacher, 1997). Considerations that were taken to address evidence of quality
included audio and video recorded data, member checking, participant review,
triangulation of data, peer debriefing, and a researcher field journal. To aid in data
accuracy and transcription, focus group interviews were audio and video recorded.
Participants checked transcripts for accuracy and provided further information or
interpretations of data soon after interviews and observations. This combination increased
the accuracy and integrity of information prior to analysis. Finally, participants and
designated peer colleagues were provided with a completed copy of the project study
findings for final review and input prior to submission.
Pursuant to triangulation, identified patterns and themes from multiple data
sources were cross validated during inductive data analysis to find commonalities and
discrepancies. This type of comparison allowed me to identify regularities that occurred
across data. If results from the three data sources converged, this corroboration lends to
both the construct validity and extension of findings (McMillan & Schumacher, 1997;
Yin 2014). Data that is contradictory or inconsistent helps construct a holistic view of the
situation and further identifies areas of interest (Merriam, 1998). Examining and
comparing all results from the focus group interviews, observations and document study
increased the convergence of evidence, accuracy of findings, and validity.
The last two components used for evidence of quality as strategies to minimize
bias were peer debriefing and a researcher field journal. A peer debriefer is usually a
colleague who engages in professional dialogue with the researcher by reviewing
preliminary findings and field notes, asking probing questions, and presenting alternate
viewpoints or perspectives to help validate findings (McMillan & Schumacher, 1997;
Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2014). The peer debriefer enhanced understanding of the data and
provided valuable insight about possible ethical concerns and potential biases. Field
journals include detailed decisions, modifications, rationale, strategies, and assessments
of data trustworthiness used by the researcher (McMillan & Schumacher, 1997; Merriam,
1998). To further supplement evidence quality, I also used a field journal to document my
research process. Combining these two strategies helped me reflect on personal
subjectivity and monitor biases throughout the research process.
Discrepant Cases
The identification of negative cases or discrepant data was another aspect in
assessing the credibility of a study. Negative cases appear as participant viewpoints,
situations, or social scenes that are contradictory to meanings derived from emerging
patterns (McMillan & Schumacher, 1997). Also inconsistent with developing patterns,
discrepant data appears in the form of evidence and is useful because it provides insight
for possible modifications to current patterns (McMillan & Schumacher, 1997).
Researchers must actively search for these incidents and seek to explain them, amend
patterns or suggest possibilities for future study. Recording, analyzing and adjusting for
negative cases or discrepant data further the validity of the study for both the participant
and the researcher.
Data Analysis Results
Data for this study was gathered in three phases of focus group interviews,
classroom observations, and documents for study. Questions in the digital literacy focus
group interview protocol (Appendix B) were designed to collect evidence related to all
research questions while information from the classroom observations and documents
gathered were designated to support RQ2. Thirteen teachers participated in all three of
these phases with four in social studies, three in science, two each in CTE and Fine
Arts/health, and one each in math and English language arts. There were no participants
from the world language department. Classroom observation protocols and document
data for each participant were coded by department name correlating to speaker title in
the focus group interviews. Tracking data by participant and department provided the
opportunity to code and connect themes between research questions and data points.
Six focus group interview sessions were conducted over a 2-day period for seven
departments to complete the first phase of the data gathering process. The site school
combines teachers in the Fine Arts and PE/Health department in the master schedule so
they were combined into one session for the interviews. The only department with no
participants was world languages. Interview sessions lasted between 32 and 55 minutes
depending on the number of participants and length of answers and discussion. Although
the original intent was to conduct sessions with 4 – 8 participants per department, actual
numbers ranged from 1 – 4. At the conclusion of each session, participants completed a
simple form stating when they would like to be observed and their preferred method of
receiving information and transcripts for member checking, electronic or print. The audio
files were then sent to Rev.com for transcription and imported into the MAXQDA
software-coding program. To aid in credibility of research findings, I reviewed the
transcripts for errors prior to submitting to participants for member checking. All
members received electronic copies of interview transcripts shared securely via Google.
Additionally, printed transcripts were provided in a secure envelope to the four
participants who opted for information in both print and electronic format. Transcripts
were appropriately adjusted using participant feedback.
Once member checks were completed, data from the focus group interviews was
initially coded using the MAXQDA software program using codes that corresponded to
the four research questions. After data was segregated by these codes, I regrouped and
exported data into segments that combined responses by content area and like codes. This
provided the opportunity to evaluate data in matrices to identify emerging levels of
knowledge and integration of digital literacy. In some areas, data matrices were then
further analyzed to reduce overlapping codes and combine similar ideas. Processing data
in segments and comparing data, abstract concepts, and descriptions allowed me to
discriminate between recurring themes and discrepant data (Merriam, 2009). This initial
coding and exportation of data continued until all data from focus group interviews,
classroom observations, and documents were analyzed and themes emerged.
Classroom observations were scheduled over the course of two weeks for the
second phase of data collection with each of the focus group participants observed for an
entire class period. Observation descriptions were recorded using the digital literacy
observation protocol form and later coded manually using the six digital literacy skills.
To differentiate, I assigned each skill a color and highlighted corresponding evidence
reflected in the observation. Both student and teacher actions were evaluated to determine
whether or not individual digital literacy skills were addressed. Content area tables were
then created to represent data corresponding to research questions and digital literacy
skill.
Documents for study were gathered in electronic and print form from each
participating teacher and included pacing guides, lesson plans, PowerPoints, and Google
Classroom invites. The invitations to teacher Google Classroom sites allowed me to view
both teacher and student created assignments, posts, and announcements. Documents
from all sources were segregated by content area and evaluated using the document study
digital literacy skill rubric. Similar to classroom observation analysis, varied highlighter
colors were used to code data as aligned to the six skills and corresponding research
questions. Evidence from the document study was used to determine levels of integration
for each digital literacy skills by content and then compared to focus group interviews
and classroom observations to determine overall level of digital literacy skill integration.
Ensuring Credibility of Research Findings
Integrity is forefront in producing quality research and depends on investigator
ethics. Consideration to preserve the credibility and reliability of research findings for
this project was initiated through triangulation of data, member checks, peer review, and
rich descriptions.
Research Findings
Current Teacher Knowledge of Digital Literacy (RQ1)
The purpose of this case study was to determine the current level of knowledge
and integration of digital literacy skills of high school in-service teachers and identify
challenges and supports they needed to successfully shift teaching practices. To address
RQ1, teachers’ current levels of digital literacy skills based on the Eshet (2012)
framework, evidence was collected from focus group interviews in six different
departments: English language arts (ELA), science (SC), social studies (SS), math, fine
arts/physical education (FA/PE), and career technical education (CTE). Related questions
(see Appendix B: questions 5-13) from the focus group interview focused on assessing
teacher knowledge of the term “digital literacy” and the six digital literacy skills.
Responses were coded into low, medium, or high levels of knowledge based on
connection to definitions. To ascertain knowledge level, participants were asked to define
the term to the best of their ability prior to being exposed to the actual definition used in
the study.
As depicted in Table 1, all participants were able to provide evidence of medium
to high knowledge of the term digital literacy and the skill of photovisual literacy.
Table 1
Focus Group Interviews: Content Area Overall Knowledge of Digital Literacy Terms
Social
Studies
(SS)
Science
(SC) Math
English
language
arts
(ELA)
Career &
Technical
Education
(CTE)
Fine Arts
PE/Health
(FA/PE)
Digital
Literacy
Photovisual
Literacy
Reproduction
Literacy
Branching
Literacy
Information
Literacy
Socioemotional
Literacy
Real-time
Thinking
Skills
Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium
High High High High Medium Medium
Low Medium Low Low Low Low
Low Low Low Low Low Low
Medium Low Low Low Low Low
Low Low Low Low Low Low
Low Low Low Low Low Low
Note: Levels of knowledge: Low, Medium, and High
Participants demonstrated knowledge related to digital literacy with comments such as:
“Your understanding of how technology works” (FA/PE); “Do you [people] know how to
use things in a digital world today? From phones, to research, to performance based tasks
like CTE” (CTE); “Complete their assignments, turn them in, in the format they want
using tools that they provide” (SC); “Using technology to access information” (SS);
“Able to use digital tools… in a critical, and constructive and productive way” (Math).
They were able to articulate a basic understanding of digital literacy. Participants from
each department demonstrated a more complex knowledge of photovisual literacy, as
they were able to provide commentary directly relating the definition of the term. This
included statements using key words such as interpretation, inference, decoding, layers of
meaning, and statements such as: “understand the meaning in photos and other images…
interpret and understand captions” (ELA); “decode like layers of information that might
be in a picture or groups of pictures” and “layers in a picture which is a graph…basic
numeracy stuff or it can be just something that’s done with a color code” (SC); “like
propaganda that might come with the photo” and “perspective…deeper questions about
the photo” (SS); “read visual information and being able to interpret and glean
understanding of what the author intended” (Math). Going beyond basic knowledge,
these statements indicate that teachers have a deeper working knowledge of photovisual
literacy.
When considering the five remaining digital framework terms, all content areas
exhibited a low knowledge level with the exception of science and social studies teachers
interviewed who demonstrated medium level knowledge in reproduction and information
literacy respectively. Science teachers interviewed expressed their comprehension of
reproduction literacy through comments such as:
Start with being able to take a document and make a copy and reformat it to what
you need to use next with it…one level of reproduction literacy; knowing the
limits of each one…if you have the rights to modify; and producing it in a new
medium. (Science)
Compared with the definition, these remarks indicated science teachers understand some
of the key concepts including plagiarism and reproduction of a new product. Comments
from the SS, math, ELA, CTE and FA/PE demonstrated a basic knowledge level related
to either plagiarism or reusing information such as: “being able to reproduce work”
(ELA); “could it be a reuse of information” (FA/PE); “knowing what you can use, and
how to reuse it, … and who has rights to publishing it and reproducing it and copying it”
(SS); “ethical literacy… what we can and cannot reproduce” (Math). There was no
indication of synthesizing multiple pieces of information and reproducing into something
new with the use of technology.
The other term departments presented varied knowledge level in was information
literacy. Comments from the social studies teachers such as, “how to decipher
information, and analyze information” and “how to analyze their sources…what was their
point of view,” provided evidence that their level of understanding this term was slightly
higher than the other departments. These teachers identified several components of the
term including evaluating and analyzing sources as well as interpreting information.
Responses from teachers in the other departments only highlighted one component of the
term as evinced in commentary: “understanding all the information they are receiving and
analyze it to make meaning” (ELA); “obtaining valid information from different
sources… knowing what’s legitimate versus something that’s just made up on the
Internet” and “different listening and speaking and reading… demonstrating the
knowledge through those modes” (FA/PE); “I’m thinking surfing the web, being able to
find what you want, when you want…including knowing the validity of your source”
(SC). The simplicity of these responses demonstrated a basic understanding to the term.
Further evidence from focus group interviews revealed a basic, or low knowledge
level for the three remaining framework terms: branching literacy, socioemotional
literacy, and real-time thinking skills. Although many teachers expressed some ideas of
concepts related to terms, responses ranged from unsure to generalized deductions. For
branching literacy, participants were either unclear or able to make indirect connections
to navigation through Internet domains with the following phrases:
•“It is about links online” (ELA);
•“It’s like webbing maybe, showing how things interconnect” (FA/PE);
•“Never heard of it”; “something like being able to use some kind of electronic
tool and then being able to use something similar” (SC);
•“Never heard of that term before”; “I’m thinking that you’re looking for one
thing, and then all of a sudden you pick up on something else that’s
connected to that one, and it branches off to another idea” (SS); and
•“Connect to different areas of knowledge. Maybe into different disciplines”
(Math).
In response to defining socioemotional literacy, participants provided answers that
alluded to key concepts such as maturity and some critical thinking skills, but they were
not able to address collaboration, thinking abstractly, or the requisite skills of information
literacy and branching literacy. Comments included:
•“Thinking about thinking; metacognition” (ELA);
•“I think of socio-economic backgrounds… they learn differently, they
respond differently”; “How you use your emotions in appropriate ways, how
you handle different situations” (FA/PE);
•“Resilience to be able to cope with stresses that come up with technologies”
(SC); and
•“Kids behind their phones and expressing their emotions that way throughout
the digital world vs face to face”; “Having compassion and empathy towards
others if you are reading about what’s going on” (SS).
Participant descriptions for the final digital literacy term, real-time thinking skills, also
revealed a basic level of knowledge. Although the following teacher comments revealed
awareness of responding to feedback and creating new material, the key elements of
processing multiple stimuli, executing multiple tasks simultaneously, and synthesizing
multiple modes of information into new product were missing:
•“Connect the past with the present and the future; how do they make new
knowledge” (ELA);
•“Every year we have different focuses and different things… maybe real time
keeping current with that” (FA/PE);
•“How well you are at problem solving”; “Critical thinking” (CTE);
•“Being able to give a question and expect a complete answer in an amount of
time” (SC);
•“Ability to listen and process information and then offer some sort of
response within the context of a conversation or debate”; “Checking your
own bias within that whole situation” (SS);
•“You’re interacting with somebody who’s solving a problem in another part
of the world” (Math).
When comparing the responses provided by teachers to the definition of these three
digital literacy framework terms, key components for each were term missing,
demonstrating a basic level of comprehension.
