A Study of Digital Technology Skills Important for Effective Teaching

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022) reports a widening disparity in the

employment rate of people with verses those without disabilities. At the same time many

researchers point to the wide range of jobs requiring digital tools and new emerging skills for

daily operations (Bergson-Shilcock, 2020; Hecker & Loprest, 2019; Sicilia et al., 2018).

Technology is fast becoming a key instrument in the workplace and, as a result, the demand for

digital technology proficiency is increasing across many industries (Becker et al., 2017).

Ensuring persons with disabilities are equipped with the digital skills needed for employment

across professions is critical to ensure equitable access to employment.

Increased demand for digital skills presents a global challenge for all employers (Shakina

et al., 2021; Shortt et al., 2020), and emerging technologies are transforming the work

environment at an unprecedented pace (Bravo et al., 2021; Lewis, 2020). The globalization of the

digital economy impacts every industry (Bughin et al., 2016; Limma et al., 2022; Manyika et al.,

2016), and numerous employers report a global digital skill gap (Feijao et al., 2021; Jackman et

al., 2021; Shortt et al., 2020). To help fill this gap, in 2022 the Biden Administration passed the

Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act (P.L. 117-

167) to provide the U.S. with the resources needed to stay competitive in the global economy.

One of the main components of the act is the funding allocated to training and education in the

fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) to ensure students are

prepared to enter the workforce with the skills and knowledge necessary to be successful in these

areas. Initiatives like the CHIPS act highlight the importance of preparing individuals entering

the job market with 21st-century job skills.

According to Brookings researchers (Muro et al., 2017), digital skills proficiency is a

prerequisite for success in the 21st century. Specifically, approximately 50% of jobs today

require technology skills (Taylor-Kale & Alden, 2018), with more than 75% estimated to include

technical skills requirements by 2030. These figures are daunting, considering nearly one third of

workers ages 16-64 in the U.S. do not have a proficient digital skills level (Mamedova &

Pawlowski, 2018). For example, the National Skills Coalition (NSC) reported that 38% of

employees with no digital literacy skills are in positions requiring moderate or complex

computer skills, and 43% of employees with limited digital skills hold jobs requiring average or

complex computer skills usage (Bergson-Shilcock, 2020). These reports suggest individuals in

the workforce are unprepared for the skills required for success in the digital age.

Problem Statement

Digital literacy is an increasingly important skill set for gaining and maintaining

employment in the 21st century and, therefore, is central to one’s economic well-being and

overall success (Chalkiadaki, 2018). The ability to use and understand digital technologies is

becoming a critical part of many job descriptions, and the trend is expected to continue. As a

result, an increasing concern exists for individuals who have historically been excluded from

accessing digital technology (Fisher et al., 2021), including individuals with intellectual and

developmental disabilities (I/DD) or individuals with a severe chronic disability – whether

cognitive, physical, or both (Lussier-Desrochers et al., 2017). Thus, already underrepresented in

the job market (Almalky, 2020; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021; Winsor et al., 2021),

individuals with I/DD may face even more employment barriers with the increasing demand for

digital technology skills (Ju et al., 2012; Raja, 2016). Additionally, according to Tyson (2015),

overall, individuals with disabilities are less likely to receive sufficient preparation in digital

technology and, therefore, are disadvantaged in many areas, this inequity is especially true in the

21st century, where digital technology is integral to communication, education, and employment

(Henderson & Tilley, 2018; Swinton & Williams, 2018).

For a population facing high unemployment rates due to various individual,

environmental, and societal barriers (Khayatzadeh-Mahani et al., 2019), emerging learning

deficits created by rapid technological advancements place individuals with I/DD at a significant

economic disadvantage for obtaining employment (Bolstad et al., 2012; Chetty et al., 2017),

often leading to exclusion from the digital economy (Lyons et al., 2019). The consequences of

unemployed people with disabilities extend to the broader society. For example, in 2021, the

U.S. government paid $2.2 billion in unemployment benefits, $1,134 billion in social security,

and $2,418 billion in federal, state, and local welfare to individuals with I/DD and their families

(Social Security Administration, 2022; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). However, many

persons with disabilities, including individuals with I/DD, report wanting a job (U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics, 2022). Gainful employment for people with I/DD can have a significant

economic influence on government spending and I/DD life outcomes.

As a solution to the low workforce participation rate of individuals with I/DD, the U.S.

Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education has provided funding for various

preparation programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID), including the Higher

Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), or Public Law 110-315, which was signed into law in 2008

(Higher Education Opportunity Act, 2008).

The HEOA is the first federal legislation explicitly addressing access to higher education

of students with ID (Grigal et al., 2017). Part of this legislation, as outlined in Title VI Section

760 Part D, is the Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students With Intellectual

Disabilities (TPSID). These inclusive postsecondary education (IPSE) programs allow

individuals with ID to continue their education at a higher education institution. Most

significantly, the law provided funding for the development of Think College and the National

Coordinating Center (NCC), which expanded IPSE programs. Think College conducts program

evaluations and collects information on TPSIDs, including academic, social, employment, and

independent living components (Grigal & Hart, 2010).

The HEOA also provided higher education institutions the opportunity to apply for

Transitional Postsecondary Institutional Development grants, designed to implement, improve,

and expand programs for students with ID on college campuses. Such programs engage students

with ID in academic and skill development in numerous areas of adult life, such as career

development and job experiences that lead to gainful employment. Programs and initiatives

directed towards providing persons with ID with additional skill development and more

postsecondary options significantly impact the populations’ preparation for the demands of the

workforce (Avellone, 2021; Domin et al., 2020).

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a significant increase in the number of jobs requiring

technical skills due to companies continuing to offer remote work options (Hylton et al., 2022;

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2021), which, in turn, has presented

challenges for both employers and individuals in the job market (Piroșcă et al., 2021). One

central challenge is the mismatch between the technology skills employers desire and the

technology skills applicants possess (Lyons et al., 2019). According to a McKinsey survey

of youth (persons between the ages of 15 and 24) and employers in nine countries, 40% of

employers’ main reason for entry-level job vacancies is a lack of skills (Mourshed et al., 2012).

In addition, 60% reported recent college graduates were not adequately prepared for the

workforce. Educational systems need to update students’ learning profiles to align with the

changing nature of the workforce.

Among the many barriers persons with I/DD face with regard to positive employment

outcomes, one of the most cited is employers’ perception that applicants with ID lack the

necessary preparation (Dean et al., 2022; Kulkarni & Lengnick-Hall, 2014). Therefore,

equipping individuals with ID for the 21st-century workplace is essential. To that end, it is

important to first identify the digital technology skills necessary in today’s workforce and then

assess whether current IPSE programs preparing individuals with ID for employment include

such skills in their curriculum. Only after identifying important digital skills in the workforce

and including them into student’s career preparation, educational institutions and programs can

adequately prepare individuals with ID to participate meaningfully in the 21st-century workforce.

Purpose of the Study

Given the growth in attention to and development of workplace technology in the last

decade, information about the digital literacy skills in demand in the post-COVID-19 pandemic

job market is needed. This dissertation evaluated whether IPSE programs are equipping

individuals with ID with the digital technology skills jobs require in today’s workforce.

Specifically, this mixed-method research study explored the digital literacy skills perceived as

important by U.S. employers and the digital technology preparation available for individuals

with ID at IPSE programs. This study’s findings will provide a platform for further research and

discussion about the preparation in digital technology at IPSE of students with ID for

competitiveness in today’s high-tech job market.

Research Questions

The overarching research question for this study was: Are IPSE programs for individuals

with ID preparing students with the digital technology skills employers deem important in the

21st century? In addition, the study was guided by the following research questions:

1. Which digital technology skills of digital literacy do U.S. employers consider important

for entry-level employees at their organization?    

a. How do U.S employers rank the digital technology subskills of digital literacy?

2. What digital technology preparation is available to individuals with ID attending an IPSE

program?

a. Which digital technology skills identified by U.S. employers as important for

entry-level employees are included in the digital technology preparation of

individuals with ID in an IPSE program?

Conceptual Framework

The successful adoption and use of digital technology in the workplace by people with ID

requires a better understanding as part of an effort to ensure they are adequately prepared for the

demands of the 21st-century workplace. Therefore, this study’s core purpose was to evaluate

whether persons with ID are equipped with the basic digital technology skills U.S. employers

require in today’s workforce. To guide the study, the researcher used the Digital Competence

(DigComp 2.0) Conceptual Reference model (Vuorikari et al., 2016).

The Digital Comp 2.0 Conceptual Reference model (Vuorikari et al., 2016) was

developed by the European Commission as part of the DigComp 2.2 Framework for Citizens to

help guide digital skills development across the European Union and is recognized by the United

Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) as a well-established tool. Applied in over 20 countries

(Nascimbeni & Vosloo, 2019), the model is based on digital competence, defined as using digital

technologies to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information (Pérez-Escoda &

Fernández-Villavicencio, 2016; Vuorikari et al., 2016). As such, this framework is intended to

serve as a practical tool for educators to use in teaching in the classroom and employers to use in

developing their workforce.

A consolidated digital competence framework, the conceptual reference portion of the

model serves as a guide to ensure people are prepared to use digital technologies effectively. In

addition, both employers and educators can use the model to assess individuals’ current level of

digital competence and identify the areas in which they need to improve. Therefore, the

DigComp 2.0 Conceptual Framework reference model (Vuorikari et al., 2016) was an

appropriate framework for the current study.

The model provided the researcher with critical research-based components of digital

citizenship, or the skills and knowledge needed to effectively use the internet and digital

technology (Pérez-Escoda & Fernández-Villavicencio, 2016; Vuorikari et al., 2016). The model

was developed to be “user friendly” and provide a comprehensive set of skills and competencies

individuals can use to build their digital competence. As shown in Figure 1, the model consists of

five areas of digital competence: information and data literacy, communication and

collaboration, digital content creation, safety, and problem-solving. The competencies were

harvested from over 20 reports and publications on digital skills and competencies needed for

employment, personal development, and social inclusion (Carretero et al., 2017; Mattar et al.,

2022). The researcher used the reference model to guide the development of the survey

developed for the current study to be distributed to U.S. employers to assess important digital

technology skills for entry-level employees.

Figure 1

The Digital Competence 2.0 Conceptual Reference Model

Operational Definitions

Digital citizenship – Reference to a person who develops the skills and knowledge to effectively

use the internet and other digital technology, especially to participate responsibly in

social and civic activities (ISTE, 2017).

Digital divide - The division between people who have access and use of digital media and those

who do not.

Digital literacy - The ability to use information and communication technologies to find,

evaluate, create, and communicate information; this requires both cognitive and technical

skills.

Digital skills - The ability to find, evaluate, use, share, and create content using digital devices

like computers and smartphones.

D Comp

P Solving

I and

D L

D C

Digital technology - Electronic tools, systems, devices, and resources that generate, store, or

process data.

Higher Education Opportunity Act - enacted on August 14, 2008, the law contains several

provisions to improve access to inclusive postsecondary education for students with

intellectual disabilities. The law includes requirements for financial aid for students with

intellectual disabilities and has established a coordinating center, Think College,

responsible for providing technical assistance, evaluation, and development of standards

and benchmarks for model programs (Higher Education Opportunity Act, 2008).

Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities - “…significantly subaverage general

intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and

manifested during the developmental period, that adversely affects a

child's educational performance” (IDEA, 2004).

Inclusive postsecondary education - referred to as inclusive higher education. These programs

provide access to people with intellectual disabilities to postsecondary education.

Think College - a national initiative dedicated to developing, expanding, and improving research

and practice in inclusive higher education for students with intellectual disability

(ThinkCollege.net).

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The unemployment rate of individuals with a disability (8.2%) is almost three times

higher than that of individuals without a disability (3.3%) for U.S. citizens ages 16 to 64.

Additionally, individuals with a disability are much less likely to be employed across all age

groups and educational attainment groups than individuals without a disability. These disparities

are even more prevalent for individuals with an intellectual disability (ID) (The Organization for

Economic Co-operation and Development, 2019), who have the lowest workforce participation

rate compared to individuals with different disabilities or those with no disabilities (Almalky,

2020; Qian et al., 2018; Winsor et al., 2021). For example, a Disability Status report generated

by Cornell University showed that in 2018, only 28.6% of persons with I/DD aged 21 to 64 (non-

institutionalized) were employed in the U.S. (Erickson et al., 2020); that is, 5.8 million persons

with ID or a developmental disability of working age (non-institutionalized) were not employed.

These grim unemployment figures have led to many studies investigating the

employability preparation for students with ID in K-12 education. Previous research has found

various interventions effective in teaching students employability skills. For example, in a single-

case meta-analysis, Boles et al. (2019) analyzed 39 studies assessing employment-related

interventions that specifically targeted students with I/ID. Four types of interventions were found

to have a moderate to strong effect in teaching employment skills, such as repetition, assembly,

cleaning, social skills, and transition between tasks/steps, to students with developmental

disabilities. However, none of the transition skills were technical – skills needed to use certain

tools and technologies required to perform practical tasks. Similarly, Kim et al. (2022) conducted

a literature review on technology-based employment interventions for students with autism.

While 33 out of 48 studies used technology devices to teach students vocational skills, none were

used to develop students’ digital technology skills.

As noted, digital literacy is an increasingly important skill set for individuals to gain

employment in the 21st century (Damoah et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2022; Van Laar et al., 2020).