Current Level of Digital Literacy Skill Implementation (RQ2)
To gather information for RQ2, the current level of digital literacy skill
implementation in the classroom, a combination of classroom observations, focus group
interview questions (see Appendix B: questions 14-19), and documents were gathered
and analyzed. Results were used to determine levels of teacher integration of digital
literacy skills into curriculum, instruction, and assessment six content areas.
Classroom Observations Findings for Integration (RQ2)
For classroom observations, a total of 13 high school classrooms were observed
between 30 – 45 minutes using the digital literacy observation protocol: four social
studies, two career and technical education, two fine arts/health, three science, and one
each in math and English language arts. After organizing and analyzing the data using
MAXQDA, I extracted key observation phrases connected to the six digital literacy terms
and created matrices portraying data. In the event there was no evidence of the term, the
phrases “not observed” was inserted.
Observations of the four social studies classrooms (Table 2) revealed evidence in
all digital literacy framework skills with the exception of branching literacy. Teachers’
observed actions demonstrated various levels of skills integration as they facilitated
student-learning activities that promoted the application of thinking and interaction skills
related to other five terms. For each term addressed, teachers created opportunities for
students engaged in activities allowing them to practice new digital learning skills.
Table 2
Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in Social Studies
Reproduction
Literacy
Branching
Literacy
Use role play as assessment for students to
apply knowledge of content and re-create
time period events
Facilitate student presentations of review
games created individually or in groups
Prepare to synthesize knowledge and act
out event from time period using various
roles
Collaborate with peers to create review
games (Kahoot Quiz, Memory Game,
Bingo) based on current content; facilitate
review games w/peers
Information
Literacy
Facilitate role playing game where
students synthesize content knowledge
Facilitate student presentations of review
games created individually or in groups
Identify relevant content knowledge to
portray character role and act through
scene
Identify critical information from
instruction to incorporate into review
games
Teacher Actions Student Actions
Photovisual
Literacy
Facilitate students understanding of
infographics for SAT testing
Use clip art and images to enhance
presentations and use for discussion
Use video clips of content to promote
discussion & critical thinking
Discuss and respond to teacher prompts
related to infographics
Respond to teacher prompts related to
images
Respond to teacher prompts related to
video clip and link to current content
Not Observed Not Observed
Socioemotional
Literacy
Real-time
Thinking
Skills
Provide opportunity for students to
collaborate on role playing and review
games
Collaborate to role play and re-enact event
Collaborate to create review games
Provide technology tools for student
presentations
Facilitate student use of computer to
navigate between programs: Achieve 3000
and electronic quiz
Navigate between student instruction and
technology (computer and cell phones) to
follow directions and perform task
Navigate between two websites to
complete tasks; navigate through website
to complete task
Note: Four social studies classrooms observed – Participation in Democracy (2), US History & SAT Prep
In the math classroom observation (Table 3), evidence revealed application of
information literacy and real-time thinking skills. After modeling using various forms of
technology, the teacher guided students through the steps prior to providing individual
work time. The teacher provided data for students to organize, input into graphing
calculators, and then graph. Students were expected to respond to a variety of
simultaneous stimuli and process information from multiple sources of input that
included a document camera, SMART Board, and whiteboard in order to meet the lesson
objective. The other four digital literacy skills were not observed.
Table 3
Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in Math
Teacher Actions Student Actions
Photovisual
Literacy
Not Observed Not Observed
Reproduction
Literacy
Not Observed Not Observed
Branching
Literacy
Not Observed Not Observed
Information
Literacy
Present data for students to input into
calculators and then graph
Identify relevant information to solve math
problems using graphing calculators; chart
information and then graph
Socioemotional
Literacy
Not Observed Not Observed
Real-time
Thinking
Skills
Switch between SMART Board,
Calculator and Document Camera to
model task
Switch between receiving instruction via
tech tools, and performing tasks using
graphing calculator, individual lesson
materials and information presented on
document camera
Note: One math classroom observed – Model Our World I
The classroom observations for Public Human Services Core (PHS Core) and
Digital Media courses (Table 4) for CTE revealed evidence for photovisual literacy,
reproduction literacy, information literacy, and real-time thinking skills. In the PHS Core
class, students were actively engaged in learning through the combined use of an
interactive Google Slides presentation, video, article, teacher and peer discussions, and a
note-taking tool. The note-taking tool and discussion questions were designed to elicit
critical thinking and analytical responses in relation to the video and images on the slides,
addressing both information and photovisual literacy. In the Digital Media course, the
teacher addressed reproduction literacy and real-time thinking skills guiding the students
in the manipulation of images using Photoshop and CS4-6. Throughout the lesson,
students were required to download and upload various images; mirror instruction
through guided practice; apply multiple editing strategies; and assist peers in a lesson
designed to help students manipulate photos and create new personalized images. Lessons
in both classes were designed to incorporate technology and digital literacy skills into
curriculum and instruction.
Table 4
Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in Career & Technical
Education (CTE)
Teacher Actions Student Actions
Photovisual
Literacy
Reproduction
Literacy
Branching
Literacy
Information
Literacy
Socioemotional
Literacy
Real-time
Thinking
Skills
Use video in instruction w/note-taking
tool; paused video for discussion & notes
Used note-taking tool to record initial
thoughts; responded to teacher prompts
and revised/added to notes
Model/demonstrate use of Photoshop and
CS4 tools on sample images
Practice using program tools to manipulate
images through teacher guidance
Not Observed Not Observed
Use guided questions to facilitate
discussion and help students process
content information in a video and printed
article
Respond orally and in writing to teacher
prompts analyzing information in the
video and article
Not Observed Not Observed
Model the use of Photoshop and CS4 tools
on sample images
Download images sent from teacher and in
personal files to manipulate while
following teachers’ modeling; navigate
between files, internet, and computer
program
Note: Two CTE classrooms observed – Public Human Services Core and Digital Media
Classroom observations in the Photography and Health courses (Table 5) revealed
evidence of photovisual literacy, information literacy, socioemotional literacy, and
realtime thinking skills. Instruction in the photography class centered on developing
photovisual literacy through the analysis of images using the elements of art and design
principles in a collaborative group review game. Students competed in small groups to
synthesize critical statements that combined key vocabulary terms with supporting
evidence from each image displayed using a document camera. This activity created a
learning environment where students also practiced socioemotional literacy in
collaborative groups and used real-time thinking skills when they responded to teacher
and peer feedback as they continued the review game. Although students were not using
technology, they were actively engaged in the developing these three skills. Observations
in the health course revealed similar findings where the students practiced photovisual
and information literacy. Through the use of Google Slides, the teacher presented a
variety of print and video advertising campaigns aimed at selling products and using
propaganda. Guided by teacher prompts and discussion, students analyzed the ads to
determine audience, meaning, and hidden agendas. Reproduction literacy and branching
literacy were not addresses in either classroom observation.
Table 5
Classroom
Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in Fine Arts/PE/Health
Reproduction Literacy Branching Literacy
Teacher Actions Student Actions
Information
Literacy
Socioemotional
Literacy
Real-time
Thinking
Skills
Prompt students to analyze image,
advertisements and video for bias and
purpose
Respond to teacher prompts related to
images, advertisements, and videos
Group students in teams to collaborate an
co-construct statements related to the
images and elements of art & design
principles
Collaborate to analyze image using the
elements of art & design principles and
coconstruct statements
Provide feedback to student groups
regarding their analytical art statements
and allow revisions
Respond to teacher feedback and revise
statements to reflect feedback
Note: Two classrooms observed – Photography & Health
Observation in the special education English class (Table 6) revealed evidence of
reproduction and branching literacy, and real-time thinking skills. After an introductory
Teacher Actions Student Actions
Photovisual
Literacy
Use images, advertisements, and video in
PowerPoint presentation with discussion
prompts to analyze message within media
Use games to get students to analyze
images using the elements of art & design
principles
Respond to teacher prompts related to
analyzing image, advertisements, and
videos
Collaborate in groups to analyze images
using elements of art & design principles
Not Observed Not Observed
Not Observed Not Observed
presentation using Google Slides, students migrated to the computer lab and proceeded to
complete an assignment using Google Classroom. The assignment required students to
navigate between electronic and print documents as they responded to prompts and
completed the online assignment related to analyzing a poem. This required navigation
between multiple print and electronic sources while responding to feedback and direction
from the teacher. Through guided practice, students were able to practice developing
these three skills.
Table 6
Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in English Language Arts
Teacher Actions Student Actions
Photovisual
Literacy
Reproduction
Literacy
Branching
Literacy
Not Observed Not Observed
Provide instructions on the use of Google
Classroom to complete assignment
Use Google Documents to provide
answers after interpreting a poem from
print
Provide electronic copies of assignment and
poem for students to navigate between
Navigate between two documents to
interpret poem and respond to questions;
copy & paste and type from one document
to another
Information
Literacy
Socioemotional
Literacy
Real-time
Thinking
Skills
Not Observed Not Observed
Not Observed Not Observed
Use Google Classroom as instructional
tool where students navigate between
textbook and electronic assignment to
complete task
Login to Google Classroom, make “copy”
of assignment an navigate between text,
computer, and teacher feedback to provide
responses
Note: One classroom observed – English 12
As depicted in Table 7, observations in Human Physiology, Physical Science, and
Biology provided evidence of all six digital literacy skills. Combined teaching and
learning activities in all science classes provided opportunities for student to apply skills
in analyzing graphs and a variety of visuals that were both teacher and student created.
Addressing reproduction, branching, information, and socioemotional literacy, students
collaborated with peers to conduct research, synthesize information, and navigate a
variety of computer software programs and Internet applications to create review games
and Google Slides presentations. Through the use of Google Classroom, Quizlet, and
Google Sheets, students practiced real-time thinking skills while collaborating with peers
to navigate between multiple programs and respond to peer and teacher input to complete
tasks. In all three courses, teachers and students actively used technology and digital
literacy skills to demonstrate knowledge and co-create new knowledge.
Table 7
Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in Science
Teacher Actions Student Actions
Provide instruction on creating and
interpreting graphs in Google Sheets
Provide instructions on building Google
Photovisual
Slides presentations with visual
Literacy
Create quizzes and games with visuals
(graphs & images) for
interpretation
Create graphs using previously determined
data and follow visual PDF of instructions
Research images to match assigned content
and determine the most
appropriate visual for Slides
Answer questions on quiz that require
analysis of graphs and images; analyze
Teacher Actions Student Actions
information in images on collaborative
Quizlet online game
Reproduction
Literacy
Provide instruction on creating a Google
Slide presentation that synthesizes
information related to assigned group
topics
Provide oral and electronic instructions on
analyzing data to create graphs
Collaborate with peers to conduct
research and synthesize information into
a group
Google Slide presentation
Use Google Sheets and teacher
instruction to analyze data and create
graphs
Branching
Literacy
Use Google Classroom and other Google
Drive elements for classroom instruction
Use Google Classroom, Juno (JupiterIO),
and Quizlet as instruction and assessment
tools
Navigate between Google Classroom,
Google Sheets, PDF documents and other
information to complete electronic
assignment
Navigate between Google Classroom and
Juno to complete quizzes, assignments and
reflections; collaborate with peers to
navigate through Quizlet to complete
review game
Information
Literacy
Facilitate student learning through lab
work and research to create informative
Google Slides to present to peers related to
assigned topic
Collaborate with peers in analyzing lab
results and research to create informative
Google Slides
Socioemotional
Literacy
Create collaborative group assignment
using Google Slides
Create online collaborate group review
game and electronic peer response
assignment
Collaborate with peers to evaluate
information and create informative slide
presentation
Collaborate with peers to complete
online Quizlet review game; read and
respond to peer comments online
Real-time
Thinking
Skills
Create assignment requiring students to
read and follow online directions, respond
to peer and teacher feedback and navigate
between multiple online sources.
Follow instructions in Google Classroom
using Google Sheets to complete
assignment; Ask and respond to teacher
and peer feedback to complete assignment
Note: Three Science classrooms observed – Human Physiology, Physical Science & Biology
Overall findings from classroom observations (Table 8) indicated a range of
integration of digital literacy skills into curriculum, instruction, and assessment for each
department. Evidence for each digital literacy skill was evaluated using the definition for
the correlating term and assigned one of three levels: evident, developing, or not evident.
The level of technology application was used to differentiate between levels of evident
and developing, depending on whether student use of technology was evident in
observation. Science demonstrated the most integration with a level of evident in each of
the six digital literacy skills indicating a general ability to address each skill. Social studies
demonstrated three instances of evident in photovisual literacy, reproduction literacy, and
information literacy, with two developing and one not evident. Instances in the English
language arts and career and technical education departments were spread throughout all
six skills with two evident occurrences in real-time thinking skills and reproduction
literacy and the other occurrences spread throughout developing (5) and not evident (5).
The math and fine arts/PE departments demonstrated a lower level of integration with zero
instances of evident, six instances of developing and six instances of not evident. Total for
each level of integration was evident (10), developing (13) and not evident (13).
Table 8
Classroom Observation Findings: Summary of Integration of Digital Literacy Skills by
Department
Social
Studies
(SS)
Science
(SC) Math
English
language
arts
(ELA)
Career &
Technical
Education
(CTE)
Fine Arts
PE/Health
(FA/PE)
Photovisual
Literacy
Reproduction
Literacy
Branching
Literacy
Information
Literacy
Socioemotion
al Literacy
Real-time
Thinking
Skills
Evident Evident Not
Evident
Not
Evident Developing Developing
Evident Evident Not
Evident Developing Evident Not
Evident
Not
Evident Evident Not
Evident Developing Not
Evident
Not
Evident
Evident Evident Developing Not
Evident Developing Developing
Developing Evident Not
Evident
Not
Evident
Not
Evident Developing
Developing Evident Developing Evident Developing Developing
Note: Levels are Evident, Developing, and Not Evident
Focus Group Interview and Document Study Findings for Integration (RQ2)
In connection with classroom observations, evidence from focus group interviews
and documents were analyzed and compared to observation findings to further address
RQ2. Focus group interview protocol questions (14-19) were designed to illicit
information related to teacher’s perceived integration of digital literacy skills in classroom
practices. Participant comments from these questions were reviewed and organized by
department into codes using the MAXQDA software and further analyzed using the
definitions for each of the six digital literacy skills. Evidence for each skill was then
evaluated based on the definition of the correlating digital literacy skill and student use of
technology. Departments were assigned a score for each skill using the following scale:
evident, developing, or not evident.
Documents gathered for comparative analysis to address RQ2 included curriculum
maps, pacing guides, daily lesson plan samples, various assignments/worksheets, project
instructions, science labs, and a variety of teacher and student created PowerPoints and
Google Slides. Although pacing guides provided an overview of the course content as
paced throughout the semester or year, most did not provide enough pedagogical
information to determine the depth and breadth of technology and digital literacy skills
integration. The daily lesson plans, assignments, Slides, and PowerPoints provided the
most insight into integration and were used to determine levels of integration into
curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Evidence in the documents correlating to the
digital literacy skills was color-coded by skill and key details were organized into matrices
that were analyzed to determine integration level. Identified evidence from documents was
evaluated by department using the document study digital literacy skill rubric (Appendix
D) and assigned one of three levels of integration for each digital literacy skill: evident,
developing, or not evident.
To differentiate between developing and evident in both focus group interviews
and documents, the purpose of evidence and use of technology were analyzed. If the
evidence was purposefully designed to integrate technology and address the specific skill,
the level assigned was evident. If the skill was somewhat addressed but lacked evidence of
purposefully planning to address the skill and/or technology integration, the level assigned
was developing. For each department, all documents submitted and participant comments
for each skill were compared to determine the final document study rating.
Analysis of the participant comments and documents provided for the study
revealed a wide range of digital literacy integration for the six skills. Evidence from focus
group interviews was assembled and into tables (see Tables 10-15) and displayed with
findings from document study evidence for presentation for comparative analysis. For
documents studied, the term no evidence was inserted to demonstrate lack of related
evidence found during analysis. Participant comments related to the digital literacy skill
were displayed in the focus group column to demonstrate teacher perception and thinking.
As evidenced in Table 9, all departments demonstrated some integration of the
skill photovisual literacy into instruction. Social studies, SC, and ELA provided
opportunities for students to analyze cartoons, videos, and images related to content and
document based questions. CTE and FA/PE planned for students to analyze professional
logos and various artwork using art elements as well as advertisement for personal care
products. Both math and SC integrated the analysis of charts and diagrams related to
specific content. With the exception of math, participants in each department integrated
technology and purposely incorporated specific elements for analyzing the photovisual
content such as art elements, rhetorical appeal, analysis protocols, and rubrics.
Table 9
Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of Photovisual Literacy
Skills
Focus Group Interview
Participant Comments
Document Study
Examples
Social
Studies
(SS)
Analyzing “Two cartoons about
immigration”
“Document based questions…one visual in
there… to interpret it in relation to the
other primary sources”
Analyzing videos for meaning
Selecting images to represent historical
events and outcomes;
“Trying to draw things…so that there is a
picture that goes along with the words”
“Graph as much as we can… shape of the
graph means different things”
Science (SC)
“We do videos that are short with ‘I notice
and wonder’”
“Quizlet vocab program where you can put pictures with the
definitions”
Students conducting virtual labs
Analyzing videos for labs
Draw conclusions from table, charts, topography, and various
images
Math
(MA)
English
language arts
(ELA)
Career &
Technical
Education
(CTE)
Fine Arts
PE/Health
(FA/PE)
“I don’t think I’m using it to its fullest
potential… I have diagrams”
Investigation of math problems using
maps, charts, and diagrams
“Interpret and understand meaning in
photos and other images”
“Being able to interpret and understand
captions”
Photo Essay unit; identify rhetorical
appeals in visual images
Analyzing images using Imagery Graphic
Organizer
Collaborate with peers to define and
generate visual representation of
Archetypal Criticism
“How to use a tool on Adobe Illustrator”
“Interpret how lines are being used, how
are the colors being used, and why they
are being used”
Media analysis activity
Identify design elements & principles in
images
Analyzing and creating logos
Critiquing of professional and personal
photography, artwork and videos
“We look at charts and we try to make
meaning of it”
“Learn to critique photographs…what
might be happening or the time period…
quality image”
Group analysis of advertisements
Analysis of personal care products
including labeling and packaging
Analyzing original and peer artwork to
then produce original artwork integrating
art elements and design principles
In terms of reproduction literacy, evidence (Table 10) indicated each department
provided learning opportunities to integrate this skill. English, SS, and FA/PE described
instances where students conducted research online and synthesized information into an
Instagram account, poetry, and informative or argumentative writing. Science and CTE
participants described more project based learning where students synthesized
information into original designs, food, and presentations or labs. For math, integration
included producing geometric forms and proving theorems. Although the use of
technology is more implied in math with the word “tools”; science with “physical
models” and labs; and CTE with original art designs and cooking; it is explicitly
described in SS with “digital media”, “visual displays”, and creating an Instagram
account. A participant in science also recognized the need to learn more about using
technology to create digital representations for models in science.
Table 10
Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of Reproduction
Literacy Skills
Focus Group Interview Document Study Participant
Comments Examples
“History Day [projects and essays]” Create an Instagram account representing
a historical figure integrating information
“Research projects…have the kids from research understand the difference between
plagiarism and paraphrasing” Use digital media and visual displays to
Social Studies (SS)
express information and present findings
“Synthesize information [from research] with supporting evidence
into a new document, an essay.”
Integrate information from primary and
secondary sources into coherent
understanding of idea or event, noting
discrepancies
Science (SC)
Focus Group Interview
Participant Comments
Document Study
Examples
“Phases of the moon [posters]…based on
the position of the sun and even include
some cultural things… and we do the
physical model”
Math
(MA)
“Doing a scavenger hunt where I could see
them [students] having to apply, and think
about, and talk about what they had been
learning.”
“Unscramble the words, and then take the
message, and then do something with it.
Investigation and critical thinking on
math tasks and problems
Prove theorems about lines and graphs
Make formal geometric constructions
with a variety of tools and methods
English
language arts
(ELA)
“This is the synthesize of information to
produce essays”
Poetry unit involving analyzing and
writing poems
Informative and argumentative writing
involving synthesis of multiple sources
into evidence based essays.
Career &
Technical
Education
(CTE)
“Teach them about copyright and fair
use… emphasize having original
concepts”
“Actually created and inspiration board…
take ideas from it, to create your own
original idea”
Creating original designs based on
specific criteria (logos, videos, photos,
posters, etc)
Produce a variety of food dishes using
original and student revised recipes
Cook and serve plate lunches in a class
restaurant
Fine Arts
PE/Health
(FA/PE)
“Showing them an example…giving them
information and then now take what you
learned and create something new… to
show your learning
Analyze sources to write a cause and
effect essay
Investigate a variety of snacks and write
and analysis
Create photos based on unit concepts
using elements, principles, and technical
aspects
“I had them do cellular transport [drawings]
…try to have them do it
digitally, but I didn’t know how”
“They synthesize answers to the cells lab”
Classification presentations
Cell Books & Analogies
Create & present Phylogenetic Trees
When considering all six digital literacy skills, evidence for branching literacy
(Table 11) showed the lowest level of integration in all departments. In SS and math,
participant comments and documents provided indicated no evidence of learning
opportunities for students to address skills related to branching literacy. Science, CTE,
and FA/PE comments and documents provided evidence related to Internet use in the
forms of Google and other online applications and research, but branching skills were not
explicitly taught or assessed. Although the ELA pacing guides indicated an introduction
to Google Classroom and Google Calendar, there was no indication of explicit instruction
about navigation within the hypermedia environment for students to further practice
constructing information. Overall, there was evidence of technology use in SC, ELA,
CTE, and FA/PE, where teachers were starting to provide learning opportunities for
students to find information on the Internet.
Table 11
Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of Branching Literacy
Skills
Focus Group Interview
Participant Comments
Document Study
Examples
Social
Studies
(SS)
“Not directly” Not Evident
“I did this Internet scavenger hunt where Current events from online sources they
[students] were going to different site,
but I was very explicit.” Online quizzes, Google Classroom
Science (SC)
“I pay attention [monitor] as they’re Navigation of online sources for classroom
researching their animals to keep them assignments from getting lost”
Math “It’s about the links [online]” Not Evident
(MA)
English
language arts
(ELA)
Career &
Technical
Education
(CTE)
Fine Arts
PE/Health
(FA/PE)
“I think at this point it’s more developing
mindfulness”
Introductory tour to Google Classroom,
Calendar and other Google Apps used in
classroom
“In our career exploration project, I give
them websites…use these three and if you
use any others, make sure you take the
URL down.”
Online research related to creating Public
Service Announcements
“They [students] go on one website and I
show them the features and how they can
get different types of information based…
on the project.”
Receive feedback on personal images and
use various photo software to manipulate
images; posting images on Google
Classroom
Use Foodfacts.com and other online
resources to conduct research on various
snack food
Evidence evaluated from interviews and documents revealed that each department
provided various opportunities for students to analyze multiple sources of information
and assimilate new knowledge related to developing information literacy (Table 12).
Social studies and CTE participants provided evidence that described instances where all
components of information literacy including, critical thinking, identifying biased and
irrelevant material, and assimilating information, were all apparent. Instances included
using a SCAR rubric, questioning propaganda, obtaining information from sides of an
event, fact checking, and synthesizing information into a public service announcement.
Data from the other departments revealed instances where the same components of
information literacy were only partially addressed and assessed. Integration of technology
to address information literacy was evident in SS with the evaluation of primary and
secondary sources; in science connected to lab stations; and in ELA, FA/PE, and CTE
with the analysis of videos, broadcasts, advertisements, and websites.
Table 12
Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of Information Literacy
Skills
Focus Group Interview Document Study Participant
Comments Examples
Social
Studies
(SS)
“Built into the document-based questions
format…part of the rubric where kids have
to identify the bias of the authors”
“Whole unit about propaganda…more
questioning and critical about who’s
presenting the information and what they
are trying to convince them of.”
Students develop and use a SCAR
(subject, cause, action, result) chart to
summarize source information
Evaluating primary and secondary sources
“[I] Talk about stats and that anytime you Use of scientific method for lab stations
read any stats…think about where it could be… and pick the one that makes you
Salt comparison activity
Science (SC)
sound better”
Drawing conclusions in all labs
“When I’ve done a research project, I go through
the library and they choose a
Focus Group Interview
Participant Comments
Document Study
Examples
Math
(MA)
English
language arts
(ELA)
book”
“Rewrite their [student] knowledge about
what’s true and not true… interpret what
the information actually means”
“Develop deductive reasoning [in
geometry]
Prove theorems about lines and angles
Proving Special Triangles Conjectures
Pythagorean Theorem Proof
“Understand the information they are
receiving and analyze it to make meaning”
Review and identify rhetoric in images,
videos and writing
Poetry Analysis Unit
Career &
Technical
Education
(CTE)
“I give them specific websites…
[searching] for basic information like pay,
[job] tasks”
“[Identify] Biased information… when we
had broadcasts. We would talk about
having to get both sides of a story…from
multiple sources”
“Fact check to make sure they are giving
the right information…relevant to what
Advertisement analysis for bias and
meaning
Research related to creating Public
Service Announcements; Synthesizing
information into a PSA
they are talking about”
Fine Arts
PE/Health
(FA/PE)
“We do quite a bit of that [evaluate
sources] especially when we hit drugs and
alcohol [lessons]…look at their [website]
credibility… biases on both sides”
Analyzing advertisements, video and
science and technical texts to identify
specific evidence to support claims for
Drug and Alcohol, Chronic Diseases, and
Snack Choice Units
Analysis of data from interviews and documents revealed a wide range of
integration of learning opportunities related to socioemotional literacy (Table 13)
throughout the departments. Social studies, SC, and CTE demonstrated the most
instances of integration with opportunities for students to collaborate with peers in an
online environment to create presentations, conduct research, and develop products.
Evidence for developing socioemotional literacy in math and FA/PE addressed the
collaboration with peers to analyze information and share and co-construct knowledge,
but the use of technology was unclear. The component of branching literacy as related to
the definition of socioemotional literacy was partially evident in SS and SC with the
integration of Google Classroom, Quizlet Live, and social media, but was difficult to
discern within the evidence provided in other departments.