Additionally, digital literacy has become a critical part of learning how to function independently

for individuals with disabilities (Cihak et al., 2015). Mastery of technology and digital practices

has, therefore, become paramount for participation in society. As a result, both education leaders

and policymakers have called for digital technology education in classrooms to promote digital

literacy (International Society of Technology in Education [ISTE], 2019). However, most

research exploring preparation in digital literacy in K-21 education in the U.S. is broad or

outdated, pointing to the need to assess digital literacy in K-21 education to provide insight into

the digital literacy skills and competencies of high school graduates, including those with

disabilities, as they transition into the workforce.

In this chapter, the researcher reviews and critiques the research and scholarship on

digital literacy preparation in K-21 U.S. education (both general and special education).

Specifically, the review provides insight into how and which digital literacies are taught, the

curricula used, and the impact on students’ acquisition of critical 21st-century digital technology

skills. To date little analytic attention has been directed toward students with ID in terms of

accessing digital literacy education, acquiring digital technology skills, and the effects on their

postsecondary life outcomes. The researcher addressed this issue by demonstrating the

significance of research focusing on the digital technology competencies essential for the 21st-

century workforce to inform stakeholders of the importance of providing individuals with ID

access to digital technology education during postsecondary education.

Barriers to Employment for Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities

Employers perceive more barriers to hiring persons with ID than any other disability

category (Kocman et al., 2018; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2001). Consequently, ID are the largest

underrepresented disability population in the workforce (American Association on Intellectual

and Developmental Disabilities [AAIDD], 2017; Khayatzadeh-Mahani et al., 2020). Over the

last two decades, researchers have closely examined barriers and strategies impacting ID

participation in the workforce and have identified individual, environmental, and societal factors

as influencing employment for ID (Chan et al., 2018; Cheng et al., 2018; Ellenkamp et al., 2016;

Khayatzadeh-Mahani et al., 2019; Lindsay et al., 2018). Among these, individual factors such as

education and preparation are most frequently discussed throughout the disability and

employment literature (Houtenville & Kalargyrou, 2012; Khayatzadeh-Mahani et al., 2020;

Lindsay, 2011). For example, the National Council for Disability (NCD; 2020) reported a

disparity between vocational training and employment-related services available to students with

and without disabilities. Specifically, students without disabilities were more likely to receive

work-based learning opportunities such as job shadowing, internships, part-time jobs, and

volunteer work. This is a critical variable as work-based learning prepares students to enter the

workforce successfully (Burgstahler, 2001; Lindstrom & Poppen, 2020; McFarlane & Guillermo,

2020), so if students with disabilities are less likely to have these opportunities, they are

automatically less competitive than their nondisabled peers in the job market.

Similarly, in a secondary analysis of the 2015 Kessler Foundation National Employment

and Disability Survey, Sundar et al. (2018) found many students with disabilities felt as if they

were not receiving the educational support, they needed to ensure academic success and

employment. According to Sundar and researchers (2018), access to an appropriate education is

one of the most significant barriers to employment faced by people with ID. As a result,

education and training during the transition from high school to adulthood for people with ID is

an area of focus for improving employment outcomes (Westbrook et al., 2015).

Inclusive Postsecondary Education and Employment for Individuals With Intellectual and

Developmental Disabilities

The benefits of individuals with intellectual disabilities obtaining postsecondary

education is widely recognized in the HEOA of 2008. Throughout the literature, postsecondary

education is identified as a pathway to employment (Grigal & Paypay, 2018; Henderickson et al.,

2017; Moore & Schelling, 2015; Prohn et al., 2018). According to Vilorio (2016), higher

education levels for individuals with disabilities correlate with lower unemployment rates and

higher earnings. Indeed, the influence of higher education on the employment outcomes for

people with ID is immense (Grigal et al., 2018). For example, data from Transition and

Postsecondary Programs for Students With Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) Cohort 3, which

included data of 494 students with I/ID enrolled throughout 38 TPSIDs, showed 179 students

who had paid employment or paid work-based learning while enrolled had earnings at or above

the minimum wage (Grigal et al., 2023). Additionally, 50% of these 179 students never held a

paid job prior to enrollment. Moreover, Smith et al. (2018), found young adults with ID who

participated in postsecondary education services as part of their Vocational Rehabilitation Plan

earned up to 51% higher wages than peers who were not enrolled in postsecondary education. In

summary, comparisons of employment outcomes between students who attend postsecondary

education and those who do not are widely documented and show positive outcomes (Grigal &

Dwyre, 2010; Moore & Schelling, 2015; Smith et al., 2012).

Inclusive postsecondary education programs offer coursework to enhance the

employability skills of individuals with ID (Grigal et al., 2019b, 2021a) by integrating work

experiences and career exploration and preparation opportunities (Papay et al., 2017; Smith et

al., 2018). Although IPSE programs are not “employment programs,” their employment-related

services encompass substantial coursework and activities that demonstrate promising

employment outcomes (Grigal et al., 2018). According to several recent Think College reports

(Grigal et al., 2018, 2019a, 2021b), engaging in work-based learning (internships, work training,

unpaid work experience, and service-learning), job seeking, and paid employment (individual

paid job, federal work-study, self-employment) positively impact employment outcome for

students in their TPSID demonstration model projects. For example, researchers surveyed Cohort

2 TPSID graduates and found that one-year post-graduation, 59% of respondents had a paid job

compared to 17% of adults with developmental disabilities in the general population that year

(Grigal et al., 2021b). Briefly, individuals with ID are almost 15 times more likely to obtain a

paid job after graduating from a TPSID than those who do not attend (Grigal et al., 2019a).

Impact of the Digital Divide on Individuals With Disabilities

The term “digital divide” is used to describe the gap between individuals who have

access to technology and those who do not (National Telecommunications and Information

Administration (NTIA; 1999). This divide can have a particularly profound impact on

individuals with disabilities, as access to technology can be a critical factor in their ability to

participate in society (Van Dijk, 2020). Individuals with disabilities often cannot access the

range of opportunities and services available to those without disabilities due to the digital divide

(Chadwick et al., 2013; Glencross et al., 2021; Raja, 2016). According to a Pew Research Center

report, Americans with disabilities are less likely than those without a disability to own digital

devices such as computers and smartphones and are three times as likely as those without a

disability to say they never go online (15% vs. 5%) (Perrin & Atske, 2021). This can

significantly impact their lives, limiting their ability to access education, health services,

employment, and other vital resources (Tyson, 2015; Van Dijk, 2017).

Physical access is only one layer of the digital divide. Individuals’ ability to engage with

technology also significantly impacts their use of technology and access to the internet (Van

Deursen & Van Dijk, 2019). Thus, even with they have access to technology, many people with

disabilities face difficulties using online infrastructure because hardware, software, and online

content is typically created for consumers without a disability (Bi et al., 2021; Dobransky &

Hargittai, 2006, 2016). Several international studies suggest information and communication

technology (ICT) success depends on ICT use (Hossain & Sormunen, 2019; Makinde et al.,

2019; Salemink et al., 2017). Consequently, differences in skills and usage of the internet and

other technologies have become a focal point for researchers (Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2011;

Van Dijk, 2005). For example, Ramsten et al. (2020) found that young adults with ID do not use

ICT as much as their peers. Similarly, in a survey of 180 I/DD on their technology use, Tanis et

al. (2012) found although they had progressed in technology acquisition and use, technology

remained underutilized by the group. Factors contributing to the underutilization of technology

devices for I/DD included lack of information about devices and inadequate training in using

devices.

With digital literacy competence, people can find, evaluate, and share information, and

understand, interpret, and create digital messages and media (Ferrari et al., 2012; Martin, 2008;

Vanek & Movit, n.d.). Obtaining these skills significantly helps I/DD access the same

opportunities as their nondisabled peers (Barlott et al., 2020; Khanlou et al., 2021; Moisey & van

de Keere, 2007; Tohara 2021). Therefore, digital literacy for I/DD fosters the use of technology,

which, in turn, affords the opportunity to acquire technical skills needed for entry into and

success in the workforce (Moisey & van de Keere, 2007).

Digital Literacy in the 21st Century

Digital literacy is a fundamental competency for future education (Organization for

Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2018). “Digital literacy” is a broad term that

can encompass many different skills. Primarily, digital literacy is the ability to use computer

hardware and software, access and interpret digital media, and create and manage digital content

(Law et al., 2018).

A systematic literature review on digital skills of the 21st century conducted by Van Laar

and colleagues (2017) identified seven core digital workforce skills throughout various fields of

study, including technical, information management, communication, collaboration, creativity,

critical thinking, and problem-solving. Not surprisingly, in digital literacy research conducted in

the last two decades, technical and information skills were the most frequently investigated

(Siddiq et al., 2016; Van Laar et al., 2020). In addition, Voogt and Roblin (2012) found that

collaboration, communication, digital literacy, citizenship, problem-solving, critical thinking,

creativity, and productivity were essential 21st-century competencies internationally and, as a

result, recommended that these competencies be integrated into the national curriculum to better

prepare society for today’s workforce. These findings highlight the attention needed to the digital

skills required to participate actively and effectively in today’s technology-driven society (Vanek

& Movit, n.d.). Sadly, these are skills in which I/DD are typically not prepared or proficient

(Baxter & Reeves, 2022; van Holstein et al., 2021).

Literature Search Criteria

A systematic review of the literature published between 2002-2021 was conducted by

analyzing peer-reviewed literature, books, and organizational reports focused on digital skills

preparation in school-aged K-21 general and special education. The search was achieved through

the University of Central Florida’s online library databases. The electronic databases and

repositories include Education Source, ERIC (Ebscohost), LearnTechLib, ProQuest, and

Springer Link. The following search terms were used “digital technology;” “digital literacy” OR

“digital skills;” “digital information and data literacy” OR “digital communication” OR “digital

collaboration” OR “digital content creation,” OR “digital safety” OR “digital problem-solving;”

“training” OR “preparation;” “employment” OR “job skills” OR “job training;” and “elementary

school” OR “middle school” OR “secondary school” “ high school” or “K-12 education.” All

terms were validated in the ERIC (Ebscohost) thesaurus and are key terms used throughout

digital technology and education literature.

In all database searches, limitations were set to English, peer-reviewed, and published in

2002 or later. The starting point was selected based on the emphasis during the time on education

reform that targeted science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in the United

States (Chesky & Wolfmeyer, 2015), leading to a focus on computer literacy skills (Christensen,

2019). Also, international studies were excluded as the study was focused on digital literacy in

the U.S. Additionally, studies including students with ID in inclusive postsecondary education

were included. In the U.S, students qualify for special education services until the age of 22 in

most states, which offers students with disabilities access to K-12 education past the traditional

age (Pub.L. 101-476). As a result, some students attend inclusive postsecondary education while

still in high school. Data extracted from the articles included digital literacy frameworks or

models, interventions, curricula, practices or strategies, and skills or competencies.

Using the search parameters, the five databases returned 79 articles. After removing all

duplicates, the researcher examined the titles and abstracts of the remaining articles for

relevance. Many otherwise relevant studies were removed because they were conducted outside

the U.S. Several other studies were removed due to their focus on K-12 educators’ digital

literacy competence or perceptions as well as a lack of empirical evidence. This process resulted

in 10 studies meeting the criteria. One additional article was found through a reference list search

of a study that met the criteria. A summary analysis of the 11 articles that met study requirements

is presented in alphabetical order of authorship in Table 1.

Table 1

Summary of Literature Review

Reference

Population/sample

Measures

Outcome

Cihak et al.

(2015a)

Three high school

students with an

intellectual disability

Digital literacy

skills: emailing,

bookmarking, cloud

storage, and

document upload

All participants acquired

and maintained the digital

literacy skills taught.

Cihak et al.

(2015b)

4 individuals with an

intellectual disability

(postsecondary

education)

Emailing across

digital devices

All participants

successfully generalized

the ability to use email

across multiple platforms.

Curran and

Ribble (2017)

K-12 and college

students

P-20 model

The REP model is a viable

framework for teaching

digital citizenship in P-20

education.

Dogan and Robin

(2008)

31 K-12 educators

Teachers’ use of

digital storytelling

in the classroom

After professional

development in digital

storytelling, more than half

of the teachers did not

implement the tool,

although digital

storytelling increased

students’ technical,

presentation, research,

organizational, and writing

skills.

Gleason and Von

Gillern (2018)

Three participants in

high school

Teens’ Twitter

participatory

practices

The social media digital

citizenship framework

gives students

opportunities to develop

digital citizenship and

digital media software and

application skills.

Reference

Population/sample

Measures

Outcome

Gretter and

Yadav (2016)

Middle/high school

The Computational

thinking

Media and

informational

literacy model

The complementary

relationship between the

CSP framework and the

UNESCO framework can

guide teachers in providing

students with

comprehensive skills to

produce and navigate

digital content (p. 6).

Hutchinson and

Evmenova (2022)

Students with high-

incidence disabilities

CSIP+ model

This instructional strategy

for incorporating

computational thinking and

coding into subject-matter

education offers educators

a starting point when

thinking about the

connections between

subject-matter instruction,

programming, and coding

for students of all skill

levels.

Lauricella et al.

(2020)

K-5 teachers

N = 585

Digital citizenship

curriculum and

competencies

Teachers of students in

elementary schools educate

students about digital

citizenship. There are

differences in concepts

being taught depending on

the school setting, racial

demographics, and student

grade (p. 5).