Table 13
Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of Socioemotional
Literacy Skills
Focus Group Interview Document Study Participant
Comments Examples
Social
Studies
(SS)
“Do a form in Google Classroom… they
have to respond to each other, whether I
[student] agree with you [peer]”
“A group project that compared world
religions…they were sharing this
document [Google Doc] together and
working on it in the computer lab”
Guide students in creating an
appropriate social media account
reflecting a historical figure
Work in groups to develop a
progressive map and create a
governmental structure
Science
(SC)
Math
(MA)
English
language arts
(ELA)
Career &
Technical
Education
(CTE)
Fine Arts
PE/Health
(FA/PE)
“Quizlet Live…mixes them [students]
into random groups that have to work
together”
“A jigsaw… invertebrates presentations
so… they have to work with a
partner…then teach the class”
“I say consider the people in your group
because you’re going to be doing this for
three days”
Collaborative lab groups
Cooperative group activities and
presentations
Peer sharing activities
“We are laying the foundation by having
them work in groups in investigative
teams”
Not Evident
“They [students] need to identify the
rhetorical appeals, and that help them to
see what is the persuasion behind them”
Not Evident
“I don’t think this is part of our actually
teaching”
“We might advise students about what
they should or should not do”
“Twitter and Snake [school activity] and
this kind of stuff”
Collaborative Occupation Posters
Digital Media Group Research and
Presentations
Various collaborative group projects and
presentations
“I try to teach them that these are the
types of pictures [social media] that are
trending it’s not necessarily what’s
important to you”
Collaborative group analysis of snack
and food products
Group presentation of various projects
As portrayed in the comparison of findings in Table 14, there were fewer
instances of learning opportunities provided to address real-time thinking skills in the
documents than in the interview comments. Due to the lack of descriptive commentary in
many documents, it was difficult to link information within unit and lesson descriptions
to the application of real-time thinking skills. Therefore, the phrase “not evident” was
inserted where evidence was not apparent from document analysis in SS, math, ELA, and
FA/PE. Participant comments in math and ELA also further indicated that real-time
thinking skills are not currently being addressed in pedagogical practices. Evidence from
interviews in SS, SC, CTE, and FA/PE demonstrated participants provided some
opportunity for student to interact with peers using technology while responding to
feedback from peers and the teacher. Evidence provided did not indicate explicit
instruction in any department related to developing the skills needed to multi-task and
respond to simultaneous stimuli to create a product as indicated in the term definition.
Table 14
Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of Real-time Thinking
Skills
Focus Group Interview
Participant Comments
Document Study
Examples
Social
Studies
(SS)
“We’re doing our essays as well as our
slideshow presentation and we have 3 tabs
open…assignment in Google Classroom,
one was a Google Document for them to
write their notes on, and one whatever
source they were using”
Not Evident
Science (SC)
Math (MA)
English
language arts
(ELA)
Career &
Technical
Education
(CTE)
“Checklists keep them on task, guiding
them”
“I don’t really teach them to multi-task
and stay-on task”
“They are in their groups and have to
plan what they are doing…on person’s
in charge of finding the music…another
one’s editing, another one’s doing
graphic”
Implementation of software tools
(Photoshop, Illustrator, inDesign, etc)
to: Manipulate/enhance photos; Mirror
teacher actions; and Collaborate and
design original pieces
Fine Arts
PE/Health
(FA/PE)
“I have different levels of students so the
old timers [optional repeat students] end
up doing the organizing and I teach them
and then they will take their own groups
and manage”
“Brainstorm their projects and then they
check in with me… go out and re-shoot
[photo] and try it again”
“Practice them responding to your
[teacher] feedback”
Not Evident
Overall findings from focus group interviews (Table 15) revealed nine instances
each in the levels of evident and not evident with the most instances of 18 in developing.
Disaggregated by digital literacy skill, findings revealed a higher level of teacher ability
to integrate learning opportunities in photovisual, reproduction literacy, and information
literacy with a total combination of seven evident and 10 developing. Evidence for
“I feel like I kind of push the edge with
this one because I usually have two or
three tasks on a computer lab day… when
this is done, move onto that one”
“I do give a lot of lectures and they take
notes…I’m writing and then I’m talking
and explaining and there’s pictures and
demos…If they’re writing, they might not
be listening and trying to process”
Quizlet competitions
Google Classroom assignments connected
to online research
Creating and presenting information
through Google Slides
“I haven’t placed them [students] in an
environment where they are getting a lot
of stimuli yet”
Not Evident
“We give them various sources. They need
to synthesize the information and also
giving quotes and the citations and the
commentary”
Not Evident
branching literacy, socioemotional literacy, and real-time thinking skills indicated the
most room for growth with eight occurrences of not evident. Disaggregated by
department, social studies and science demonstrated a higher level of integration of all
digital literacy skills with a combination of seven instances of evident and four instances
of developing. Math and ELA demonstrate the most area for growth with a combination
of six instances of not evident.
Table 15
Focus Group Interview: Summary of Digital Literacy Skills Integration from Comments
Social
Studies
(SS)
Science
(SC) Math
English
language
arts
(ELA)
Career &
Technical
Education
(CTE)
Fine Arts
PE/Health
(FA/PE)
Photovisual
Literacy
Reproduction
Literacy
Branching
Literacy
Information
Literacy
Socioemotion
al Literacy
Real-time
Thinking
Skills
Evident Evident Not
Evident Developing Developing Evident
Evident Evident Developing Developing Evident Developing
Not
Evident Developing Not
Evident
Not
Evident Developing Developing
Evident Developing Developing Developing Developing Developing
Evident Evident Developing Not
Evident
Not
Evident
Not
Evident
Developing Developing Not
Evident
Not
Evident Developing Developing
Note: Levels are Evident, Developing, and Not Evident
Based on the final analysis of documents studied (Table 16), results revealed
various levels of integration of the six digital literacy skills in each department. Overall
findings revealed 15 instances in the level of evident, 13 instances of developing, and
eight in not evident, indicating more integration of skills than evinced in focus group
interviews. Similar to focus group findings, data disaggregated by digital literacy skill
indicated a higher integration level in photovisual, reproduction, and information literacy
with a combination of 14 instances of evident and four in developing. Real-time thinking
skills presented the most not evident with four instances. By department, participants in
the SC and CTE departments provided evidence that addressed each of the six skills to
some level, while evidence from other departments was not evident in 1-3 of the skills.
Math presented with the lowest level of integration with no instances of evident and three
each in developing and not evident, indicating the most room for growth.
Table 16
Document Study Findings: Summary of Digital Literacy Skill Present by Department
Social
Studies
(SS)
Science
(SC) Math
English
language
arts
(ELA)
Career &
Technical
Education
(CTE)
Fine Arts
PE/Health
(FA/PE)
Photovisual
Literacy
Reproduction
Literacy
Branching
Literacy
Information
Literacy
Socioemotion
al Literacy
Evident Evident Developing Evident Evident Evident
Evident Evident Developing Evident Evident Evident
Not
Evident Developing Not
Evident Developing Developing Developing
Evident Evident Developing Developing Evident Evident
Evident Developing Not
Evident
Not
Evident Developing Developing
Real-time
Not Not Not Not
Thinking Developing Developing
Skills Evident Evident Evident Evident
Note: Levels are Evident, Developing, and Not Evident
Overall Integration of Digital Literacy Skills by Department (RQ2)
Data from the focus group interviews, classroom observations, and documents
were triangulated to determine the overall level of integration of digital literacy skills for
each department. Participant statements from the focus group interview questions 14-19,
classroom observation findings, and document findings were compared for an overall
level of integration. As in previous summary tables, the same three levels of evident,
developing, or not evident were used and the protocol for assigning levels of integration
was similar. If triangulated evidence demonstrated purposeful design to address
components of the specific skill and integrate technology, the level assigned was evident.
If combined evidence revealed that the skill was somewhat addressed but lacked
purposeful planning and/or technology integration, the level assigned was developing. If
information was vague or not apparent in findings, the level assigned was not evident.
Levels of integration for all three data points were combined to determine overall rating.
Table 17
Summary: Content Area Overall Integration of Digital Literacy (RQ2)
Social
Studies Science Math
English
language
arts
Career &
Technical
Education
Fine Arts
PE/Health
O
Photovisual
FG
Literacy
DS
Overall
Evident
Evident
Evident
Evident
Evident
Evident
Not Evident
Not Evident
Developing
Not Evident
Developing
Evident
Developing
Developing
Evident
Developing
Evident
Evident
Evident Evident Developing Developing Developing Evident
O
Reproduction
FG
Literacy
DS
Overall
Evident
Evident
Evident
Evident
Evident
Evident
Not Evident
Developing
Developing
Developing
Developing
Evident
Evident
Evident
Evident
Not Evident
Developing
Evident
Evident Evident Developing Developing Evident Developing
O
Branching
FG
Literacy
DS
Overall
Not Evident
Not Evident
Not Evident
Evident
Developing
Developing
Not Evident
Not Evident
Not Evident
Developing
Not Evident
Developing
Not Evident
Developing
Developing
Not Evident
Developing
Developing
Not Evident Developing Not Evident Developing Developing Developing
O
Information
FG
Literacy
DS
Overall
Evident
Evident
Evident
Evident
Developing
Evident
Developing
Developing
Developing
Not Evident
Developing
Developing
Developing
Developing
Evident
Developing
Developing
Evident
Evident Evident Developing Developing Developing Developing
O
Socioemotion
FG al Literacy
DS
Overall
Developing
Evident
Evident
Evident
Evident
Developing
Not Evident
Developing
Not Evident
Not Evident
Not Evident
Not Evident
Not Evident
Not Evident
Developing
Developing
Not Evident
Developing
Evident Evident Developing Not Evident Developing Developing
Real-time O
Thinking FG
Skills DS
Overall
Developing
Developing
Not Evident
Evident
Developing
Developing
Developing
Not Evident
Not Evident
Evident
Not Evident
Not Evident
Developing
Developing
Developing
Developing
Developing
Not Evident
Developing Developing Developing Developing Developing Developing
Note: Levels are Evident, Developing and Not Evident. O = Observation, FG = Focus Group, DS = Document Study.
As depicted in Table 17, all departments were making progress at various levels
in integrating the six digital literacy skills. Overall, there were 11 instances of evident in
the all skills with the exception of branching literacy; 22 instances of developing
distributed through all six skills with the most in real-time thinking skills; and three
instances of not evident between branching and socioemotional literacy. Disaggregated
by department, SS and SC demonstrated more ability to provide learning opportunities
related to photovisual, reproduction, information, and socioemotional literacy with a level
of evident in the four skills. With the exception of the level evident for FA/PE in
photovisual literacy and CTE in reproduction literacy, the four departments of Math,
ELA, CTE, and FA/PE demonstrated the most instances in of developing in photovisual,
reproduction, information literacy, and real-time thinking skills. The levels of not evident
were indicated in branching literacy for SS and math and in socioemotional literacy for
ELA. The summary of findings for RQ2 indicated a need for differentiated professional
development related to department needs based on content area and digital literacy skills.
Departments would benefit from training and collaboration time with peers to share
experiences, knowledge, and construct lessons that incorporate technology with
discipline specific content.
Perceived Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3)
To identify teachers’ perceived challenges in integrating the essential digital
literacy skills (RQ3), phrases from participant responses to designated focus group
interview questions (20-25) were analyzed and coded. The initial examination of
responses involved highlighting, labeling, and classifying phrases into various
“challenge” categories. Preliminary challenge categories included training, life, literacy,
perseverance, transitions, time, technology, beliefs, roles, infrastructure, and awareness.
Responses for these categories revealed that integration challenges were present for
teachers and students in several areas. The next step involved printing matrices and
reviewing and annotating information to collapse data and narrow categories. These
categories were then further refined until five minor themes emerged from the analysis of
participant input from related focus group interview questions.
One of the first challenge categories that emerged from participant comments
(Table 18) was related to student’s ability to struggle through difficult tasks and use
appropriate strategies to solve problems. CTE and ELA participants identified challenges
with students and their desire and ability to persevere through a task. The ELA teacher
stated, “They don’t want to think… they think is a wasting of time,” and both CTE
teachers indicated that the students plan for projects and tasks superficially and, “Just
want to jump into it.” The math teacher also affirmed that, “Students aren’t accustomed
to having to do that level of seeing. They are accustomed to superficially look at what’s
in front of them,” indicating that students give up and lose patience if they don’t
understand immediately. From these comments, the minor theme of critical thinking
emerged as a challenge, encompassing the inability of students to think critically about a
problem, task, or information, and then apply themselves to solve problems or thoroughly
plan and develop ideas.
Table 18
Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3): Responses for “Critical Thinking”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“They [students] don’t take is serious when I still want them to put out their best efforts”
FA/PE
“[Students] just want to jump into it”
CTE “I give them planning sheets [for making a PSA] and look at them like, ‘you just gave
me basic stuff. What exactly are you going to have them wear? Where are you going to
be?’”
“They didn’t obtain this stage…it is vital for them to develop as a complex thinker”
ELA
“They don’t want to think… they think is a wasting of time”
“Students aren’t accustomed to having to do that level of seeing. They are accustomed to
superficially look at what’s in front of them”
Math
“”Lack of patience on their [student’s] part. If they don’t understand it right away then
something’s wrong”
Another concept that emerged from the analysis of comments (Table 19) related
to challenges was the need for effective use of time. Due to the constant evolution of
technology, software, and applications, teachers indicated the lack of time to research,
plan, and reflect on lessons related to digital literacy skills and their content as a
challenge. Science participants indicated that it required great deal of time researching
quality materials without actually meeting their needs and they, “Have a hard time
finding stuff for them [students] to use and interpret. It’s either not accessible to them or
is doesn’t show the concepts that I know exists, that I need.” Social studies and math
teachers implied that it was difficult to determine which digital literacy skills were
pertinent to their content and then align instruction and build assessments within current
allotted planning time. Combined with limited classroom instruction time of
approximately 50 minutes, integration of digital literacy skills competes with the need to
address content. Other participants also stated maintaining current knowledge of
technology required additional professional development time, which should be
accompanied by compensation or count towards reclassification. These participant
comments led to a second minor theme, time, which covers a broad cross spectrum from
purposeful teacher planning and training time to the appropriate use of classroom
instructional minutes.
Table 19
Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3): Responses for “Time”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“Have a hard time finding stuff for them [students] to use and interpret. It’s either not
Science accessible to them or is doesn’t show the concepts that I know exists, that I need”
“Assessment time”
“Skill building [time]. What sources we can call reliable and why”
“Some time to teach [and plan] it right”
Social Studies
“I wish I had more time with the kids”
“For older teachers [not age], we didn’t have the same kind of technology so unless we
have time to learn...”
“I think the 50 minute classes is a huge challenge. It takes time to get to that good deep
place of thinking”
Math
“I feel so compressed to cover content”
CTE “Time to plan, time for the kids to get work done”
A third challenge category that emerged from focus group findings (Table 20)
was the need to develop digital literacy for both teachers and students. Participants in SS,
math, and SC identified a weakness in student’s capacity to conduct quality research that
included research using databases and selecting key phrases for search engines.
Additionally, participants revealed that there is an assumption on both teachers and
students part that students have already acquired this skill; however, students lack,
“Confidence on their part to come forward and ask for help,” and can’t identify next steps
when they don’t find what they are looking for. The math participant also implied that
progress in research is further hindered since students have difficulties, “Being able to
read and interpret… recognizing that you may have to read it once, twice, three times,” to
make meaning and perform. Comments from participants in SC, SS, and ELA further
revealed a need to improve teacher digital literacy to keep abreast of technology
developments and increase their ability to use the tools in instruction. The minor theme
that emerged from these comments was information and technology literacy, defined as
need for increased teacher digital literacy knowledge and pedagogy to positively impact
student’s ability to conduct research using technology and process the information
obtained.
Table 20
Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3): Responses for “Information &
Technology Literacy”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“It’s constantly evolving, like Google Apps for Education are totally new… Things are
changing and I like that we have these 21 [PD] hours of technology and service learning.
That should be mandatory for all teachers, every year”
“Some of their [students] abilities are just poor… there is an assumption on their
Science [students] part that they should know how to do it. I do assume that there are things they
should know how to do”
“Confidence on their [students] part to come forward and ask for help,”
“Information Literacy. I think, just clearly knowing what they’re [students] supposed to
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
look for, but I think it’s bigger than that is what do you do when you don’t find what
find what you’re expecting”
“[Information literacy] not only for them but for teachers…Consistency on whatever the
rules are about using technology that all the teachers are monitoring and foreseeing”
“[Librarians] would be able to conduct a short class, especially for seniors, on how to
use research database”
“I think in many cases nobody’s ever showed them how to do quality research on the
Social Studies internet…many of them don’t know how to do it”
“I want everyone [student] to see what the other groups did to compare and I don’t know
how to do that so that they can all see without commenting on it”
CTE “More pre-teaching, I think on the things they should look out for”
“I have to distinguish, like the definitions are here and give them examples to show them
why it’s relevant for them to learn that. Then include it in each lesson”
ELA
“Maybe we [teachers] have the concepts somehow, but we need to develop more skills
“Being able to read and interpret… recognizing that you may have to read it once, twice,
Math three times”
Another topic derived from the data was the concept of consistent access to
appropriate technology for instruction (Table 21). Science, math, and SS participants
raised the issue of consistent access to computers or labs for students both in school and
at home. Teachers were hesitant to assign homework requiring access to Google Apps or
other Internet resources due to limited access to technology at home. Additionally, they
indicated that access to computer labs in school was limited due to the competition for
reservations and outdated or broken chrome books, computer labs, and computers. The
number of working computers in a lab often did not correlate to class size. As noted by
the math teacher, time also factors in, as teachers need to plan for passing to and from
computer labs, checking in and out, and completing a task within the 50-minute class
periods. The limited access to technology resources in the classroom and low numbers of
computer labs to meet the capacity of the school makes teachers hesitant to plan
curriculum that requires access to this technology. Emerging from this data is the fourth
minor theme, infrastructure and access, referring to equal access to technology and for
teachers and students.
Table 21
Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3): Responses for “Infrastructure &
Access”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“I think not all of them [students] have access, if we’re talking about digital means, but
just in general, as far as access to things”
“One of my wobbles is for the students to say they don’t have any access at home”
“I try to use the lab once a week, but sometimes people need it... I really don’t know if
Science there’s enough computers there [in library computer lab] for that to be realistic”
“I think we should know what the demand is for our computer labs and see if we have
enough computers for our demand”
“What kind of resources would we need to make so whenever you need a computer, you
can have a computer, basically for any class”
“Class size”
“Access to technology”
Social Studies
“Chromebooks last about three year and the keypads are gone”
“”I feel like I could do so much more of this kind of stuff [learning with technology] in
my class if I just had the computer ready to go every single day”
“I’m not going to – my 50 minute classes we’re not walking to that lab”
“It’s not just the physical infrastructure. I’d rather have it be integrated more often that
Math that. More seamlessly. Not a special thing that we go to do, visit”
“The infrastructure’s huge, but is has to be meritable only if it’s backed up by a shift in
pedagogy”
The last classification of challenge statements (Table 22) that surfaced was related
to student behaviors and teacher attitudes. Science participants stated that, “Student’s
behavior is a challenge, especially for freshman and ELL and lower levels, because
technology comes with a price. I am discouraged from taking them in [computer labs]
ever unless I absolutely need to,” and there is a, “Divide between the ability levels of
students.” Learning opportunities within the computer labs presented a challenge to these
teachers due students destroying technology and student’s overall ability to control
themselves academically and behaviorally in this setting. Additionally, the FA/PE and
math teachers mentioned that students were also not adept at multi-tasking with
technology or maintaining focus and suggested that this inability stemmed from maturity
levels and, “Their distracted teenage life.” Social studies participants expanded on the
problem, attributing the deficiency to lack of listening or actually hearing what is being
said, whether from teachers, peers, or various forms of media. On the teacher side, SC,
CTE, and math participants identified personal resistance to technology integration and
lack of brain knowledge for the adolescent mind as barriers. The final minor theme that
emerged from the data related to challenges with integration was behavior and attitude,
specifically students’ aptitude in using technology effectively and ethically and teacher’s
need to understand the teenage brain.
Table 22
Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3): Responses for “Behavior & Attitude”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“I feel inadequate in the digital world and so I know that I want to move them [students]
their, but I need to move myself”
“I feel like I need to spend energy [on digital literacy] but I resist it at the same time…
because I also believe that they should know traditional things too”
“I still try to keep open-minded… I wouldn’t say I’m intensive into the technology on a
Science
continuum. I don’t know where I’m at”
“Student behavior is a challenge especially for freshman and ELL and lower levels,
because technology comes with a price. I am discouraged from taking them in [computer
labs] ever unless I absolutely need to”
“Divide between the ability levels of students”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
Social Studies
“I might…spend a week talk about what does it mean to really listen, because it seems
like a I have a problem with it too sometimes, but some of these kids are absolutely
incapable”
“Accountability for the students who are not using it [computers] properly… we have a
whole computer lab with a bunch of broken computers and keyboards that are missing
keys”
“How do you get teenagers to really take into consideration what you think, and to
internalize it, and actually do it… because they are so impulsive, you know”
CTE
“It’s almost like a teacher needs to also know how to be a therapist, or something, to
understand the psychology of teenagers”
“Maturity is not there completely. Some of them do, but my students, special ed, they
ELA are still in the process”
“I think just their distracted teenage life. That’s a given”
Math
“It has to be a shift in how we think as teachers”
“Be a little more positive so that they [students] are more willing to put out too. If we
start acting like grumps, they’ll behave negatively”
FA / PE
“I have a real difficulty with kids who, I mean talk about multi-tasking. They are doing
other things such as they are looking at their phones… when they should be actually
focusing”
After a complete analysis of participant comments related to perceived challenges
in integrating digital literacy skills, five minor themes (Table 23) with defining
statements emerged: Critical Thinking, Time, Information Literacy, Infrastructure and
Access, and Behavior and Attitude. As part of the inductive process of analyzing data,
these minor themes will be further compared with results from findings of all research
questions to determine major themes from research.
Table 23
Summary of Minor Theme Challenges Identified by Teachers in Digital Literacy
Integration (RQ3)
Minor Challenge
Critical Thinking Students lack the ability to think critically and persevere through tasks
Use designated class time, planning time and professional development time
Time
effectively to address both teacher and student needs
Information and Improve teacher digital literacy knowledge and pedagogy to positively impact
Technology Literacy student’s technology research and information processing skills
Infrastructure and Provide consistent and timely access to technology and other digital resources
Access for teachers and students
Behavior & Attitude
Increase teacher knowledge of teenage brain science and improve students
ability to use technology effectively and efficiently
Identified Supports to Advance Digital Literacy Integration (RQ4)
The final research question in this project study was related to determining
teacher-identified supports necessary to promote integration of the essential digital
literacy skills into pedagogical practices. Participant responses from focus group
interview questions 26-29 were analyzed to answer RQ4. Using the same analysis
sequence as RQ3, preliminary data was grouped into initial categories comprised of
themes such as support, solutions, overcome challenges, content skills, insight/a-ha’s,
activate learning, emotion, shift in teacher thinking, and one-to-one. Additionally, some
of the responses from the challenge codes related to supporting change were integrated
Theme Statement
into RQ4 categories and analyzed. Printed matrices were annotated and codes were
refined until four minor themes emerged related to supports needed for successful digital
literacy integration.
The first concept that developed from data analysis of responses to questions
related to needed supports (Table 24) centered on training for teachers. Specifically, SC
participants suggested that this professional development should be ongoing and
consistent while including, “Straight out lessons on information literacy. How do we
teach it? What are the next steps?” Other participants also suggested the professional
development (PD) sessions incorporate modeling of lessons; teaching and learning
strategies; consumables or other samples; and new content specific applications,
programs, and resources. To build capacity, one SS teacher proposed, “Having working
models where we actually get to see it happening in the classroom, you see the product
that came out of it, you see how it was assessed.” The math teachers requested
knowledge and time on, “How to take the common core content, and rewrite it, revise it,
remap it, so that literacy skills can be developed. Learning how to rework activities in the
common core, and make it a little more consumable for the kids.” FA/PE teachers further
recommended practical application of new lessons and with resources such as flip charts
and posters. Additionally, one CTE participant suggested incorporating brain science to
improve teacher understanding of, “The psychology of teenagers.” The first minor theme
that emerged, PD, refers to the need to support teachers with ongoing digital literacy PD
and resources that can be differentiated and aligned with teacher and student needs.
Table 24
Supports Identified for Digital Literacy Integration (RQ4): Responses for “Professional
Development”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“Straight out lessons on information literacy. How do we teach it? What are the next
steps?”
Science
“I think more training for teachers, there should be dedicated training like what we have
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
with DELL [a site school technology training]”
“Having working models where we actually get to see it happening in the classroom, you
see the product that came out of it, you see how it was assessed”
“Definitely need some type of training and understanding on how to do it so we can
Social Studies teach the kids how to research and apply”
“The training can be effective for me to hear all the stuff but it gets to be too much. I
need the overall picture…it has to become part of our rubrics now as we start to assess
things”
“How to take the common core content, and rewrite it, revise it, remap it, so that literacy
skills can be developed. Learning how to rework activities in the common core, and
make it a little more consumable for the kids.”
“I would like training on math specific like Desmos, and GeoGebra”
Math
“The infrastructure’s huge, but is has to be meritable only if it’s backed up by a shift in
pedagogy”
“For example, total participation techniques. A book like that. Learning how to rework
activities in the common core [standards], and make it a little bit more consumable for
kids”
“The psychology of teenagers.”
“I mean, [more] knowledge I think, because I didn’t even know I have any of these
CTE
words [digital literacy terms from interview]”
“I think maybe a couple of resources”
“Under each category, what are some specific themes? How does this translate for
teachers in the classroom? What do we need to do as teachers?”
“The more we look at it, we actually use it”
FA / PE
“Having some specific examples of what that looks like for teachers. You know what
helps me is like posters [visuals]”
“I have those laminated flip things [charts]. I keep them with me all the time…to make
sure that you are doing [correctly]”
“It was wonderful what I learned [in DELL training] , but don’t know how to put it in
ELA my classroom… I want it from beginning to end”
Connected to professional development sessions was the second support category
of providing meaningful opportunities for teachers to collaborate and plan with adequate
resources and time for reflection. Participants implied that some allocated planning
sessions be connected to the PD sessions with samples and include collaboration with
content area teachers to review, “Some of the things that I’ve created, and having
conversations about what I am doing.” One FA/PE teacher emphasized the concept of
application as, “Reading about and talking about it with you [researcher] makes sense,
but if we are going to just read over it like this, it’s very foreign.” Another participant
requested planning sessions also include facilitated research phases so teachers can
navigate the internet and find specific resources without getting, “Sucked down the rabbit
hole too,” implying the need to use time productively and have some guided instruction
from a coach. It was also apparent through comments that there is a need for planning
time connected to PD sessions integrated throughout the school year to increase
effectiveness. Analysis of participant comments (Table 25) led to the second minor theme
of, planning and preparation time, specifically designed to address the planning,
application and reflection of digital literacy skill lessons that span time.