Lee et al. (2021)

Two kindergarten

and second-grade

teachers and their

students

I-LEARN model

impact

Each teacher developed

their own approaches to the

I-LEARN curriculum.

Students’ outcomes were

influences by various

school and teacher

characteristics.

Reference

Population/sample

Measures

Outcome

Reynolds (2016)

679 students from 38

schools

Constructivist

digital literacy

skills

The proposed framework

impacted students’ social

constructivist digital

literacy skill use and

acquisition at school.

A relationship between

changes in students’ digital

practices at home and

change in other dimensions

was not present (p. 25).

Warschauer

(2007)

10 K-12 schools in

California and Maine

Information literacy

and research skills

Access to one-on-one

laptops significantly

impacted educators’

approach to teaching

digital literacy skills.

Students acquired

information literacy and

research skills. Educators’

approach to teaching

digital literacy impacted

students’ learning

experience and skill

acquisition.

Digital Literacy Curriculum, Interventions, and Frameworks

According to Curran and Ribble (2017), children should begin learning digital technology

skills and practices as soon as they start using technology. This is particularly important for

individuals with ID, often they require more time to acquire and reach mastery of a skillset

(Algahtani, 2017).

Curriculum and Interventions

A study by Lee et al. (2016) investigated the I-LEARN model with kindergarten and

second-grade students and teachers in Philadelphia. The I-LEARN model is an integrated

framework informed by the digital divide and the results of information and digital literacies

research. The model comprises six stages: Identity, Locate, Evaluate, Apply, Reflect, and Know.

The last three stages directly address learning and how information is used to create and present

new knowledge, which differs from previous models such as Eisenberg and Berkowitz’s (1900)

“Big Six” and Kuhlthau et al.’s (2008) “guided inquiry.”

Three teachers participated in the study. However, only two teacher’s students’ data were

available for data analysis – one kindergarten teacher with 23 students and a second-grade

teacher with 25 students. Researchers conducted three professional development sessions for

teachers and provided extensive support during implementation. Students were required to

develop a “Little Bird Tales,” which required them to select images and pictures and record a

narration of their individual “tales.” In addition, they had the option of creating and recording

visual and audio representations of their stories. A mixed-methods methodology was used to

collect teacher data by incorporating the Technological, Pedagogical, and Conceptual

Knowledge (TPACK) survey (Koehler et al., 2011), teacher interviews, and students’ artifacts.

The study’s results supported the I-LEARN model’s effectiveness in teaching students’

information and digital literacies. However, researchers noted that technology access, classroom

integration, and meaningful use (Hohlfed et al., 2008) are required for proficiency in information

and digital literacies. Additionally, the study revealed that to successfully implement digital

literacy education in schools, a differentiated and individualized approach to professional

development in digital literacy is needed. Consequently, the study made it clear that the student-

based method of the I-LEARN model poses some implementation challenges. Specifically,

motivating and training teachers using standard teaching and learning philosophies was a barrier.

The differences between the educator’s teaching style/approach and digital competence resulted

in different learning experiences and outcomes for their students. Nonetheless, the project

showed promise by emphasizing 21st-century digital and information literacy skills within the

framework of the I-LEARN model.

Another model designed to develop early learners’ digital skills is the REP model

(Ribble, 2015), which assists educators in developing and implementing a digital citizenship

curriculum in P-20 settings or preschool through postsecondary education learning

environments. The model used the principle of Respect, Educate, and Protect to create a

responsible digital citizen. Curran and Ribble (2017) provided examples of how elementary,

middle, high schools, and college educators have adopted the curriculum to instruct and guide

students in properly using and valuing digital technology, digital social participation, and justice-

oriented digital citizenship. The curriculum covers various digital citizenship elements that fit

within the three themes of the model throughout students’ educational career. For example, K-2

grades learn digital etiquette within the Respect curriculum, digital literacy within the Educate

curriculum, and digital rights and responsibilities within the Protect curriculum. On the other

hand, the 6-8 grade band learn digital law within the Respect curriculum, digital commerce

within the Educate curriculum, and digital health and welfare within the Protect curriculum. In

addition, the model considers the developmental appropriateness of the digital citizenship skills

acquired within the model as the student progresses through P-20.

Educational Frameworks

Educational frameworks provide educators with models for achieving learning outcomes

(Travers et al., 2019). Reynolds (2016) examined the results of using a conceptual instructional

design framework in developing various constructivist digital literacy skills among students.

Using a longitudinal non-experimental survey design, Reynolds (2016) defined six creative task-

driven domains (create, manage, publish, socialize, research, and surf/play) to form essential

aspects of digital literacy. With 679 students from 38 middle and high schools in West Virginia,

researchers demonstrated through a pre-/post-survey that implementing the game design software

intervention Globaloria effectively increased students’ engagement in activities within each of

the frameworks’ practice domains. Researchers defined “social constructivist digital literacy” as

six practice domains extracted from the social constructivism and constructionist literature. The

Globaloria software incorporates 20 task-driven activities to engage students in developing

digital artifacts. Students use various resources to demonstrate multiple practices such as

“graphic design, information resource uses, social media communication, posting/publishing,

and reviewing and deconstructing existing games and other worked examples” (Reynolds, 2016,

p. 743). Study results showed that using the conceptual framework along with the game design

intervention successfully motivated students’ engagement and fostered social constructivist

digital literacy.

In another article examining digital literacy frameworks, Gretter and Yadav (2016)

proposed an integrated framework for developing 21st-century digital skills among students. The

researchers integrated the frameworks of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO) (Wilson et al., 2013) and the Advanced Placement Computer Science

Principles curriculum framework (CSP) (College Board, 2014) to outline the commonalities

between the two models. The researchers asserted that the two frameworks complement each

other and, therefore, suggested that they could be used to increase students’ digital competencies

and digital participation. By taking essential components from both frameworks, the researchers

came up with seven Big Ideas (creativity, abstract, data and information, algorithms,

programming, the internet, and global impact) to guide their investigations in promoting

computational thinking and media and information literacy to students and teachers.

In addition, Gretter and Yadav (2016) proposed using the programming software Scratch

to introduce computational thinking and media and information literacy skills to students.

According to the researchers, Scratch is an excellent tool for first-time programmers because it

promotes digital fluency while allowing students to create digital artifacts like simulations,

music, videos, games, and interactive art. Additionally, the software facilitates the technical and

social, and communicative aspects of computing, thereby creating space for educators to

incorporate the seven big ideas into programming activities. Thus, in addition to exposure to the

competencies expressed in the “big idea” from the merging of the two frameworks, students also

foster various digital skills through Scratch, such as coding/programming, media literacy, digital

communication and collaboration, digital creativity, digital content and information evaluation,

and other digital literacy skills.

Digital Literacy Skills and Competencies

Digital Citizenship

Digital citizenship is a critical component of the International Society of Technology in

Education (ISTE) standards (ISTE, 2017). The ISTE Digital Citizenship standards promote

engagement with technology in a positive, safe, legal, and ethical manner. Teaching digital

literacy through a digital citizenship curriculum was found to be a major theme in this literature

review. For example, in a qualitative study of K-5 teachers, Lauricella et al. (2020) examined the

teaching of digital citizenship during early elementary grades. Using an online survey

administered to a national sample of 585 teachers in the United States, the authors found that

teachers educated elementary-grade children on various concepts of digital literacy, thus

demonstrating that elementary educators are starting to educate their students on digital

citizenship, including how to use the internet and function in the digital environment. However,

the skills and competencies related to digital citizenship taught at the elementary level depended

on students’ age group, the school’s racial composition, and the school setting, and as a result,

not all dimensions of digital citizenship were taught.

The digital citizenship elements examined by Lauricella et al. (2020) included media

balance and well-being, safety and privacy, digital footprint and identity, communication and

relationship, cyberbullying, digital drama and hate speech, media literacy, and news. Among the

sample, most participating teachers preferred teaching digital competencies related to developing

positive features and behavior in their students, such as safety, privacy, cyberbullying, and hate

speech, which are all related to upholding behavior and characteristics of respect, kindness, and

consideration for other people online and offline. Moreover, Lauricella et al. (2020) determined

that veteran educators had a more negative attitude toward digital learning competencies, while

newer educators were more open toward digital literacy education. Therefore, Lauricella and

colleagues’ (2020) findings suggest digital literacy competencies taught in U.S. elementary

schools are still dependent on the school settings, the experience of the teachers, and other

factors such as ethnicity.

Gleason and Von Gillern (2018) proposed a social media-facilitated approach to teaching

high school students’ digital citizenship. The researchers discussed three learning experiences

found helpful in fostering digital citizenship via social media. The first experience was a digital

research project. One project component involved students creating a public service

announcement informing others of something they are passionate about (e.g., women’s rights,

food waste). Next, the students and teacher determine which social media outlet is best suited to

disseminate their announcement to connect with their targeted audience. These choices allow

students to consider various elements such as digital content creation, digital identity, privacy,

copyrights, and publication. The second component of the project involved students connecting

with elected officials through their websites to advocate for or against a position or legislation.

This activity allows students to “investigate issues, prepare arguments, and connect with an

elected official” (Gleason & Von Gillern, 2018, p. 203).

Gleason and Von Gillern (2018) discussed the third activity by sharing the findings of a

study they had conducted investigating the participatory practices of adolescents using Twitter.

The two-year qualitative study examined the effectiveness of a social media-facilitated approach

in helping students develop digital communication, digital content creation, and digital research

skills and citizenship practices rooted in social justice. Three high schools participated.

Participating students committed to engaging on Twitter to contribute information about

becoming digital citizens. Students posted and shared information and commented on others’

posts on several topics, such as the 2012 U.S. presidential elections, school funding, Relay for

Life, and intersectional feminists. The study found the social media-enabled digital citizenship

approach advantageous in providing students the opportunity to foster and apply digital

citizenship skills in the real world, making social media an effective way for students to spread

their ideas as digital citizens through civic participation.

Information Literacy

Warschauer (2007) conducted a study on students’ digital access and technology skills. In

this multisite case study, the researcher analyzed interviews, surveys, and teachers’ and students’

artifacts to assess students’ information literacy and research skills from 10 K-12 schools in

California (n = 7) and Maine (n = 3) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Students in Grades 2-

12 were represented in the sample. In addition, through a piloted one-on-one laptop program,

Warschauer (2007) specifically investigated patterns of information use and research in laptop

classrooms and the differing approaches according to the social context of the school.

Warschauer (2007) found that students learned to access, manage, and incorporate

information into their written and multimedia artifacts. However, how students evaluated

information, understood the social context of the information, and analyzed it for knowledge

production varied across schools. According to the researcher, schools’ success at fostering

information literacy and research skills in students was contingent on their approach to teaching

digital literacy. The study concluded that one-on-one laptops are valuable in promoting students’

information literacy and research skills. However, schools’ socioeconomic context, visions, and

values all play a significant role in determining how laptop programs are implemented, which, in

turn, impacts the outcome. Some schools in the sample limited themselves to teaching the

procedural functions of computer and Internet use, while others promoted scholarly approaches

such as data collection and analysis. For example, some educators discussed the value of students

accessing information on the Internet when needed, while others incorporated research projects

and weekly activities requiring students to use various skills to navigate the internet.

Warschauer’s (2007) study highlighted how school characteristics impact students’ access to

digital technology and how students are taught digital literacy and what skills they are taught.

Digital storytelling has been used to meet the ISTE Technology Standards (Dogan &

Robin, 2008). According to Dogan and Robin (2008), educational technology can foster 21st-

century skills, such as information literacy, creativity, decision-making, and communication.

Using survey methodology, the researchers assessed K-12 educators on integrating the digital

storytelling tool in the classroom, the use of the tool, and the barriers that prevented teachers

from using it after attending a digital storytelling workshop. The researchers also recruited a

focus group of educators to conduct interviews for more in-depth information about specific

topics. Thirty-one participants were selected through opportunity sampling. Dogan and Robin

(2008) concluded that educators’ perceptions of using digital stories were positive after the

workshop. However, only half of the teachers implemented the tool, and out of those many did

not use it as much as the authors had predicted. Time issues and access to technology were the

most significant barriers reported by teachers to implementing the tool. Regarding students’

outcomes, teachers reported an increase in students’ technical, presentation, research,

organization, and writing skills, as well as an increase in motivation and engagement levels. In

sum, Dogan and Robin’s (2008) results suggest digital storytelling is a viable approach to

teaching K-12 students digital literacy skills. However, successful implementation of educational

technology tools depends on various factors, such as access to technology, proper training, buy-

in from educators and administrators, and ongoing technical support.

Digital Literacy Pedagogy

Several studies referenced in Table 1 demonstrate digital literacies are being taught in K-

12 education in the U.S. through student-centered learning approaches. Student-centered learning

aims to build student motivation, engagement, and confidence, which is beneficial when learning

new competencies (Morel, 2021; Walt & Barker, 2020; Weidman & Wright, 2019). In all

empirical studies, students acquired digital literacies through experiences that encouraged them

to be independent and self-motivated learners. For example, the two coding software tools,

Globaloria and Scratch, discussed by Reynolds (2016) and Gretter and Yadav (2016), allowed

students to take ownership of their learning and actively participate in the process by designing

and evaluating digital games.

Additionally, multiple studies encouraged students to learn by doing. Most studies

required students to create digital content or artifacts thereby engaging them in discovery-based

learning. Through discovery-based learning, students better understand the content and become

more engaged in the learning process (Reynolds, 2016). Researchers specifically assessing

students’ digital skill acquisition analyzed data from student-developed products. For example,

student participants in the I-LEARN study and the DISTCO contest created digital stories

(Dogan & Robin, 2008; Lee et al., 2021), students with ID created emails using various digital

communication and information and data literacy skills (Cihak et al., 2015a; 2015b), and

students learned digital citizenship skills by creating public service announcements, persuasive

emails, and Twitter posts (Gleason & Von Gillern, 2018). According to reports from teachers in

Warschauer’s (2007) study, providing students with hands-on, real-world learning opportunities

allowed the students to think critically and develop problem-solving skills. By engaging in the

exploration process while creating digital content and artifacts, students were empowered to

draw meaningful connections between digital literacy concepts and build their own unique

solutions, skills required in the 21st-century workforce (Van Dijk, 2017).

Digital Technology Instructional Model for Students With Disabilities

According to Israel et al. (2015), providing computer skills for K-12 students, both with

and without disabilities, can open the door to a variety of career paths and educational benefits.

In the case of students with disabilities, many techniques are available to special educators to

increase the chances of these children succeeding in computing instruction. For example,

Hutchison and Evmenova (2022) discussed the Computer Science Integration Planning Cycle

Plus (CSIP+) model. CSIP+ incorporates the technology integration planning cycle, an existing

instructional planning tool by Hutchison and Woodward (2014), the universal design for learning

(UDL) cycle of instructional planning (Rao & Meo, 2016), and UDL guidelines and checkpoints

(Center for Applied Special Technology [CAST], 2018). The model is designed to guide teachers

in planning and delivering computer science instruction such as programming and coding for

students with high-incidence disabilities. Students with high-incidence disabilities were defined

as students with mild ID, learning disabilities, and emotional and behavioral disorders. Students

with low-incidence disabilities were not discussed.

The CSIP+ model includes five steps (Instructional Goals and Outcomes, Instructional

Approach and Assessment, Digital Contribution to Instruction, Logistical Constraints, and

Reflection and Instructional Considerations) accompanied by a list of questions that guide

educators through lesson planning and delivery. Like some of the frameworks mentioned before

(Gretter & Yadav, 2016; Reynolds, 2016), this model includes the use of the coding software

Scratch/Scratch Jr. The authors asserts that the CSIP+ model is helpful by providing educators

with a starting point for designing instruction in digital technology that is accessible and

effective for all students by integrating the evidence-based principles of UDL and the research-

based technology integration planning cycle.

Digital Literacy Skills and Competencies for Students With Disabilities

Digital literacy skills are necessary for all learners in the 21st century (Barlott et al., 2020;

Ramsten et al., 2020), including students with disabilities. In a qualitative study examining three

high school students with an ID, Cihak et al. (2015a) found that digital literacy skills allowed

students to participate actively in the digital society. By recognizing the digital divide between

individuals with disabilities and those without, the researchers set out to promote utilizing digital

technology to target specific skills deficits to teach students with ID to access the digital

community. Specifically, using a multiple-probe design, Cihak et al. (2015a) examined the

relationship between digital literacy instruction and the acquisition and maintenance of three

essential digital literacy skills; emailing, cloud storage, and bookmarking. Students received

instruction on sending and receiving emails, organizing social bookmarking to save, share, and

access job searches, and accessing cloud storage to download, revise, and upload documents.

Data showed all participants readily acquired the functional skills and maintained them

nine weeks later. During instruction, all students independently replied to emails, composed, and

sent new emails, researched career websites, bookmarked at least one career website, signed into

cloud storage, downloaded a document, revised the document, and uploaded a document. Thus,

by incorporating digital technology skills in their instruction, students with ID can effectively

improve their functional, academic, and independent living skills.

The study also highlights the influence instructional practices have on students’ learning.

Specifically, study results support systematic instruction as an effective strategy to teach students

with disabilities new skills. Using pictorial screenshots, modeling each digital literacy skill, and

providing help with the system of least prompts proved to be effective instructional practices in

teaching students with ID digital literacy skills. Teaching students with ID how to communicate

and access information and other digital tools equipped them with a transferable skillset that can

be used in school and on the job. Cihak et al. (2015a) findings demonstrated how obtaining

digital technology skills can help bridge the digital skill gaps for individuals with ID. Despite a

small sample size of three students, the study results support existing literature on the ability of

individuals with more significant disabilities to acquire information and communication

technology skills and the impact of these skills on participation and socialization in society

(Barlott et al., 2020; Ramsten et al., 2020).

With the same goals, but in a postsecondary educational context, Cihak and colleagues

(2015b) examined the effects of teaching individuals with intellectual disabilities how to send

and receive emails. The researchers used a multiple-probe design to investigate the impact of

digital literacy teaching on four students with ID ability to access, respond to, and send emails

independently across various devices (Windows desktop computer, laptop, and an iPad tablet

device). Participants’ ages ranged from 21 to 23, and their IQ ranged from 51 to 70.

Each student had little prior experience with the intervention’s technology. Further, at the

start of the study, none of the students owned a laptop computer, iPad®, or had previous

experience with an Apple® MacBook Pro. However, all four participants were comfortable with

the fundamental features of a Windows desktop computer (i.e., turning on and off, using a mouse

to click desired icon, and using the keyboard) learned in high school. Furthermore, all

participants had little familiarity with email. A total of 21 task-analyzed steps were required for

them to be able to email independently. Screenshots of each task-analyzed stage were made,

printed, and utilized to demonstrate how to access, respond to, compose, and send an email using

each device. Students needed an average of seven sessions to be able to email independently,

with an average of 86% of the task-analyzed steps completed independently on a desktop, five

sessions to email independently, with an average of 94% of the task analyzed-steps completed

independently on a laptop, and five sessions to email independently, with an average of 89% of

the task-analyzed steps completed independently on an iPad.

Similar to the results in the previous study (Cihak et al., 2015a), the postsecondary study

findings also pointed to a functional relation. That is, after nine weeks, all four participating

students with ID received three distinct emails from their instructor, each of which needed a

response on one of the three platforms. All participants generalized their ability to utilize email

across numerous platforms effectively. Furthermore, they correctly answered the instructor’s

questions, suggesting that they understood the email message and continued being able to

correspond nine weeks later.

Students with intellectual disabilities benefit from becoming familiar with a range of

communication technologies to improve their educational, employment, and independent living

capabilities (Baxter & Reeves, 2022; Hutchison & Evmenova, 2022). The study implications are

significant for employment since the benefits of networking extend beyond the employer-

employee relationship. Because people use computer technologies personally and professionally

daily, digital literacy is an important skill to in being able to live independently. Both studies

conducted by Cihak and colleagues (2015a, 2015b) suggest individuals with ID can acquire the

skills to perform basic digital literacy skills when explicitly taught using evidence-based

strategies.

Relationship to the Current Study

Today, most careers require digital proficiency (Piroșcă et al., 2021; Vanet & Movit, n.d.),

and as digital literacy is deemed a critical job skill in the 21st century (Chalkiadaki, 2018; Van Laar

et al., 2017), students in IPSE programs who desire to obtain a job need preparation in digital

technology skills. Interest in inclusive postsecondary education for students with ID is expanding,

and enrollment rates are growing nationwide (Grigal et al., 2021a). In 2020, approximately 6,440

students with ID were enrolled in transition and postsecondary programs (Grigal et al., 2020), and

as of 2023, there are 317 programs in the U.S. providing individuals with ID postsecondary

preparation.

While the studies referenced in Table 1 provide a synopsis of various teaching

frameworks and approaches to digital literacy in K-12 education in the U.S, more research is

needed on digital literacy for persons with ID. Only 2 of the 11 articles meeting criteria

examined digital literacy skills for individuals with ID (Cihak et al., 2015). Additionally, among

the various frameworks found throughout this search, only one article proposed an instructional

model for teaching students with significant disabilities digital technology skills. While students

with disabilities may have been included in other study samples, no researchers disaggregated

the data to report the population’s performance or learning outcomes specifically. Therefore,

there is no way to confirm whether students with disabilities were or were not included.

Technological improvements have profoundly altered how we navigate our daily lives,

but these advancements are inconsistently mirrored in U.S. K-12 educational institutions

(Swinton & Williams, 2018). This is significant because digital skills are acquired over time

through educational and social use of technology, formal education, independent learning, and

peer learning (Leahy & Wilson, 2014). Therefore, to prepare students with ID for postsecondary

life, it is crucial to incorporate technology and digital literacy skills into their transition plans

(Baxter & Reeves, 2022). This is especially true if students have only had limited technology-

related experiences during their K-12 education. Students with ID require technical abilities like

those of their peers to succeed in living independently and participating in social life, such as

going to college and obtaining employment (Baxter & Reeves, 2022; Bergson-Shilcock, 2020;

Cihak et al., 2015b).

As demonstrated, this literature review supported the researcher’s hypothesis that the

digital technology skills preparation in current IPSE programs does not parallel the digital

technology skills in demand in the U.S. workforce. As supported by the existing literature,

acquiring digital literacy skills is necessary in K-21 education to impart the skills and

competencies for students to be innovative, creative, competent, and competitive in the digital

world (Fuller, 2020; Trust, 2018). However, more research on digital literacy for individuals

with more significant disabilities is clearly needed.

Summary

This review of literature has depicted the various approaches and curricula used to teach

digital literacies in K-21 general and special education in the U.S. Although still limited, the

literature on this topic provides insightful information to stakeholders interested in students’

competence and proficiency in the skills required in today’s workforce. Overall, the literature

reflects digital literacy elements such as digital citizenship (Curran & Ribble, 2017; Gleason &

Von Gillern, 2018; Lauricella et al., 2020), coding, and programming (Gretter & Yadav, 2016;

Hagge, 2018; Reynolds, 2016) as common skills taught to students in K-21. Additionally, the

literature highlights several factors influencing if and how digital literacies are taught in K-21

education in the U.S. Factors include technology access (Lee et al., 2021; Warschauer, 2007),

educators’ age and years of teaching experience (Lauricella et al., 2020), educators’ digital

literacy competence and self-efficacy (Lee et al., 2021), and various schools characteristics

(Lauricella et al., 2020; Warschauer, 2007). However, the most significant finding of this

literature review is the lack of research on digital literacy for individuals with ID.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

In this study, the researcher identifies the digital technology skills important in the

21st-century workforce as perceived by U.S. employers and assesses the digital technology

preparation in Inclusive Postsecondary Education (IPSE) programs for students with

intellectual disabilities (ID). The study does not include digital literacy in K-12 education for

students with ID because the ISTE Standards have been adopted in all 50 states for K-12

grade bands whereas no parallel standards exist for IPSE programs, making their impact

unknown.

This chapter presents the methodology and procedures used in this mixed-methods

study. Specifically, the chapter describes the framework guiding the research, research

questions and design, participant selection and recruitment, instrumentation, and data

collection process. Also addressed are instrumentation reliability and validity, threats to

validity, and ethical procedures followed during the study.

Theoretical Framework

Digital literacy is a crucial enabler for taking advantage of digital opportunities and

engaging in digital activities (Nipo et al., 2020). Therefore, this study is grounded in a

framework that promotes digital skills, literacies, and competence, the Digital Competence (or

DigComp 2.0) Conceptual Reference model (Vuorikari et al., 2016). The framework builds upon

the idea that digital literacy consists of various fundamental components for successfully

navigating a digitalized society.

The European Union introduced the Digital Competence (DigComp 2.0) Conceptual

Reference model (Vuorikari et al., 2016) to identify and define the digital competence areas

necessary to participate successfully in an increasingly digital society. The model is based on the

European Digital Competence Framework for Citizens 2.0 (Nascimbeni & Vosloo, 2019). The

DigComp 2.0 Conceptual Reference Model (Vuorikari et al., 2016) is a framework for

developing digital competencies for all citizens of the European Union. The model consists of

five areas of digital competence: information and data literacy, communication and

collaboration, digital content creation, safety, and problem-solving – all of which were

mentioned throughout the 21st-century digital skills literature as being essential for success in the

workplace (Van Laar et al., 2017, 2020).

The competence areas represent the highest level of digital literacy, to include identifying

and solving problems, creating and using digital content, and communicating and collaborating

effectively in a digital environment. The competence areas are further divided into 21

competencies, skills, and knowledge. The skills are at the intermediate level, which refers to

using digital technologies to access and manage information, communicate, and collaborate

online, and create digital content. For example, the Information and Data Literacy category

centers on the use of digital devices and services and understanding and applying digital

information. The Digital Safety category focuses on the ability to navigate online safely. The

Digital Content Creation category emphasizes the ability to create digital products, services, and

content. The Digital Communication and Collaboration category concentrates on the ability to

communicate, collaborate, and interact effectively in a digital environment. Lastly, the Digital

Problem-Solving category underscores the ability to identify, analyze, and solve digital

problems.

The DigComp 2.0 Conceptual Reference Model (Vuorikari et al., 2016) is a valuable tool

for determining citizens’ appropriate level of digital competence. In addition, it can be used to

create educational and training programs to address identified gaps and assist organizations and

businesses in assessing their employees’ level of digital competence. Although several models

also exist in the U.S., such as the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge or

TPACK model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), the Partnership for 21st Century (P21) model

(Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008), and the ISTE Standards (2017), these frameworks are

primarily used in academic settings. Therefore, many of their components are domain-specific

and would require several modifications to be used in the current study. Additionally, the

language used in these models may be unfamiliar to individuals in sectors or industries outside of

the field of education. Regarding the framework selected in the current study, the researcher was

able to implement the competence areas and subskill sets into the study with minimal

modifications. Specifically, the researcher used the model to operationalize the independent

variable and, thus, was able to develop an instrument specifically targeting the construct being

measured in the study.