Table 25
Supports Identified for Digital Literacy Integration (RQ4): Responses for “Planning &
Preparation Time”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“I spend an awful lot of time researching quality stuff … I know what I’d like to pull out
to support his unit and I have the hardest time finding stuff for them [students] to use
and interpret”
Science “Yeah, the content materials can be hard for me. I can spend an awful lot of time
searching without getting what I need”
“I wish it [PD] would be regular so that I would be able to utilize what I have been
learning because that is kind of my dilemma”
“Probably unlikely that there will be a whole separate class, but if people agreed to do it
Social Studies together, the students would have those basic skills and it’s not the burden of one
particular department because they overlapped”
“But in order to add it to a lesson, I have to put it in my head and not just follow the
ELA Springboard [Hawaii ELA curriculum]… be aware of each section, preparation”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“Looking over some of the things that “I’ve created, and having conversations about
what I’m doing. It’s happening in a vacuum”
Math
“I think having someone collaborate, and taking a look at what I’m doing would force
me to, like I say, stay honest with it [planning]. Slow down and take a better look at
stuff”
“For me reading about it and talking about it with you [researcher] makes sense., but if
we’re just going to read over it like this, it’s very foreign”
FA / PE
“Be more conscious as incorporate it in our lessons and do go modeling [for students].
Be real specific and make sure that it gets to the kids and ask them questions”
In line with professional development and planning time, a third category of
planned classroom observation and feedback on lessons and teaching became apparent
from data analysis (Table 26). Once teachers have received training and produced lessons
that integrate digital literacy skills, participants expressed interest in participating in two
different types of observations for constructive feedback. The first type of observation
would be similar to a learning walk where peers observe each other and later collaborate
to discuss strengths and growth areas. Not sure what it looks like in action and unsure
whether it’s possible, the SC, FA/PE, and math teachers expressed interest in observing
others teachers in action and receiving feedback from peer observations, especially in like
content areas. The other type of observation would include reciprocal observations from a
coaching or expert perspective where teachers observe a model lesson and then have a
lesson they created observed by a coach or expert to receive more constructive feedback.
Many participants stated the need for realistic representations of the digital literacy skills
in action. Analysis of participant comment in this category revealed observations and
feedback, as the third minor theme, highlighting the need for routine observations and
constructive feedback from both peers and an instructional coach.
Table 26
Supports Identified for Digital Literacy Integration (RQ4): Responses for “Observations
& Feedback”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“I think I’d like to see it in action. People utilizing different technologies or whatever
they’re doing in their classroom”
Science
“Yes, a second pair of eyes in there would be fabulous”
“Maybe a teacher who’s on their prep [non-teaching period]”
“Working models where we actually get to see it happening in the classroom, you can
see the product that came out of it, you see how it was assessed. For me that works
Social Studies better because I get an idea of okay that’s how they did it and I can do it in my
classroom as well”
“Some kind of collaborative observation or reflection. Like feedback to help build
things”
Math
“If you have someone coming and taking a look at it, then you really slow down. Don’t
run to that next one. Stop and really take a look at what this is”
“Maybe just feedback would help, observation and feedback. I feel like, oh gosh, I’ve
been observed twice a year for the last three year and always helps”
FA / PE
“What does it look like in the classroom for us as teachers if we’re practicing in all of
these areas”
The final concept that emerged from data analysis of participant responses (Table
27) was connected a conducting a comprehensive technology needs assessment and
identifying common schoolwide practices. For the integration of digital literacy skills to
be successful, participants indicated that one level of support included building site
capacity and maintaining and upgrading technology to match teacher and student needs.
Social studies, math, and SC teachers stated they would be more prone to integrating
digital literacy skills, “If I just had the computer ready to go every single day,” or at least
more frequent and consistent access to technology for learning. The other level of support
specified related to monitoring of rules and behaviors for both teachers and students.
Social studies participants indicated that there should be, “Some kind of accountability
for the students who are not using it properly….We have a whole computer lab with a
bunch of broken computers and keyboards that are missing keys.” Science teachers
believe this should extend to teachers so there is, “Consistency of whatever rules are
about using technology that all teachers are monitoring and foreseeing, and that the
students know everybody is monitoring.” The hope is that a system that monitors
computer lab routines and procedures and holds teachers and students accountable would
present a more proactive approach and decrease infrastructure and access issues. The
need for schoolwide focus and routines related to identifying technology needs and
academic and behavior monitoring and support was the final minor theme that emerged
from the data.
Table 27
Supports Identified for Digital Literacy Integration (RQ4): Responses for “Schoolwide
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
Science
“Consistency of whatever rules are about using technology that all teachers are
monitoring and foreseeing, and that the students know everybody’s monitoring.”
“I think we should know what the demand is for our computer labs and see if we have
enough computers to meet our demand”
“What kind of resources would we need to make so whenever you need a computer, you
can have a computer, basically for any class”
Focus & Routines”
“I feel like I can do so much more of this kind of stuff [learning with technology] in my
class if I just had the computer ready to go every single day,”
“Some kind of accountability for the students who are not using it properly….We have a
Social Studies whole computer lab with a bunch of broken computers and keyboards that are missing
keys.”
“Eventually we’ll have another tech person that can come through and switch those
things out, but it’s just got to be a continual thing”
“I’m not going to – my 50 minute classes we’re not walking to that lab”
Math
“It’s not just the physical infrastructure. I’d rather have it be integrated more often that
that. More seamlessly. Not a special thing that we go to do, visit”
In addition to the minor themes above, a few other concepts were presented as
further supports including a separate student technology course, teacher aides or other
assistance in the classroom, and continued support from a technology expert. The
separate course could be an elective where content addressed digital literacy skills as well
as digital citizenship. Several participants also mentioned an additional teacher or aide in
the classroom may help with classroom management when technology is in use. The final
suggestion of a technology support person referred to the need for in-house assistance
related to fixing technology hardware problems and system glitches not related to
pedagogy.
Four minor support themes (Table 28) were revealed from the analysis of
participant comments to advance digital literacy integration: Professional Development,
Planning and Preparation Time, Observations and Feedback, and Schoolwide Focus and
Routines. These minor themes were compared with finding from RQ1, RQ2 and RQ3 to
determine overall final themes (Table 29) from research.
Table 28
Summary of Minor Themes for Supports Identified by Teachers in Digital Literacy
Integration (RQ4)
Minor Support
Theme
Professional
Development
Ongoing digital literacy professional development and resources aligned with
teacher and student needs
Statement
Planning and
Preparation Time
Dedicate time for teacher planning, application and reflection of digital literacy
lessons
Observations and
Ongoing peer and “expert” classroom observations with constructive feedback
Feedback
Schoolwide Focus and Schoolwide focus on digital literacy with monitoring and support of
Routines technology and student action
Conclusion
A review of the qualitative data from the focus group interviews, classroom
observations, and documents provided for study revealed varied levels of knowledge and
integration of digital literacy skills as well as several related themes to support digital
literacy integration and address challenges. A comparison of interviews and documents
indicated that a majority of the participants were endeavoring to design and implement
curriculum that integrating technology at some level. Overall, participants expressed
interest and found value in using technology to enhance teaching and learning, but had
limited knowledge on how to further augment their pedagogy and make explicit links to
content. Initial findings revealed high knowledge levels (RQ1) of the terms digital
literacy and photovisual literacy and a low level of knowledge of the other skills.
Integration levels (RQ2) of the essential digital literacy skills varied with 11 instances of
evident in the all skills except branching literacy; 22 instances of developing in all six
skills; and three instances of not evident between branching and socioemotional literacy.
Initial reading and analysis of focus group responses for RQ3 and RQ4 led to the
development of five minor themes for challenge (Table 23) and four minor themes (Table
28) for supports.
Examination and triangulation of data from each research question uncovered
interlaced common subtopics and key attributes. This included the need for professional
development to address multiple areas of growth for students and teachers as well as the
need to balance the use of time for collaborative planning and reflection. Additional
similarities included the need to define common ground rules and effective policies for
technology use and design and address student’s ability to think critically and persevere
through problems. These concepts were evaluated and further refined to reveal four major
themes (Table 29) associated with successfully integrating digital literacy skills into
pedagogy: critical thinking; integrated professional development; effective use of time;
and infrastructure and schoolwide routines. As portrayed in Table 29, each theme
included multiple components that need to be addressed to create a comprehensive
approach to integrating digital literacy skills and building site capacity to affect a positive
shift in pedagogical practices.
Table 29
Infrastructure & Provide consistent access to technology, resources and support with
an emphasis on implementing and monitoring schoolwide routines
•Updated and Maintained Technology
•Support & Training from Technology Coordinator
Major Themes Explanation and Skills to Address
Critical Thinking
Student’s lack ability to think critically and persevere through tasks
•Critical thinking
•Problem solving
•Perseverance
Integrated Professional
Development
Ongoing professional development is needed to increase teacher’s
knowledge and ability to improve student’s digital literacy skills
•Digital Literacy Skills
•Adolescent Brain Science & Motivation
•Effective and Ethical use of Technology Strategies & Practices
•Technological, Pedagogical, Content Knowledge
•Digital Literacy Resources
•Peer observations & Collaboration
•Instructional Coaching
Effective use of Time
Time needs to used effectively to address both teacher and student
needs
•Integrated with Effective & Timely Professional Development
•Research Content Materials and Pedagogy Strategies
•Planning & Collaboration with peers
•Coach, peer and personal reflection
Schoolwide Routines
Four Major Themes Identified from Research
•Schoolwide procedures and policies
•Common Focus
Schoolwide
•Consistent and Timely Access to Technology
Based on these findings, Section 3 presents a detailed explanation of the proposed
Technology Professional
Development Support Plan (TPDSP). Specific components that will be addressed include
a description of the project with rationale, a literature review, implementation and
evaluation guidelines, and implications for social change.
Section 3: The Project
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to explore teachers’ knowledge and skill in
integrating digital literacy and to identify supports needed and challenges that may be
faced in order to shift pedagogical practices. Based on the findings, a TPDSP was
designed to address both teaching learning and building site capacity for integrating
digital literacy skills into pedagogical practices. Through technology professional
development sessions, teachers will engage in a collaborative learning process to enhance
their skills and knowledge over time. Conducting onsite training will allow all in-service
teachers to participate in the program throughout the year with integrated assistance from
curriculum coaches and mentors as they develop and practice new adapted lessons.
Involving administration throughout the program will aid in ongoing reflection and
evaluation of both teacher practice and administrative support.
Description and Goals
I identified four key items needed to support successful digital literacy skills
integration including professional development, planning and preparation time,
observation feedback, and a schoolwide focus with common routines. Teachers expressed
the need to link these four concepts in a comprehensive approach to affect positive
change. In the focus group interviews, teachers revealed that although they were
beginning to integrate technology and digital literacy skills into curriculum, instruction,
and assessments, they recognized the need for support in further developing their skills
and knowledge. Although teachers may have content knowledge and many had at least a
basic knowledge of technology, the connection between content, technology and
pedagogy was not established. I found that teachers were at various levels of purposeful
planning and integration of digital tools and skills addressing both student-centered and
teacher-centered use. To begin addressing these identified areas of growth, teachers
requested that support include time to collaborate, plan, and reflect on lessons and to
receive feedback from peers and coaches in addition to professional development.
In an integrated design, I am recommending a two-tiered approach to developing
teachers’ digital literacy skills and building the site capacity to maintain a pedagogical
shift. The first tier of the TPDSP is a holistic technology professional development
approach that spans the school year and incorporates new digital literacy knowledge and
instructional coaching while also providing time for teachers to collaborate with content
area peers to develop lesson plans, observe peers in action, and reflect after
implementation. The second tier involves a collaborative process that aids administration
in aligning technology routines and procedures schoolwide to support teachers with
access, monitoring, and continuous improvement with digital literacy skills and
integration. The goals of this comprehensive tiered approach are to (a) increase teacher
knowledge and ability of integrating digital literacy skills into pedagogy and (b) build site
capacity of the school and sustain forward movement.
Rationale
Creating a tiered comprehensive approach to affect change will address the
multiple components of supports and challenges identified by participants in the study. I
found that teachers were in need of purposeful professional development that links
content area standards with technology, digital literacy skills, and resources necessary for
ongoing pedagogical development. In my observations of current teaching practices, I
found pockets of instruction and assessment with student learning tasks purposefully
designed to integrate digital literacy skills. For example, students practiced photovisual
literacy by analyzing photographs using content-specific vocabulary in their photography
course and analyzed messages in propaganda images for social studies. Students also
used a variety of applications in the Google Apps for Educators Suite such as slides,
classroom, and sheets to demonstrate and apply knowledge and develop collaboration
skills. Although I found a breadth of teachers and students applying basic digital literacy
skills, depth of purposeful digital literacy lesson planning was not apparent. In focus
group interviews, teachers further indicated a lack of knowledge and time related to
exploring resources and making connections to content and standards. Developing an
ongoing professional development program with sessions throughout the year affords
teachers the opportunity to learn, plan, practice, and reflect on newly acquired knowledge
and skills.