Problem Statement

The Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp; Goodridge, 2019) surveyed 466

respondents from organizations with a thousand or more employees and found that of the of

organizations employing people with disabilities (75%), only 49% employed persons with ID.

Emerging learning deficits created by rapid technological advancements place persons with ID at

a more significant economic disadvantage for obtaining employment (Bolstad et al., 2012;

Chetty et al., 2017). Digital literacy is essential to employability and thus critical to one’s

financial well-being and success (Chalkiadaki, 2018). This is especially true in the 21st century,

where digital technology is integral to communication, education, and employment (Henderson

& Tilley, 2018).

Yet, according to Tyson (2015), individuals with disabilities are less likely to receive

digital technology preparation and, therefore, more likely to be excluded from the digital

economy (Lyons et al., 2019). Beyond the personal cost to these individuals’ quality of life and

happiness, excluding this population has a significant impact on the nation’s economy. That is,

about 17% of Americans have a developmental disability, thus accounting for over $300 million

per month in social security and Medicare funding (U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021).

Identifying the digital skills important in today’s workforce and assessing the digital

technology preparation in IPSE programs will provide stakeholders with insight into critical

skills that should be included into the educational and employment preparation offerings of

students with ID to increase their competitiveness and workforce participation.

Research Questions

The overarching research question for this study was: Are IPSE programs for individuals

with ID preparing these students with the digital technology skills U.S. employers deem

important in the 21st century? The study was guided by the following specific questions:

1. Which digital technology skills of digital literacy do U.S. employers consider important

for entry-level employees at their organization?    

a. How do U.S employers rank the digital technology subskills of digital literacy?

2. What digital technology preparation is available to individuals with ID attending an IPSE

program in the U.S?

a. Which digital technology skills identified as important for entry-level employees

by U.S employers are included in the digital technology preparation of individuals

with ID in an IPSE program in the U.S?

The researcher hypothesized that IPSE programs’ digital technology skills preparation

would not parallel the digital technology skills in demand in the U.S. workforce.

Research Design

Mixed-methods approaches were used to collect and analyze data. Survey research

methodology was used to collect data from U.S. employers to determine their perception of the

importance of five digital literacy competencies at their organization. Content analysis was used

to identify the digital technology skills presented within the texts of IPSE programs’ course

offerings and syllabi. Figure 2 illustrates how the researcher integrated the two approaches, and

Tables 2 and 3 present a visual analysis of the research design blueprint of this study.

Figure 2

Study Flow Chart

Note: A visual diagram of the mixed-methods concurrent triangulation strategy. Source: (Atif et

al., 2013)

Quantitative

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Qualitative

Results compared,

integrated & interpreted

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Table 2

Quantitative Research Plan

Research question

Construct

Instrument

Level of

measurement

Sample

Analysis

Which digital technology skills of digital literacy

do U.S. employers consider important for entry-

level employees at their organization?      

How do U.S. employers rank the digital technology

subskills of digital literacy?

Perception

Survey

Ratio

100 U.S.

employers

100 U.S.

employers

Descriptive

Table 3

Qualitative Research Plan

Research Question

Data needed

Data type

Data source

Sample

Analysis

What digital technology preparation is

available to individuals with ID attending an

IPSE program in the U.S?

Which digital technology skills identified as

important by U.S. employers are included in

the digital technology preparation of

individuals with ID in an IPSE program in

the U.S.?

Digital tech skills/

competencies

Digital tech

skills/competencies

Text

Documents,

webpages, &

emails

Documents,

webpages, &

emails

83 IPSE

programs

83 IPSE

programs

Content

analysis

Content

analysis

Quantitative Methodology

Participants

The researcher recruited 100 (N = 100) employers in management at organizations in the

U. S. The sample consisted of administrators on various levels such as directors (21%), owners

(18%), managers (18%), and chief executives (17%). Seventy-four percent of the sample

organizations employed individuals with disabilities; 71% reportedly offered customized

integrated employment – a process for achieving competitive integrated employment for persons

with disabilities through a relationship between employee and employer that is personalized to

meet the needs of both (https://dol.gov) – and customized training for individuals with

disabilities. Most of the sample were in the computer and technology (21%), finance and

economics (17%), and construction (11%) industries. See Table 4 for additional demographic

details of the sample.

Table 4

Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Participant characteristics

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Midwest

Southwest

West

26.73%

23.76%

18.81%

12.87%

17.82%

Size classification

Micro (>10 employees)

Small (10 to 49 employees)

Medium (50 to 249 employees)

Large (>250 employees)

17.00%

13.00%

24.00%

46.00%

Business designation

Public

24.00%

Private

66.00%

Not Applicable

10.00%

Participant characteristics

Industry

Computer and technology

Finance and economic

Construction

Food and Beverage

Manufacturing

Education

Advertising and marketing

Other

21.00%

17.00%

11.00%

7.00%

6.00%

4.00%

2.00%

6.00%

Occupation

Chief executive officer (CEO)

Owner

Vice president (VP)

Director

Manager

Chief information officer (CIO)

17.00%

18.00%

9.00%

21.00%

18.00%

3.00%

Chief technology officer (CTO)

2.00%

Other

12.00%

Recruitment

Commercial and market research platforms are becoming more popular due to the recent

rise of online survey use (Heen et al., 2020; Miller et al., 2020). Qualtrics©, an online survey

platform that offers various online research services and tools, Qualtrics© acted as a third-party

online host for the study, providing numerous automated quality checks and data scrubs designed

to help deliver quality data (Berry at el., 2022). As a result, the researcher selected Qualtrics©

over other professional panel data providers such as Nielsen, Research Now, Kantar, and Ipsos.

Additionally, the University of Central Florida provides access to many of Qualtrics© ’ analytical

tools free of charge to students.

Through Qualtrics© sampling services, for a fee, the researcher was able to access a pool

of potential participants who had previously agreed to be solicited for survey recruitment.

Qualtrics©’s network of participants, also known as a market research panel, consists of hundreds

of suppliers with diverse recruitment methodologies (Qualtrics© , 2005). Respondents can be

recruited from a variety of methods, including the following:

• Network ads and promotions

• Membership referrals

• Social networks

• Online and mobile games

• Affiliate marketing

• Banner ads

• TV and radio ads

• Offline mail-based recruitment campaigns

Additionally, Qualtrics© provides several features to ensure quality responses from real

participants. For example, the platform uses Google’s reCAPTCHA (or Completely Automated

Public Turing Test to tell Computers and Humans Apart) technology, to detect the likelihood that

a response came from a bot rather than a human participant (Qualtrics©, 2023). Also, researchers

can embed a Captcha verification in the questionnaire to ensure the survey is not being spammed

and input attention checks, which screen out participants who complete the survey too fast or

engage in “straightlining,” providing the same answers to get through the questions quickly.

These features help produce quality responses and reliable data.

According to Litman and Robinson (2020), compensating respondents for participating in

online surveys increases participation and response rates and, thereby, improves data. During

recruitment, participants are offered an incentive to participate. Qualtrics© compensates each

respondent differently according to what the participant prefers. For example, airlines may offer

airline miles as compensation, or somebody who has been recruited by a retail shop may be

compensated with store credit or points. Regardless, participants agree to the incentive before

taking the survey and receive their compensation within five business days after successfully

completing the study.

Sampling

Through the non-probability method, purposive sampling, a national sample of 100

participants was recruited. Qualtrics©xm ensured the study would maintain 100 participants,

which eliminated issues of low-response rates. Low response rates are a common concern when

conducting survey research (Creswell, 2012).

Instrument

A researcher-developed online Qualtrics© survey was used to identify the digital

technology skills important for entry-level employees perceived by employers in management in

organizations in the U.S. Survey development was guided by best survey design practices

according to Creswell (2012) and best survey research practices for online platforms by Litman

and Robinson (2020). Using Creswell’s (2012) and Litman and Robinson’s (2020) guidance

allowed the researcher to produce a reliable and valid instrument using 21st-century tools and

services to their full potential.

Digital Literacy Competence Areas

The skill items used in the survey were adopted from the Digital Competence (DigComp

2.0) Conceptual Reference model (Vuorikari et al., 2016). All five competence areas identified in

the model: Information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content

creation, safety, and problem-solving, and 20 out of 21 skill subsets were used to assess the

digital technology skills of employees with developmental disabilities as perceived by their

employer (see Table 5).

A few modifications suggested by the researcher’s dissertation chair were made under the

first competence, Information and Data Literacy. One item (Evaluating data, information, and

digital content) was omitted due to its ambiguity. That is, evaluating data, information, and

digital content may not require digital technology skills and, therefore, could produce answers

that do not measure the intended construct. A second item (Managing data, information, and

content) was modified to read Managing digital data, information, and content to ensure it was

only measuring the digital ability to manage digital materials. Another item (Browsing,

searching, filtering data, information, and digital content) was separated into two separate items

and modified to read Browsing and searching digital content and Filtering digital data,

information, and content. Additionally, under the Digital Content competence area the

Integrating and re-elaborating digital content subskill item was also separated into two items.

The researcher revised the items to read Integrating digital content and reworded re-elaborating

to Editing digital content for clarity and to distinguish each skill assessed.

Several skills under the Safety competence were also altered. The word digital was added

to all safety skills to clarify to participants that all skills pertain to the protection of digital

materials or behaviors in a digital environment. For example, the Protecting devices item was

changed to Protecting digital devices and the Protecting personal data and privacy subskill was

changed to Protecting personal digital data and privacy. Of particular significance under the

Safety competence area was the change to the last skill, Protecting environments. The researcher

modified the item to read Protecting the rights of those in digital environments. Reframing the

skill this way eliminates any confusion by clarifying that the skill focuses on one’s ability to

protect others’ rights in digital environments (i.e., websites, social media outlets, and other web-

based resources).

Table 5

Digital Literacy Competence Areas and Skill Subsets

Digital literacy competence area

Skill subsets

Digital information and data literacy

• Browsing and searching data, information,

digital content

• Filtering digital data, information, and content

• Managing digital data, information, and content

Digital communication and

collaboration

• Interacting through digital technologies

• Sharing through digital technologies

• Engaging in citizenship through digital

technologies

• Collaborating through digital technologies

• Netiquette

• Managing digital identity

Digital content creation

• Developing digital content

• Integrating digital content

• Editing digital content

• Copyright licenses

• Programming

Digital safety

• Protecting digital devices

• Protecting personal digital data and privacy

• Protecting digital health and well-being

• Protecting the rights of others in digital

environments

Digital problem-solving

• Solving technical problems

• Identifying needs and technological responses

• Creatively using digital technologies

• Identifying digital competencies gaps

Survey Development

According to Creswell (2012), grouping questions according to content allows

respondents to navigate the survey instrument with ease. In the current study, the researcher

developed a survey consisting of four sections (prescreening questions, demographics questions,

skills and competences, organizational training questions) with 35 questions with 23 subitems.

The first group of questions began with a prescreening question. Qualtrics© recommends

including screening questions to ensure respondents meet the study criteria. Prescreening

questions were used to validate whether the respondent qualified to participate in the study. If

their answer choice was not validated, the respondent was screened out of the survey. The

second section included five demographic questions collecting data on the respondent’s

organization (e.g., geographical location, industry, company size) and their job title or role.

During the skills and competencies section of the survey, employers were introduced to

the five competence areas and the corresponding subskills of the DigComp 2.0 Conceptual

Reference Model (Vuorikari et al., 2016). Each competence area consisted of three items:

1. Are [competence area] skills important in entry-level employees at your organization?

2. These [competence area] skills are important in entry-level employees at my

organization.

3. Rank these digital information and data literacy skills in order of importance in entry-

level employees at your organization.

In Item 1, employers were asked to select between No or Yes. If Yes was selected, they

were presented with Item 2. They were asked to rate the importance of the skill subsets of those

competence areas on a 4-point Likert scale (4 = Very Important, 3 = Important, 2 = Slightly

Important, and 1 = Not Important at All). If the skills were irrelevant to employees’ job

responsibilities at the entry level, respondents could select the Not Applicable option. Next,

employers were asked to rate their agreement with Item 3 subsets on a 4-point scale (4 =

Strongly Agree, 3 = Agree, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree). A Not Applicable choice was

also given for these subsets. Litman and Robinson (2020) recommend a 4-point scale with a Not

Applicable option throughout all skill subset items.

Not all questions in a survey are applicable to all participants (Creswell, 2012).

Therefore, if employers selected No to Item 1 in this section for any competence area, skip logic

was applied, and questions pertaining to that competence area were not presented to the

respondent. As a result, respondents were only asked items directly related to the digital

technology skills relevant for entry-level employees at their organization. Using skip logic

reduces the survey length and time for participants and eliminates irrelevant results during

analysis (Litman & Robinson, 2020). The final section of the survey contained general questions

about the respondents’ organization to assess their organizational training practices and digital

proficiency expectations for entry-level employees.

To avoid courtesy bias and eliminate ambivalence, many of the items in the survey

included a 4-point Likert scale with no neutral point. There are debates among researchers

regarding the optimal number of points in a Likert scale (Subedi, 2016). However, the General

Self-Efficacy Exam (GSE), a 4-point Likert-scaled instrument used by Schwarzer (2002) in a

sample from 23 nations, demonstrated internal consistency through Cronbach’s alpha (.76-.90).

Additionally, in a study conducted in the U.S. by Chang (1994) with a sample of 165

respondents comparing the internal consistency reliability of a 4-point and 6-point Likert-type

scales, the researcher found that though the 6-point scale added more to the systematic method

variance, the 4-point scale had higher reliability. This finding supports some researchers’ claim

that reliability is independent of the number of points in the scale (Boote, 1981;Lozano et al.,

2008; Mattell & Jacoby, 1971).

Variables

The independent variable in the study was digital literacy in the form of the five digital

literacy competence areas. The dependent variable was employers’ perception of the importance

of the digital literacy competence areas.

Research Procedure

The researcher complied with the ethical standards of the University of Central Florida

(UCF). Online training courses designed to prepare researchers to conduct research were

completed. Furthermore, before conducting the study, a detailed research application was

submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) committee at UCF, whereupon the researcher

received approval from UCF’s IRB (Appendix A).

Validation

To ensure the quality of the instrument, the survey was peer-reviewed by a panel of

experts to gain feedback on structural aspects, content and item importance, simplicity, and

understandability (Elangovan & Sundaravel, 2021). Two rounds of feedback were conducted.

The first round consisted of feedback from several experts in both domain and subject matter

from Think College, Virginia Commonwealth University’ Center on Transition, the Division on

Career Development and Transition, and Orange County Public Schools Special Education

Transition School. Experts were asked to view the survey and give feedback on item relevancy,

clarity, flow, and structural aspects. Then, the researcher discussed, compiled, and incorporated

all feedback recommendations and proceeded to the second round of review, which consisted of

the researcher’s committee members. Two committee members reviewed a table of the

recommendation and modification from round one and provided guidance on finalizing the

validation of the instrument.

Soft Launch

Both Creswell (2012) and Litman and Robinson (2020) recommend conducting a pilot

before launching a research survey. Therefore, before conducting the study, the researcher

conducted a soft launch of the survey through Qualtrics© . That is, after the survey was amended

and finalized, it was disseminated electronically to 15% of the sample quota (N = 15). Once

participants were recruited, they received a link to the study directing them to the survey

instrument. Before gaining access to the survey, respondents provided explicit informed consent.

Therefore, participants only gained access to the survey items after selecting “Yes” to an online

consent form embedded in the survey. For example, only after respondents indicated they had

read the study details, were 18 years or older, met the study criteria, understood their

participation was voluntary, and selected “Yes” to participate, were they given access to survey

items. Respondents were immediately screened out of the survey if they responded “No.”

Respondents who did not pass the prescreening question were also screened out of the survey.

Once the survey was submitted by respondents, the data were immediately accessible to

the researcher and a Qualtrics© -assigned project manager, who monitored data collection during

the launch. The survey link was discontinued after the sample quota (N= 15) was met and the

data were reviewed by the project manager and researcher for data quality.

Reliability Testing

Test measurements must meet a certain standard to establish trustworthiness (Zijlmans et

al., 2019). That is, reliability is central to test quality (e.g., AERA et al., 2014). Additionally,

administering a well-tested instrument is best practice (Creswell, 2012). Therefore, the

researcher tested the survey data for reliability to determine whether skill items correlated with

and measured the intended constructs.

To examine the internal consistency of the construct validity, the researcher used IBM’s

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 27 to compute Cronbach’s

alpha coefficient (Field, 2013). Cronbach’s alpha measures the strength of an item’s reliability.

Reliability coefficients range from zero (no reliability) to 1.00 (perfect reliability). After

computing the reliability and item statistics for all five constructs, the researcher used the output

data to re-evaluate the items. Table 6 reflects the reliability test output data.

Items in the digital information and data literacy section had a Cronbach’s alpha lower

than .65 (.295). While this is low, the researcher was aware that alpha also depends on the

number of items in a test (Cronbach, 1951), and that Cronbach’s alpha could be low for this

section of items and, therefore, chose not to remove any items but to improve the least

correlating item. After reviewing the inter-item correlation matrix, the research was able to

identify that the first item showed the least correlation among the other items. Therefore, the first

item was modified to read browsing and searching digital information and content. Additionally,

since “both very low and very high alpha values can go either with one-dimensionality or

multidimensionality of the data” (Sijtsma, 2009, p. 119), the researcher tested the overall internal

reliability of the five subskills scales which computed a satisfactory level of internal consistency

(.936). The results are shown in Table 7.

Furthermore, after the Qualtrics© project manager made the survey link accessible to

participants and the complete study commenced, the researcher retested the internal consistency

of the digital information and data literacy items of the complete study data with a larger sample

(N = 100). The results are also displayed in Table 7. As illustrated, with the larger representative

sample, the items’ reliability increased to .717 with all item statistics means being higher than

3.00; this may be because Cronbach’s alpha cannot be considered a measure of a scale or

instrument but only a measure of its application to a specific sample of respondents (Taber,

2018).

Table 6

Soft Launch Reliability Output

Variable

Reliability statistics

Item statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha # of items

M SD N

Information and data literacy

Q11_1

Q11_2

Q11_3

.295 3

3.64 .505 11

3.27 .467 11

3.09 .701 11

Communication and collaboration

Q14_1

Q14_2

Q14_3

Q14_4

Q14_5

Q14_6

.835 6

3.73 .647 11

3.09 .539 11

3.45 .820 11

3.09 .944 11

3.36 1.21 11

2.73 .786 11

Content creation

Q17_1

Q17_2

Q17_3

Q17_4

Q17_5

.718 5

3.80 .422 10

3.20 .422 10

3.20 .789 10

3.40 .699 10

3.50 527 10

Safety

Q20_1

Q20_2

Q20_3

Q20_4

.690 4

3.67 .651 12

3.00 .603 12

3.25 .866 12

3.17 .835 12

Problem-solving

Q23_1

Q23_2

Q23_3

.810 4

3.75 .622 12

3.00 .603 12

3.25 .965 12

Variable

Reliability statistics

Item statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha # of items

M SD N

Q23_4

2.75 .866 12

Table 7

Comparison of Digital Information and Data Literacy Reliability Output

Data source

Reliability

statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha

Soft launch data

Q11_1-3

All five subskills

.295

.936

Study data

Q11_1-3

All five subskills

.717

.936

Data Collection

This research centered on U.S. employers’ perception of the digital technology skills

important for entry-level employees at their organization. The researcher collected data over two

weeks for the qualitative portion of the study and until the sample quota was met for the

quantitative portion. The researcher analyzed U.S. employers’ views on the importance of digital

technology skills in five critical areas of digital literacy for entry-level employees. The data

included scale measurements reflecting employers’ perceptions collected from an online survey.

Data collection began in April 2023 via a secure Qualtrics©xm survey link and concluded two

weeks later with the deactivation of the survey link. The data collection process was monitored

by the researcher and a project manager appointed by Qualtrics© . Additionally, the project

manager reviewed and cleaned all data entries for any missing data or invalid submissions. No

identifiable information was collected during the study.

Data Analysis

The data analysis for each research question varied based on the type of question and

statistical analysis required. The survey responses were directly exported into SPSS software

using Qualtrics© to perform statistical analysis. Once the data was imported into SPSS, a faculty

member from the University of Central Florida’s Computing and Statistical Technology

Laboratory in Education (CASTLE) reviewed the data in SPSS for any inconsistencies before

moving onto the data analysis process. As mentioned, the data collection tool consisted of four

sections. Demographic information was gathered in Section 1 of the survey. The remaining

survey sections included Likert-scale statements that were coded using weighted values for each

answer option. Tables 8 and 9 display the Likert-scale answer choices and the numeric value

equivalents. The No or Yes items in Sections 3 and 4 were coded as “1” and “2,” respectively,

with “0” indicating “Not Applicable or “I do not know.”

Table 8

Four-Point Likert Scale Response Choices: Measures of Importance

Response

Numeric equivalent

Not applicable

Not important at all

Slightly important

Important

Very important

Table 9

Four-Point Likert Scale Response Choices: Measures of Agreement

Response

Numeric equivalent

Not applicable

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive analysis was conducted to summarize measures from the survey to produce

percent comparisons and mean score analysis. Measures of frequency were used to highlight the

relationships or patterns among participants, such as their organization’s geographic location,

industry, size, and business sector (i.e., private or public), and their job titles. No/Yes answer

choices were also analyzed using measures of frequency. Employers’ responses to all other

survey items containing a 4-point scale score were also analyzed using descriptive statistics.

However, to understand the digital technology competence areas respondents perceived as

important to their organization, the researcher employed measures of central tendency and

measures of variation to analyze the digital technology skills addressed in the study’s first

research question and sub question.

Threats to Validity

Due to the nature of the survey design research, threats to validity were encountered,

including sample selection and instrumentation. Sample characteristic was a significant threat to

the validity of the current research study. Employing probability sampling strategies ensures this

type of validity is not violated (Polit, 2013). However, a non-probability sampling strategy was

used to recruit participants in the current study. Although the sampling technique is a non-

probability strategy, the researcher did not have control over the units selected. Any person a part

of Qualtrics©’ market research panel could participate in the study if they met the study criteria,

increasing the sample’s representativeness. According to a survey by Heen et al. (2014)

comparing different online sample approaches for generating national samples, online panels can

represent a population similarly to traditional recruitment methods. Therefore, the researcher

minimized this threat by using Qualtrics©’ market research panel. Additionally, the researcher

used descriptive analysis to provide the sample characteristics.

Another threat to the validity of this study was the use of a researcher-developed

instrument. That is, the data were collected from a researcher-constructed online survey with

multiple-choice and 4-point Likert-scale questions. Respondents were asked to self-report their

perceptions. The instrument’s scale, content, and design might have an impact on the accuracy of

participants’ responses. To address this potential threat, the researcher tested for the validity and

reliability of the survey, which included two rounds of peer review, a soft launch of the survey,

and testing for Cronbach’s alpha of the survey items.

Qualitative Methodology

Classification of Content

Identifying the type of content that will be used for inquiry is an essential step in content

analysis (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). For this study, the researcher analyzed publicly accessible

online content created by Think College, IPSE programs, or the sponsoring institution. Data

sources included syllabi, sample schedules, course catalogues, and program descriptions, all of

which are considered extant data; that is, electronic data that are accessible to the public to read,

review, copy, or download (Salmons, 2017). This study included extant data called contemporary

materials, documents created for online use and electronic access (Salmons, 2017).

Setting

Data collection was conducted online. Therefore, the setting for this study was qualitative

e-research (Salmons, 2017). ‘”E-research” is a broad term for various online and internet-based

approaches (Fielding et al., 2016).

Unit of Analysis

Purposive sampling was employed to select the unit of analysis for this inquiry (IPSE

programs). To be included in the sample, programs must offer at least one course only for

students within the IPSE program. The researcher set this criterion to ensure that the sample

included programs that serve individuals with ID who would not traditionally attend a higher

education institution. Currently, there are 317 postsecondary programs in the U.S. After filtering

the college search on the Think College website, 148 programs were found to meet criteria. The

researcher input all 148 programs into an Excel spreadsheet and randomized the sample.

According to Krippendorff (2018), the sample size in content analysis should be determined

based on the need for information so the research question can be answered with sufficient

reliability. Over 50% of the IPSE programs that met criterion were included in data collection (N

= 83). Using purposive sampling allowed the researcher to obtain a population that shared

specific characteristics (Creswell & Poth, 2018), such as the unique criteria stipulated in the

current study. Table 10 displays the IPSE programs’ demographics.

Table 10

IPSE Programs’ Demographics

Program characteristics

Region

Northeast

Southeast

Midwest

Southwest

West

27.71%

28.92%

15.66%

19.28%

8.43%

Program length

>12 months

2 years

3 years

7.92%

36.63%

11.88%

Program characteristics

4 years

Varies from student to student

20.79%

22.77%

Percentage of academic inclusion

1-24%

25-49%

50-74%

75-99%

27.71%

20.48%

7.23%

25.30%

19.28%

Instrument

Instruments that derive meaning and uncover underlying issues are most effective for

qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, the researcher was the best instrument

for the current study (Creswell, 2014). The researcher served as the primary instrument during

the qualitative data collection portion of the study. As a result, I must acknowledge my role as an

instrument and disclose my positionality.

As a first-generation African American female academic, I empathize and sympathize

with the challenges of marginalization and discrimination many individuals with significant

disabilities face in society. Unfortunately, systematic bias and exclusion rooted in ablism are the

common denominators for these shared experiences (Aronson & Boveda, 2017; Scott et al.,

2022). Additionally, as a former K-12 educator of students with ID and current adjunct professor

of an IPSE program at a large university, I understand the importance and champion the efforts

to prepare individuals with ID with the necessary skills to be successful in the workforce. My

knowledge and experiences in this capacity influence what I bring to this research. As the

primary researcher in this study, my role was to identify the meaning of the content collected

judiciously. I employed member checks and incorporated critical subjectivity to ensure my own

experience did not influence any part of the study.

Data Collection

The researcher used Appendix D to guide the data collection for Research Question 2.