Including an administrative support component as the second tier of the TDSP
will help align teacher and student needs with administrative focus and designated
support. Teachers identified the need to streamline infrastructure and access, as well as
provide planning time for teachers to continue developing and applying digital literacy
skills. Allocating time during the professional development sessions and other staff
meetings for process reflection and discussion between administration and teachers about
progress related to all components establishes a foundation and allows for collaborative
growth. It is my hope that this tiered approach will affect positive growth in developing
teacher digital literacy skills and knowledge to initiate a pedagogical shift with
administrative support.
Review of the Literature
Introduction
A professional development project is the most relevant choice in supporting
teachers to improve their ability to implement digital literacy skills and content into
current practices. I conducted a literature review associated with topics like adult
learning; professional development; and technological, pedagogical, content knowledge
(TPACK). Using Google Scholar and database resources within the Walden Library, I
researched and reviewed related peer-reviewed scholarly articles. Databases accessed
included Education Research Information Center (ERIC), SAGE Journals Online,
ProQuest Central, LearnTechLib-The Learning and Technology Library, Academic
Search Complete, and Thoreau Multi-Database Search. I used the following key terms in
a variety of combinations to narrow the field produce relevant research: adult learning;
teacher learning; andragogy; teacher professional development; technology professional
development; digital literacy professional development; digital literacy; high school
teachers; in-service teachers; and technological, pedagogical, content knowledge
(TPACK). In addition, I conducted general Internet search for PD related to TPACK and
digital literacy for more information related to designing and implementing the PD plan.
The extensive research was assessed and compiled into the following review.
Professional Development for Teachers
To galvanize an effective paradigm shift, a PD plan must be substantive,
integrating content with learner needs. In new conclusions about teacher learning
(Korthagen, 2017; Postholm, 2012; Yurtseven & Altun, 2017; Yurtseven &
Bademcioglu, 2016), scholars indicated that there is a connection between theory,
practice, and person. Although previous PD has focused on presenting theories and
strategies hoping to impact teacher practice, Korthhagen (2017) suggested the added
dynamics of practice and person. Practice refers to the practical application of and the
reflection on new knowledge gained from training. Person refers to the multidimensional
learning connected to social context and the multilevel learning connected to teachers’
prior knowledge and skills. To encourage authentic learning within the context of
teaching environment, the PD design must address all three pieces.
Entwined with practice and person is the essential component of the process of
reflection. As the application of new strategies is grounded in teacher practice and guided
by personal experience, purposeful reflection should be promoted as part of the PD
design (Korthagen, 2017; Morales, 2016; Yurtseven & Altun, 2017). Using a guided
reflection practice that focuses on rational thought, as well as emotion and motivation,
allows teachers to develop personal theories about new practices and create a meaningful
connection (Korthagen, 2017). In a detailed process, practitioners can find a deeper
awareness about problems and solutions related to their experience and adapt as
necessary. This is the beginning of the paradigm shift as teachers make connections
between new content and pedagogy. An integrated PD model that combines theory with
practice and person can increase competence, collaboration, and the culture for learning
within the school environment (Korthagen, 2017; Postholm, 2012). As catalyst for
change, this approach to PD is critical in the advancement of teacher knowledge, skills,
and practice.
Another key factor in PD design is administrative support in the form of time and
resources. To build an educational community focused on learning and growth, PD
should be job-embedded, sustainable, and intensive (Engelbrecht & Ankiewicz, 2015;
Korthagen, 2017; Stewart & Houchens, 2014). In order to meet these qualifications,
administration must provide time throughout the year for teachers to train, collaborate,
implement, observe, and receive coaching and feedback to reflect on practice. In a
literature study of continuous teacher PD (CTPD) models, Engelbrecht and Ankiewicz
(2015) found that a comprehensive approach addressing these features is the integration
of school knowledge, subject knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge. School knowledge
refers to teachers’ understanding of facilities, expertise of staff, peer and student ethos,
and political interpretations of technology and the community (Engelbrecht &
Ankiewicz, 2015). Combined with discipline-specific knowledge and practice, these
components intersect to constitute teacher development.
Resources in the form of mentoring, coaching, and time for peer observations and
feedback are also noted as a tier of administrative support. Several researchers (Eliahoo,
2017; Postholm, 2012; Stewart & Houchens, 2014) have concluded that structuring PD
opportunities to include collegial inquiry with peer and/or group mentoring and
instructional coaching is more conducive to shifting teacher practice. Guidance with
sound judgment from peers and coaches helps teachers assimilate. Coupled with
observation of experienced practitioners, these practical examples and feedback related to
integrating new teaching and learning practices helped teachers create new constructs.
Technology Professional Development
Many of the fundamentals of effective PD are also aligned with effective
technology PD. Although still emergent, researchers have outlined several key
components for technology PD including collegial inquiry and collaboration (Cloonan,
2015; Jones & Dexter, 2017; Tondeur, Forkosh-Baruch, Prestidge, Albion, &
Edirisinghe, 2016; Yurtseven Avci & O’Dwyer, 2016); teacher input and contribution to
PD topics (Thomeczek & Shelton, 2015; Tondeur et al., 2016; Yurtseven Avci &
O’Dwyer, 2016); structured support to provide time for research, design, implementation,
and reflection (Cloonan, 2015; Jones & Dexter, 2017; Thomecczek & Shelton 2015;
Yurtseven Avci & O’Dwyer, 2016); mentoring or coaching (Leslie & Johnson-Leslie,
2014; Yurtseven Avci & O’Dwyer, 2016); and that PD subject matter address teacher
content, technology, and pedagogy (Horton, Shack, & Mehta, 2017; Yurtseven Avci &
O’Dwyer, 2016; Walker et al., 2012). Supporting practitioners in professional growth
related to technology integration requires attention to planning and aligning design and
content to meet the diverse needs of teacher. Using a model that accounts for the above
characteristics alleviates potential barriers to assimilation and can improve learning and
application affecting positive change.
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Designed to address the integration of content knowledge (CK), pedagogical
knowledge (PK), and technological knowledge (TK), the TPACK model addresses the
convergence of these three components. As the gatekeepers to classroom instruction,
teachers determine how these three components are woven together to create authentic
learning. Researchers (Blau, Peled, & Nusan, 2016; Doering, Koseoglu, Scharber,
Henrickson, & Lanegran, 2014; Koh & Chai, 2014; Koh, Chai, & Lim, 2017; Lehiste,
2015; Matherson, Wilson, & Wright, 2014) suggested that including TPACK in PD is a
way to increase knowledge and actualize effective integration. The model offers a
construct for each component where teachers can deepen their understanding and learn to
integrate technology into instruction as a means of enhancing curriculum rather than just
as a tool.
The TPACK framework has been found to enrich both teacher practice and
confidence. Lehiste (2015) determined that TPACK training over the course of a year
was effective in improving inservice teachers’ perceived knowledge of the components,
specifically TK and TPK. Koh and Chai (2014) and Koh et al. (2016) demonstrated a
perceived increase in TPK knowledge with a small increase in confidence. Blau et al.
(2016) and Doering et al. (2014) recommended long-term sessions with instructional
scaffolding and coaching and administrative support to increase learning and
implementation. Overall, teachers found value in the TPACK PD and demonstrated
increased awareness in the components.
Project Description
The design of the technology development support plan will include 3 full-day
training sessions with one to two staff meetings as needed in between each session and at
the end of the year for reflection and collaboration with administration. During the 3-day
training, teachers will be introduced to concepts of TPACK and the digital literacy
framework. Content for TPACK and six digital literacy skills will be spread out over the
first 2 days of training with reflection, peer sharing, and planning for next steps rounding
out the final full day of training. In the interim between each training day, teachers and
administration will attend at least one, two if necessary, 1-hour reflection meetings where
peers will debrief and reflect on new technology pedagogical practices and discuss
current challenges and necessary supports for continued success with administration.
The first 2 days of PD will follow a similar format of training with integrated
work sessions. Day 1 of training will be broken into segments covering the introduction
of TPACK, and overview of the term digital literacy and the first two digital literacy
skills of the framework, photovisual and reproduction literacy. Each segment includes
learning activities for teachers to internalize information and will be accompanied by a
brainstorm and planning session where they can conduct further research and formulate
planning ideas. Day 2 will review the final four terms of branching literacy, information
literacy, socioemotional literacy, and real-time thinking skills. The second day will end
with an introduction to a peer-sharing and problem-solving activity that will commence
on the final day of training.
The third and final day of training will be a day of review, reflection, and
collaborative planning. Beginning with a review of all components, the session will
continue with a peer-sharing activity that allows teachers to share success and gather
ideas to address challenges related to technology pedagogy. The day will culminate with
a tech slam where teachers can share new technology applications with the large group
and final session of collaboration with administration regarding next steps for the school
to continue building site capacity.
The interim sessions between the full-day trainings and after the final session will
be designated for teacher reflection on current progress, a needs assessment, and
collaboration with administration. The duration of each session will be 45 minutes to an
hour. A second meeting may be held if teacher leaders and administration determine the
need. The goal of these sessions is to highlight progress in pedagogical shifts and to
identify possible challenges and further support. These elements will be determined
through peer sharing, teacher surveys, and collaborative group discussions between
teachers and administration.
Potential Resources and Existing Supports
Several resources and supports are necessary to improve the success of the
training and integration of new digital literacy skills, many of which exist at the site
school. Ongoing school support includes access to computers/labs and the resources
available through the Internet; continued access to Google Apps for Educators (GAFE);
time to conduct further research and plan and reflect on lessons; continued support from
curriculum coordinator and mentor coordinator; and access to other technology such as
SMART Boards, document cameras, and projectors. The opportunity to explore and
purchase additional web-based resources, applications, and software should also be
considered as teachers expand their knowledge and ability to integrate these tools.
One of the most important resources that must also be considered is time. As both
a resource and support, time is a variable that is an often overlooked, but is necessary
component for success on many levels. For teachers, time is a resource needed for
researching new digital resources related to their discipline, as well as time to collaborate
with peers to build lesson plans and to reflect on implementation. Administration needs to
provide time as a support so teachers are able to follow through with their pedagogical
shift.
Potential Barriers and Solutions
Several possible factors may impede progress of this pedagogical shift including
meeting teachers’ differentiated needs; teachers’ attitudes and beliefs related to digital
literacy and technology; and providing adequate time to support teachers in the shift.
Every teacher brings a different technology background story to the field and these
differentiated skills need to be considered and integrated into professional development.
Planning and implementing differentiated PD and further coaching will require additional
resources including time and personnel. In addition to experience, teachers bring a variety
of mindsets, attitudes, and beliefs related to technology and student learning. This can
hinder growth and progress if effort is not made to shift mindsets. The final challenge that
may emerge is designating the time needed for PD, meetings, and coaching with the
school’s other competing priorities.
Proposal for Implementation and Timeline
The timeline for the technology professional development support plan is to begin
implementation at the start of school and pace throughout the year. Each school is
permitted 2-4 waiver days that they pace throughout the year. It is my recommendation
that the three full-day sessions be paced using three waiver days occurring consecutively:
August, October and March. Contingent on administrative support and approval, the short
interim sessions will be scheduled after school as needed between waiver days for
collaborating and coaching. Due to the extended months between second and third
sessions, at least two interim sessions should be planned. After the final full-day training,
one final short meeting should be scheduled in May for an end-of-year reflection.
Roles and Responsibilities
There are several different roles needed to implement the TPDSP including
instructor, coach, participant, and administrator. As the instructor, I will be responsible
for developing and implementing the three full-day workshops and assisting in the
coaching to help teachers expand their digital literacy pedagogical practices. I will also be
assisting administration in developing the interim sessions to help sustain progress. The
role of coaches will be to assist during the PD and interim sessions with teachers who
need and want more individualized assistance in designing and reflecting on lessons.
Administration will have a dual role in participating in the full-day PD sessions as well as
facilitating the teacher reflection and collaboration during the interim sessions. The
individual participants in this plan will be responsible for a variety of roles including
active listening, participation, and collaboration as well as follow through with planning
and preparing required materials for the sessions.
Project Evaluation Plan
The TPDSP will be evaluated using two different approaches, a professional
development survey for the full-day sessions and a Google Form survey after
collaborative discussion at the end of each interim session. The digital literacy skills
professional development evaluation (Appendix A) administered to staff after each
session will provide input from staff regarding content, learning, and areas of strength
and growth. Information from the survey will be provided to administration for further
analysis and used to continue building site capacity. A second evaluation will be
conducted at the end of each interim session to measure teacher progress and
administrative support to continue forward growth.
Implications for Social Change
Local Community
This project was designed to affect positive social change in the development of
digital literacy skills at a local high school. As progress continues in the digital era,
teachers must adapt pedagogical practices to make sure that students are prepared for
their future. Participants identified challenges in transitioning current practices in
curriculum, instruction, and assessment to include digital literacy skills. Creating a
holistic plan that addresses professional development and additional administrative
supports can help aid this transition. Providing time for teachers to improve their
knowledge and skills can in turn lead to improved student learning. Although the targeted
population is centralized at one local high school, other high schools in the district can
potentially benefit from the TPDSP since stakeholders in the community are similar.
Far-Reaching
In the larger context, the design of the TPDSP could possibly transform how
schools approach integrating new digital skills and knowledge into teacher practice.
Obtaining input from teachers at individual sites about their background knowledge and
skills and combing that information with collaborative administration support can help
schools create individualized implementation plans to meet their needs. Students,
teachers, and administrators bring a variety of needs, experience, and skills to the
learning environment. Addressing these needs on-site for in-service teachers in their
professional environment may advance pedagogical practices affecting student learning.