The researcher used Think College’s College Search tool to gather general information of the

program and gain access to each IPSE program’s website. Using the data collect guide,

Appendix D, the researcher used the General and Requirements sections provided on Think

College to collect IPSE programs’ demographic information. The researcher also collected data

from the Academic section if it related to course requirements, course selections, and credential

and certifications pertaining to digital technology. Next, the researcher proceeded to the IPSE

program’s website where the content on each webpage of the site was reviewed for sample

schedules, course catalogues, course syllabi, and any information or descriptions of course

offerings. When documents were available for download, they were saved, renamed under the

program’s sample number and the content type (3_SampleSchedule), and stored in a folder.

When documents were not downloadable, they were screenshot, renamed, and stored. All content

on the website containing computer and technology terminology, for example, terms such as

computer science, Microsoft©, technology workshop, and so on, was recorded using Appendix D.

If any content was ambiguous, the researcher contacted an administrator of the program for

clarification via email. Those emails were also screenshot, renamed, and stored for coding. The

emails were reviewed for additional information and details on the programs’ digital literacy

preparation and coded using the researcher-developed coding guide [APPENDIX E].

Data Analysis

The researcher used a qualitative content analysis approach to explore publicly available

information provided by Think College and IPSE programs. Specifically, the researcher aimed to

determine the presence of digital literacies and digital technology preparation within IPSE

programs by analyzing online data sources. According to Krippendorff (2018), content analysis

is “a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from text” (p. 24). Content

analysis was the primary approach used for this inquiry. Selecting an approach that supported the

researcher in identifying the meaning of electronic text data was essential. Content analysis

provided that framework, therefore making the technique an appropriate qualitative approach to

address Research Question 2.

Data analysis occurred during data collection and the writing of the findings (Creswell,

2014). The researcher thoroughly analyzed the data by focusing on both the language and the

contextual meaning of the data (Bengstsson, 2016). As a technique, content analysis involves

specialized procedures (Krippendorff, 2018). Research Question 2 was analyzed using a directed

content analysis approach. Direct content analysis aims to conceptualize, validate, or extend a

theoretical framework or theory (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Since existing theory or research

focuses the research question, the key variables used to analyze Research Question 2 were drawn

from the conceptual framework of this study, the DigComp 2.0 Conceptual Reference model

(Vuorikari et al., 2016). First, the researcher identified the five competence areas as the key

variables for initial coding categories (Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999). Next, operational

definitions for each of the competence areas were determined using their subskills. A coding

guide developed using the conceptual reference model may be found in APPENDIX E for

Research Question 2. The coding guide provides an overview of how the researcher evaluated

each skill or preparation for categorization into one of the digital literacy competence areas.

Trustworthiness

The data were validated through member checking, a method used to establish credibility

and trustworthiness (Shenton, 2004). Specifically, trustworthiness was addressed by use of the

following procedures. Dependability was addressed through peer review. Peer reviewers and

members of the researcher’s dissertation committee reviewed the research plan implementation

assisted in ensuring dependability. Confirmability was addressed by maintaining a detailed

description of the data collection and analysis processes. Such audit trails allow researchers to

adhere to the data collection procedures and decision-making throughout the study (Shenton,

2004). Finally, transferability was addressed through the researcher’s dissertation committee,

who helped select and implement appropriate data collection and analysis techniques.

Additionally, committee members checked for any biases or personal influences on the data.

Furthermore, peer reviewers, who were not part of the study or the committee, verified the

applicability of the study’s findings.

Limitations and Delimitations

The use of extant data as a source of data analysis embodies certain limitations. In extant

analysis, considering the creator’s intent when developing documents and content is necessary

(Salmons, 2017). Since electronic data sources and documents are typically developed for

organizational purposes rather than research, this type of data may be a limitation of this study.

Additionally, when collecting extant data, researchers usually cannot ask questions to better

understand the motives, background, and relationships of the content creator or user (Salmons,

2017). To address these limitations, during the data collection and analysis process, the

researcher contacted IPSE program staff when further clarification on any data was required to

ensure reliability.

Summary

This chapter discussed the methods and procedures used to gain insight into U.S.

employers’ perceptions of the importance of digital literacy skills in the workforce and digital

technology preparation in IPSE programs for individuals with ID. This mixed-methods research

study utilized quantitative methods to analyze the responses collected from 100 U.S employers in

administrative positions. Qualitative methods were applied to assess IPSE programs’ coursework

content for digital technology preparation. The study’s research questions, selection of

participants and population, instrumentations, data collection, and data analysis were also

presented. Chapter Four presents the results obtained from data collection.

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Technology is fast becoming a key tool in the workplace and, as a result, digital skills are

increasingly in demand in many industries (Becker et al., 2017). The purpose of this study was to

identify the digital technology skills important in the 21st-century workforce and assess the

digital technology preparation provided in Inclusive Postsecondary Education (IPSE) programs

for students with intellectual disabilities (ID). The problem this study addressed is the lack of

research on equipping individuals with ID with 21st-century employability skills such as digital

literacies. The study gives stakeholders insight into the digital technology skills in demand in the

workforce and a baseline on the prevalence of digital technology preparation in IPSE programs.

This chapter presents the quantitative results from the electronic survey and the qualitative

results from the content analysis used to conduct the study.

Section One: Data Analysis for Research Question 1

Research Question 1: Which digital technology skills of digital literacy do U.S.

employers consider important for entry-level employees at their organization? Eleven questions

and 45 survey items were analyzed to address this question. All respondents were asked whether

each digital literacy competence area was an important skill for entry-level employees at their

organization. As shown in Table 11, more than 80% of the sample perceived each competence

area to be an important skill for entry-level employees at their organization, with digital safety

(90%) being the skill most frequently selected.

To provide more context to U.S. employers’ perceptions, they were asked to rank each of

the five digital literacy competence areas from most to least important to reflect the hierarchy of

importance of these skills in their organization. Descriptive analysis was used to reveal U.S.

employers’ rankings, as displayed in Table 12. The order of importance of all five competencies

was as follows: (1) Digital information and data literacy, (3) digital communication and

collaboration, (4) digital safety, and (5) digital content creation and digital problem-solving.

If employers perceived a competence area as being important, they were then asked to

provide the degree of the importance of its subskills in entry-level employees. Mean scores and

standard deviations for each subskill item were computed and are displayed in Table 13. These

survey items used a 4-point Likert-style response scale calibrated as follows: 1 = not at all

important, 2 = slightly important, 3 = important, and 4 = very important. The data showed U.S.

employers found all subskills in digital information and data and digital safety competence areas

to be very important (3.26-4.00) for entry-level employees. In addition, employers reported

interacting through digital technologies and collaborating through digital technologies as being

very important and all other digital communication and collaboration subskills as important

(2.60-3.25). Only one subskill in the digital content creation competence areas was rated as very

important, developing digital content. All other subskills, including programming, were rated as

important. Lastly, employers rated solving technical problems and identifying digital

competencies gaps as very important skills above identifying needs and technological responses

and creatively using digital technologies, which were rated as important.

To further explore employers’ perception of the important of the digital literacy subskills,

respondents were asked to rank the subskills in order of importance for entry-level employees.

The results are presented in Table 14.

Subskills in digital information and data literacy ranked in importance as follows:

(1) Managing digital data, information, and content,

(2) Filtering digital data, information, and content,

(3) Browsing and searching digital content.

Subskills in digital communication and collaboration were ranked in the following order:

(1) Interacting through digital technologies,

(2) Sharing through digital technologies,

(3) Engaging in citizenship through digital technologies,

(4) Collaborating through digital technologies,

(5) Netiquette, and

(6) Managing digital identity.

The digital content creation subskills items were ranked in the following order:

(1) Developing digital content,

(2) Integrating digital content,

(3) Editing digital content,

(4) Copyright licenses, and

(5) Programming.

Ninety percent of the sample found digital safety important at their organization and

ranked its subskills in the following order:

(1) Protecting digital devices,

(2) Protecting personal digital data and privacy, and

(4) Protecting digital health and well-being and protecting the rights of others in digital

environments.

Lastly, subskills for digital problem-solving were ranked in the following order:

(1) Solving technical problems,

(2) identifying needs and technological responses, and

(4) creatively using digital technologies and identifying digital competencies gaps.

Table 11

Percentage of Employers Reporting of Each Digital Literacy Skill’s Importance for Entry-Level

Employees at Their Organization

Yes

DigComp 2.0 competence area

Digital information and data literacy

100

14%

86%

Digital communication and collaboration

100

14%

86%

Digital content creation

Digital safety

Digital problem-solving

100

13%

10%

17%

87%

90%

83%

Table 12

Rankings of Each Digital Literacy Competence Area’s Level of Importance in Entry-Level

Employees

DigComp 2.0 competence areas

Digital information and data literacy

100

35%

28%

24%

Digital communication and collaboration

100

19%

25%

27%

20%

Digital content creation

Digital safety

Digital problem-solving

100

13%

25%

14%

20%

13%

21%

13%

15%

25%

29%

21%

27%

13%

43%

Table 13

Level of Importance of Each Digital Literacy Competence Area’s Subskills in Entry-Level

Employees

DigComp 2.0 subskills

Digital information and data literacy

Browsing and searching digital content

Filtering digital data, information, and content

Managing digital data, information, and content

Digital communication and collaboration

Interacting through digital technologies

Sharing through digital technologies

Engaging in citizenship through digital technologies

Collaborating through digital technologies

Netiquette

Managing digital identity

3.99

3.70

3.86

3.48

3.15

3.08

3.30

3.10

3.16

1.33

1.40

1.42

.76

.81

1.01

.87

1.01

.94

Digital content creation

Developing digital content

Integrating digital content

Editing digital content

Programming

Digital safety

Protecting digital devices

Protecting personal digital data and privacy

Protecting digital health and well-being

Protecting the rights of others in digital environments

3.36

3.25

3.13

3.16

3.19

3.51

3.45

3.27

3.28

.77

.75

.79

.89

.83

.68

.64

.78

.69

Digital problem-solving

Solving technical problems

Identifying needs and technological responses

Creatively using digital technologies

Identifying digital competencies gaps

3.52

3.23

3.21

3.26

.77

.72

.77

.73

Table 14

Rankings of Each Digital Literacy Competence Area’s Subskills

DigComp 2.0 subskills

(%)

Digital information and data literacy

Browsing and searching digital content

Filtering digital data, information, and content

Managing digital data, information, and content

Digital communication and collaboration

Interacting through digital technologies

Sharing through digital technologies

Engaging in citizenship through digital technologies

Collaborating through digital technologies

Netiquette

Managing digital identity

36.0%

29.0%

34.8%

40.7%

17.4%

10.4%

12.7%

8.14%

10.4%

25.58%

44.19%

30.23%

17.44%

31.40%

23.26%

11.63%

10.47%

5.81%

38.37%

26.74%

34.88%

18.60%

17.44%

24.42%

17.44%

8.14%

13.95%

11.63%

13.95%

16.28%

30.23%

11.63%

16.28%

5.81%

13.95%

19.77%

34.88%

11.63%

5.81%

11.63%

8.14%

26.74%

41.86%

Digital content creation

Developing digital content

Integrating digital content

Editing digital content

Programming

Digital safety

Protecting digital devices

Protecting personal digital data and privacy

Protecting digital health and well-being

Protecting the rights of others in digital environments

44.8%

16.0%

9.20%

17.2%

12.6%

38.8%

31.1%

13.3%

16.6%

19.54%

28.74%

26.44%

12.63%

12.64%

26.67%

36.67%

24.44%

12.22%

17.24%

27.59%

36.78%

13.79%

4.60%

24.44%

22.22%

27.78%

25.56%

10.34%

18.39%

12.64%

36.78%

21.84%

10.00%

34.44%

45.56%

8.05%

9.20%

14.94%

19.54%

48.28%

Digital problem-solving

Solving technical problems

Identifying needs and technological responses

Creatively using digital technologies

32.5%

27.7%

20.4%

25.30%

40.96%

15.66%

28.92%

21.69%

28.92%

13.25%

9.64%

34.94%

DigComp 2.0 subskills

(%)

Identifying digital competencies gaps

19.2%

18.07%

20.48%

42.17%

Section Two: Data Analysis for Research Question 2

Research Question 2: What digital technology preparation is available to individuals with

intellectual disabilities attending an Inclusive Postsecondary Education (IPSE) program in the

U.S.? Responses to this question were examined by means of content analysis. The key variables

used in the directed content analysis approach to analyze RQ2 were the five digital literacy

competence areas of the DigComp 2.0 Conceptual Reference model (Vuorikari et al., 2016).

Research Question 2 concerns the availability of digital technology preparation in the

participating 83 IPSE programs. The availability of various digital technology skill preparation

in IPSE programs specifically offered to individuals with ID is shown in Table 15.

Through the content analysis of IPSE programs’ online content, a total of 44 skills and

courses were coded. Across data sources, the most reoccurring digital skill preparation involved

“basic computer skills” and “computer applications.” Data sources described courses including

Google applications, emailing, and digital citizenship components. The competence areas for

which least preparation was found within the 83 IPSE programs were digital safety (7.23%) and

digital problem-solving (7.23%).

While some programs offered preparation in a range of digital technology skills covering

various digital literacy subskills integrated into specialized courses for individuals with ID, only

three offered digital literacy as a course or curriculum. Furthermore, over half (51%) of IPSE

programs sampled did not have content discussing any digital technology skills preparation.