Conclusion
Practitioners in the field are faced with the task of keeping pace with current
educational practices. As in-service teachers, this presents challenges on many levels as
they try to balance their daily responsibilities with assimilating and integrating new
knowledge and skills. Research questions that guided this study were designed to gather
information from in-service teachers associated with these challenges and current
pedagogical practices related to digital literacy skills integration. Findings evinced that
although teachers perceived technology and digital literacy skills as important to student
learning, there was a gap in their knowledge and skill levels and ability to integrate these
skills into pedagogical practices. Furthermore, teachers identified several challenges
faced in integration and suggested several items for support. The resulting technology
professional development support plan is designed to address these identified challenges
and provide supports.
Section 4 focuses on my reflections and overall conclusions from the project
study. Topics discussed will start with project strengths and limitations, project
development and evaluation, leadership and change, personal reflections and end with
implications for the future.
Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions
Introduction
The intent of Section 4 is to provide discourse related to the strengths and
limitations of the project and personal reflections as a scholar. Beginning with a
discussion on the merits and constraints of the PD project, I will continue with an
analysis of myself as a learner and leader. This will follow with the project’s possible
impact for social change and conclude with implications, applications, and directions for
future research.
Project Strengths
Several strengths lie within the overall design and implementation of the TPDSP,
as it was aligned to both the local problem and the findings of the study while addressing
the fundamentals of effective PD. As identified by the local problem and study evidence,
in-service teachers lack some of the foundational knowledge and skills needed to
integrate digital literacy skills into pedagogical practices. The TPDSP provides a
longterm, job-embedded structure where practitioners can engage in technology PD with
underlying supports from administration and peers. This includes attention to collaborate
and reflect with administration to evaluate current progress and determine next steps and
additional supports. The plan also aligns with the components of effective technology PD
as it incorporates time for teachers to explore, plan, collaborate, observe peers, receive
support from coaches, and reflect on practices. The training, materials, and additional
supports within the plan can be implemented immediately and are flexible to be paced
over time as dictated by the need of the site school.
Limitations and Recommendations for Remediation
There were a variety of limitations associated with the study and project related to
participants, possible researcher bias, and constraints related to conducting a case study.
The first limitation regarding study participants was connected to sample size and student
voice. The original construct of the focus group interviews called for three to five
participants in each department. However, when it came time to conduct the sessions,
only one group had four members with most only including one to two teachers. Also,
there was no representation from the world language department. The low number of
participants may be due to the timeline of the study and sessions as they occurred shortly
before a scheduled break in the semester when grades and other state mandates were due.
Many teachers expressed interested in participation, but were unable to due to competing
priorities. In the future, consideration should be given to when the study is conducted
related to competing teacher responsibilities.
Another limitation presented was that of possible researcher bias due to existing
relationships with participants at the site school. As the onsite curriculum coordinator for
the past 7 years, I have built both personal and professional relationships with many of
the teachers on staff. I also believe that digital skill integration is important to address as
educators to improve students’ ability to thrive as they matriculate into colleges and/or
careers. However, by being cognizant of these influences in my role as researcher, I was
able to take the necessary steps to maintain subjectivity. This included incorporating the
use of transparent communication with participants, member checks, a peer debriefer, and
a reflective journal. These protocols and self-checks increased personal awareness and
encouraged continuous reflection.
The final limitation presented was that of the ability to generalize findings from
this qualitative case study to a larger population. Based on the construct of a case study,
generalizing findings is limited due to the boundaries applied in selecting the case
including sample size, location, and time (Creswell, 2012; Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2014).
However, that same construct allows for the investigator to gain a deep understanding of
the phenomena and generalize to settings or people with the same priori conditions
(Merriam, 2009.) Although results may not be applicable to high schools outside the
district, the findings and the TPDSP may be useful for schools within the district from
elementary through college.
Recommendations for Alternative Approaches
Although the TPDSP is one method of addressing the pedagogical shift, there are
alternative approaches. If the school is unable to provide 3 PD days evenly throughout
the school year, sessions may be offered in a different manner. Training may be provided
up front at the beginning of the school year with short staff meetings for follow-up
offered throughout the year. If needed, the PD session could also be offered on a pilot
basis for a group of teachers at designated times throughout the year. Professional credit
for reclassification or a stipend may also be considered an option for these teachers if
possible. Another feasible option would be to divide the content of the PD into short,
1hour sessions and provide training during after school meeting days. Regardless of the
method selected, the school must ensure that the administration collaboration and
reflections session are incorporated into the plan.
Scholarship, Project Development, Leadership, and Change
Scholarship
Learning is a life-long process, at the heart of which is inquiry and curiosity,
where a person is seeking new knowledge and skill. Wisdom is gained through the
metacognitive experience of reflection on this learning with a growth mindset. Through
this journey, assimilation and innovation occur. Learning, wisdom, and innovation
converge to form scholarship. Although the definition of scholarship may be as simple as
high-level learning, the word invokes much more and is personal on many levels.
My path on this scholarly journey has been full of straight and winding roads,
detours, uphill battles, roadblocks, inspiring scenery, and a variety conflicting navigation
signs as I raced to the finish line. Through it all, I have learned that diligence,
perseverance, critical and innovative thinking, and flexibility are key factors to
navigating the road to success. In research, an abundance of information to support any
viewpoint is easy to find. A scholarly practitioner must pull from all these skills at any
given time to evaluate, synthesize, and assimilate the information into a valid and
meaningful construct. They must think critically to narrow the focus and validate and
process research and findings. Additionally, it is wise to have passengers on this journey
for discussing, supporting, processing, ideating, and innovating. Scholars must remember
that they are not alone and to surround themselves with like minds for support.
Project Development
My role at the site school over the past 7 years has evolved from that of an
English teacher to an accreditation and curriculum coordinator. The switch from students
to teachers as my audience during the first years as curriculum coordinator was a struggle
as I endeavored to create PD sessions that connected content with adult learning. Through
a variety a personal learning experience ranging from professional training to peer and
self-reflection, I was able to transform my pedagogy to meet the learning needs of
teachers. There is a need for training over time with an emphasis on time for planning,
collaboration and feedback, reflection, and peer sharing or presentations. During my
tenure, I have designed and implemented both full-day and short training sessions.
Combining this personal knowledge with research and new knowledge from the project
study helped facilitate the PD design for this project. The resulting 3-day PD sessions
with accompanying supports are a result of integrating new knowledge with prior
experience and feedback from administration, the mentor coordinator, and fellow peer
educators.
Leadership and Change
I have learned through experience as a parent and a practitioner that leadership is
about being an inspiration to others. This means that actions, thoughts, behaviors, speech,
and body language correspond the to the model that a person physically and mentally
presents. To actualize any change, a person must demonstrate and exemplify what he or
she wishes to see. This holds true from modeling behaviors like patience, skills like
collaborative dialogue, and pedagogy like teaching and learning strategies. Leadership is
situational.
The strength in any school lies in its diversity. Like a puzzle, all stakeholders
represent a different piece as they bring their diverse personalities and experiences to the
learning institute. An effective leader empowers stakeholders to embrace areas of
strength and grow as they collaborate to affect social change. Leaders facilitate change by
building relationships, promoting collegiality, listening effectively, and encouraging the
diversity that leads to innovation. Considering these characteristics from the perspective
of an instruction leader, I need to continue to model these qualities to facilitate growth
within the organization.
Analysis of Self as Scholar
Entering into this doctoral study process 6 years ago, I had preconceived notions
about the characteristics of a scholar. As an educator and curriculum leader, I believe that
I already embodied some of these qualities and this journey provided the venue to explore
my boundaries and practice and enhance my skills daily. Everyday has been an exercise
in learning, curiosity, challenge, growth, creativity, problem solving, integrity, and
balance. Curriculum, instruction, and assessment are my passion, and I embrace the
challenge of evolving with the trends in education. My goal is to empower teachers to be
agents of change by providing them with the necessary tools, knowledge, and skills they
need to engage their students in learning. To do this, I must continue to reflect on my
practices as a scholar, expanding my own knowledge and skills.
Analysis of Self as Practitioner
As a practitioner, I am actively involved in the learning community as a student, a
teacher, and a leader. In my quest for knowledge, I attend district meetings and optional
PD related to my field to stay abreast of the evolution of state mandates and new
programs. This information is integrated into staff meetings and PD sessions throughout
the school year. In designing and implementing mini PD sessions for the school, I plan
and facilitate meetings, conduct research, generate or create accompanying resources and
training materials, and provide training. This experience as a doctoral study candidate has
increased my ability to function effectively as a school leader and instructional coach as I
integrate knowledge from my research and district trainings into PD meetings. This
includes a new focus on reflection and evaluation of programs and process as I look
toward the future as a curriculum leader.
Analysis of Self as Project Developer
Developing PD training and designing engaging curriculum and instructional
materials is something I have thrived in. I embrace the challenge that lies in the research,
conception, innovation, collaboration, implementation, and continuous improvement. I
will continue to expand my knowledge and raise the standards of personal expectations in
what I can accomplish. In developing the project for this study, I was able to stretch my
skills as I worked to fuse prior experience and knowledge with new fundamentals.
Although I realize that there will be something to learn and explore, I am confident that
with a growth mindset I can continue to progress.
The Project’s Potential Impact on Social Change
As educational facilities across the nation try to keep up with the evolution of
technology, there is an increasing need to successfully integrate technology and digital
literacy skills into curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In-service teachers bring
varying levels of skills and knowledge related to the integration of technology into the
classroom and determining school levels of support to affect positive change is one of the
first steps in the journey. Fostering a technology-safe learning environment that starts by
addressing teachers’ need to intentionally shift pedagogical practices is a foundational
key to initiating change. Providing effective training that meets teachers’ learning needs
can increase confidence, knowledge, and attitude, potentially increasing student
knowledge and skills in preparing for the 21st century workforce. Another potential social
impact is on administration. Creating an integrated approach that addresses
administrative support and building school site capacity can create sustainability and
address the change augmented by technology.
Although this project was originally designed to affect positive social change in
the development of digital literacy skills at a local high school, the results may applicable
to other schools within the district because the stakeholders in the community are similar.
Participants identified challenges in transitioning current practices in curriculum,
instruction, and assessment to include digital literacy skills. Creating a holistic plan that
addresses PD and additional administrative supports can help aid this transition.
Providing time for teachers to improve their knowledge and skills can lead to improved
student learning. The results from the study could stand as a model for other local schools
on the island and throughout the state to meet the needs of teachers, administrators, and
students.
Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research
Implications
The research and process of this project study influenced the local organization.
As the enabling activities in the school’s academic plan called for the integration of
technology into instruction, PD on the Google Apps for Educators was occurring during
the same year as this study. Participants involved in the project study were enthusiastic
and intrigued by the interview questions and the concept of a digital literacy framework.
Several requested more information and wanted feedback on instruction from the
classroom observations. As this was not consistent with the study parameters, we agreed
to broach the subject again after the completion of the project study. Additionally, the
leadership team, principal, and several district personnel have inquired about the results
of the study and are interested in the progress. The discussion generated and overall
willingness to receive further guidance and instruction indicate that practitioners in the
local setting are open to advancement in this field.
Applications
The research conducted and the resulting TPDSP are aligned with the local
problem and needs. The focus of the project was to address teachers’ needs as they shift
pedagogical practice to include digital literacy skills. Based on the analysis of findings
from focus group interviews, classroom observations, and documents provided for the
study, the TPDSP will engage both administration and teachers in the discussion,
collaboration, and innovation needed to embrace change and evolve. Additionally, the
plan is flexible, allowing the pace and structure of the meetings to be adjusted throughout
the year as determined by practitioner reflection. This flexibility may also make the plan
appealing to other schools in the district as well as the local college.
Directions for Future Research
As this qualitative case study was bounded by in-service teachers at a local high
school, there are several implications for future research. The first branch would be to
expand the research to include student voices from the local setting. At the receiving end
of instruction, student input would be invaluable in providing insight as to interest, skill,
motivation, and engagement. Additional data could also be gathered after an interval of
digital skill integration to determine impact on student achievement and to gather further
student input. Another research avenue to explore would be administration perception.
Contribution from the administrative perspective would supplement the study, further
strengthening the design of both PD and support. The convergence of data yielded from
including the voice of both students and administrators would add another dynamic to
any program created to affect change related to digital literacy skills integration.
Conclusion
Educators must choose to address the change within their circle of control.
Change is often met with many emotions including fear, enthusiasm, anxiety, animosity,
ambivalence, anticipation, joy, anger, and elation. Planning with attention to root causes
of these emotions can alleviate or lesson the ability of these feelings to drive decision
making. This is how research enters the equation. Building a plan of action through the
analysis of information assembled from critical research can lead to a cultural shift from
within as the needs of the individuals are recognized, addressed, or met.
From an educator’s perspective, both emotions and intellect must be considered in
the attempt to mobilize a paradigm shift. This includes having a voice in the process.
Engaging practitioners in the circle of inquiry during the transformation can serve to
heighten commitment and willingness to participate. Ultimately, this is what the project
study and resulting technology PD support plan can help achieve. The project was
designed to address teachers’ needs through a collaborative process, engaging them in
scholarly practice to affect change. In due course, as the teachers begin to shift
pedagogical practices leveraging technology, students will become more actively
engaged and benefit both personally and academically.