Table 15

Digital Technology Skills Preparation at IPSE Programs

Type of preparation

# of programs offering the

preparation

Basic computer skills

Computer applications

Computer skills for the workforce

Digital literacy

Digital media/multimedia

Technology workshop

Computer science

Introduction to computers

Computer literacy

Computer & information technology

Information technology

Introduction to computing principles

Computer coding

STEAM

Introduction to computer design

Web development

Research Question 2 also assessed whether the digital technology skills in demand in the

U.S. workforce were included in the digital skills preparation available at the 83 IPSE programs

sampled. To analyze this relationship, the data from RQ1 served as categories used to analyze

the digital skills discovered in RQ2. Table 16 displays the number and percentage of IPSE

programs offering preparation in each of digital technology skills competence area. As

illustrated, the categories with the highest percentage of digital skills preparation were

communication and collaboration (41%) and information and data literacy (40%). Programs

providing preparation in skill such as digital citizenship, emailing, editing documents, sharing

online documents, participating in group forums and chats, using job platforms to apply for jobs

and identifying appropriate digital communication tools and services, and so on, were coded as

communication and collaboration skills. The information and data literacy category includes

programs that offer preparation in organizing digital data and information, understanding search

engines, key words, and reliable data sources, and so on.

Table 16

IPSE Program Digital Technology Skills Preparation by Digital Literacy Competence Area

The five digital

competence areas

of digital literacy

Information

and data

literacy

Communication

and

collaboration

Content

creation

Safety

Problem-

solving

Digital

literacy

Number of IPSE

(out of 83)

Percentage

39.76%

40.96%

22.89%

7.23%

3.61%

Summary

Descriptive statistics and content analysis procedures were used to analyze the results of

the two research questions underlying this study. Briefly, in response to RQ1, employers ranked

digital information and data literacy and digital communication and collaboration as the top

digital literacy skills for entry-level employees at their organizations. Further, all three digital

information and data literacy items were deemed very important, supporting its top-ranking

competency of digital literacy. In response to RQ2 with regard to digital technology skills

preparation available to individuals with intellectual disabilities enrolled in IPSE programs, the

skills most frequently offered were digital information and data literacy and digital

communication and collaboration skills, such as basic computer and application skills.

Based on these analyses, in Chapter Five the researcher will summarize the findings and

present a discussion, implications, and recommendations for future research.

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

This study explored the digital technology skills important for entry-level employees in

the 21st-century workforce and the digital technology preparation in inclusive postsecondary

education (IPSE) programs for persons with intellectual disability (ID). This chapter has been

organized to present a summary of the study, a discussion of the findings, and implications for

practice based on the study’s results. The chapter ends with recommendations for future research

and a final conclusion.

Summary of the Study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether IPSE programs are equipping

individuals with ID with the digital technology skills employers require in today’s workforce.

First, the researcher identified the digital technology skills important for entry-level employees

in the 21st century by surveying 100 U.S. employers and then examined the curricula of IPSE

programs to determine whether they are preparing individuals with ID with the digital skills

leading to job market competitiveness. As such, the study establishes critical digital technology

skills in demand in various industries in the U.S. and provides a platform for further research and

discussion about the preparation in digital technology of individuals with ID at IPSE to ensure

competitiveness in today’s high-tech job market.

Individuals with disabilities are less likely to receive sufficient preparation in digital

technology than their nondisabled peers (Tyson, 2015). Therefore, this study examined the

availability of essential digital skill preparation to individuals with ID enrolled in IPSE

programs. Without digital technology skills, persons with disabilities are disadvantaged in many

areas. This potential disparity in the workforce is especially relevant in the 21st century, when

digital technology is essential for communication, education, and employment (Henderson &

Tilley, 2018; Swinton & Williams, 2018).

Using the Digital Competence (DigComp 2.0) Conceptual Reference model (Vuorikari et al.,

2016) to guide and frame the study, the researcher used mixed-methods methodology. The

overarching research question for the study was: Are IPSE programs for individuals with ID

preparing students with the digital technology skills employers deem important in the 21st

century? The study was guided by the following research questions:

1. Which digital technology skills of digital literacy do U.S. employers consider important

for entry-level employees at their organization?   

a. How do U.S. employers rank the digital technology subskills of digital literacy?

2. What digital technology preparation is available to individuals with ID attending an IPSE

program in the U.S.?

a. Which digital technology skills identified as important for entry-level employees

by U.S employers are included in the digital technology preparation of individuals

with ID in an IPSE program in the U.S?

Discussion of Findings

Research Question 1

Through the first research question, the researcher sought to identify the digital

technology skills important in today’s U.S. workforce. While most participating U.S. employers

(90%) agreed that digital safety was an important skill in entry-level employees at their

organization, when asked to rank each of the five digital literacy skills in order of importance,

digital safety ranked fourth. The most important competencies chosen by the sample were

digital information and data literacy, followed by digital communication and collaboration. In

terms of digital literacy subskills, the mean scores of respondents at organizations that required

the digital literacy skill set showed that all subskills under each competence areas were important

or very important. However, mean scores for all subskills for digital information and data

literacy and digital safety fell into the very important range (3.26-4.00).

These findings are significant because, according to research conducted by the Institute

for the Future and Dell Technologies (2017), increasing the competitiveness of individuals with

disabilities in a constantly evolving workforce requires reskilling and upskilling with 21st-

century skills. Insight into the digital technology skills employers perceive as important, as

gathered in this study, is the first step to accomplishing those efforts.

Research Question 2

Based on the publicly available information, IPSE programs were found to provide

preparation in various digital technology skills, such as basic computer skills, digital

media/multimedia, computer & information technology, computer design, and web development.

Data showed that 42 out of the 83 IPSE programs sampled (51%) did not have content

discussing any digital technology skills preparation. However, 72% of the programs offered

individuals with ID the opportunity to enroll in courses with the general population. Therefore,

students may have engaged in other classes and activities in which some of these digital literacy

skills may be acquired. Nonetheless, only three programs (4%) offered a digital literacy course or

certification/badge taught with a curriculum centering on digital technology skill acquisition.

NorthStar Digital literacy, and Decoda Literacy Solutions is not the only way to develop

students’ digital technology skills, explicit instruction in this area is critical for mastery for

individuals with ID (Cihak et al., 2015a, 201b).

After coding all 44 digital technology skills according to the DigComp 2.0 Conceptual

Reference model, the digital literacy competencies most available at the 83 IPSE programs were

found to be digital information and data literacy skills, followed by digital communication and

collaboration skills. The most common digital skill preparation offered throughout the sample

were basic computer and application skills. However, preparation for these skills was often

introductory, covering such skills as email, conducting a job search, creating an account on

Google applications. However, though the digital literacy competence area employers deemed

most important and the digital literacy preparation offered at IPSE aligned, there needs to be

more alignment in the subskills. Subskills determine individuals’ competence in the competence

area.

Consequently, the same mismatch is seen in the literature. In two studies, Collet et al.

(2015) and Damoah and colleagues (2020) uncovered the same challenge for employers and

college graduates in the job market: the mismatches between the skills employers’ desire and the

skills college applicants possess. Lyons et al. (2019) also showed this to be true regarding the

increased demand for digital skills in the workforce and the unpreparedness in digital technology

by entry-level employees. A mismatch in the skills individuals entering the workforce possess

and the skills in demand in the workforce is detrimental to both parties and further exacerbates

the current U.S. hiring crisis.

Furthermore, six IPSE programs (7%) included digital safety skills preparation, however,

employers indicated digital safety as a very important competence area amongst all five

categories. This misalignment is most significant due to its broader impact on individuals with

ID. Persons with ID are often met with a perception of risk for engaging online (Chadwick et al.,

2017). Some risk includes being bullied online, being susceptible to online scams, and disclosing

information that should be private. For that reason, providing digital safety education to

individuals with ID in K-21 is critical. Digital safety education will assist persons with ID in

learning the skills necessary to manage risk in digital environments and protect their digital

identity, leading to increased digital inclusion and socialization (Chadwick, 2019).

Similarly, digital problem-solving (7.23%) was also found to be one of the competence

areas in IPSE programs’ data sources with the least preparation. This finding is of great interest

due to the challenges individuals with ID have traditionally encountered in developing problem-

solving skills (Wehmeyer & Shogren, 2016). Identifying problems and possible solutions are

essential soft skills for the workforce. According to research, systematic problem-solving

strategies (Cote et al., 2010) such as cognitive strategy instruction (Krawec et al., 2012) and

schema-based instruction (Cook et al., 2019; Fuchs et al., 2020) are effective in teaching students

with learning disabilities problem-solving in various domains. If IPSE programs included digital

problem-solving in students’ preparation, it would provide the population with increased

opportunities to learn and master problem-solving and apply them in their work-based learning.

The existing literature shows that basic digital technology skills such as emailing are

most frequently taught to students with ID (Cihak, 2015a, 2015b), findings that are corroborated

by the current study. Therefore, although the digital literacy competence areas employers

perceive most important in the workforce align with those addressed at IPSE programs, more

alignment is necessary for in the subskills employers deem essential and the digital technology

skills individuals with ID are prepared in at IPSE programs. This disconnect further perpetuates

the digital skill gap between those with and without disabilities, and yet, how these skills are

mastered by person with ID are not completely understood or researched at this time. To

accurately prepare individuals with ID in the digital technology skills important in the workforce,

IPSE programs should provide digital literacy education that covers more than basic digital

technology skills while ensuring mastery of skills that may be difficult for persons with this type

of disability to achieve based upon the criteria for diagnosis and inclusion related to IDEA.

Implications for Practice

This section presents implications for practice for practitioners, transition and workforce

development specialists, and IPSE program faculty and staff. Based on the results of this study,

digital literacy is a skill employers consider important for entry-level employees. However, IPSE

programs only offered limited preparation in this area. Therefore, the researcher suggests that

IPSE programs preparing persons with ID for competitive employment integrate digital literacy

education to a level of mastery of essential skills into their curricula. Embedding employability

skills into the curriculum will prepare students for success regardless of career interest (Hollister

et al., 2017). For example, to address the lack of digital safety preparation, IPSE programs can

collaborate with their host institutions’ IT department to develop a module covering all the

digital safety subskills. Also, embedding different subskills within lessons across units that are

already part of the syllabus is a great way to cover digital literacies comprehensively without

drastically altering the course syllabus.

Closing the gap between education and employment leads to significant “digital income”

for disadvantaged populations (Bolstad et al., 2012; Chetty et al., 2017). To that end, ensuring

curricula align with industries’ digital technology expectations for employees helps better

prepare individuals with ID to enter the workforce with the required skills (Hollister et al., 2017).

Without targeted measures to meet the needs of individuals with ID, the skills gap will continue

to increase given today’s rapid technological advancements.

Guided by the results of this study, the researcher presents the following

recommendations:

• Teacher preparation and professional development. Teachers need to be prepared to

foster 21st-century learners. Educators’ competence and self-efficacy in teaching digital

technology impact students’ digital literacy proficiency (Dogan & Robin, 2008; Falloon,

2020). Updating teachers’ competence profiles for 21st-century skills is critical to

improving the academic and employment outcomes of students with disabilities (Caena

& Redecker, 2019). Ensuring all educators have access to digital technology education

throughout their pre- and in-service preparation will aid in creating educators competent

in digital technology, directly impacting students' outcomes (Engen & Engen, 2019).

Teachers need to enter the teaching field with digital competence and high self-efficacy

in teaching digital technology. Falloon (2020) proposed a digital competence framework

for educators to model the planning and teaching of the competencies required to

facilitate productive, safe, and ethical activities in diverse and digital environments for

future teachers. Further, the framework used in this research has a corresponding

curriculum for educators. That is, the European Framework for the Digital Competence

of Educators or DigCompEdu (Redecker, 2017) supports the development of educator-

specific digital competence. DigCompEdu is an effective tool for educators from P-21 to

adult education, including vocational education, special education, and nonformal

learning contexts.

o IPSE programs administrators, coordinators, and educators’ development.

In 2021, Think College’s National Coordinating Center (NCC) published updated

model accreditation standards for higher education programs for students with ID

(Think College National Coordinating Center Accreditation Workgroup, 2021).

The accreditation standards are recommended model criteria, standards, and

components for IPSE programs for individuals with ID. NCC presented seven

standards for faculty and staff. One of those standards states, “Staff and other

professionals that work directly for the program have education and training

commensurate with their roles and responsibilities and participate in ongoing

professional development and training. (Think College National Coordinating

Center Accreditation Workgroup, 2021, p3).” Similarly to educators, IPSE

program faculty and staff should undergo development and training in practices,

strategies, and curricula essential to educating their student population with 21st -

century digital technology skills. The IPSE programs can invest in memberships

and partnerships with organizations such as the International Society for

Technology in Education (ISTE), the Center for Applied Special Technology

(CAST), Council for Exceptional Children’s Innovation in Special Education

Technology Division (ISET) and Division for Career Development and

Transition, (DCDT), and the American Association on Intellectual and

Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) to gain access to valuable information and

personnel preparation in disability and digital technology skills. Additionally,

IPSE programs can consider partnering with departments or colleges within their

host institution to receive free resources and preparation for their staff in these

focus areas.

• NCC’s Curriculum Standards. Within the model accreditation standards for higher

education students with ID, NCC also recommended seven standards targeting IPSE

programs’ curriculum. Specifically, curriculum standard number five states, “ The

inclusive program of study includes instruction, internships, apprenticeships or other

work-based learning, and other career development activities necessary to enable students

to achieve and sustain competitive integrated employment (CIE) aligned with person-

centered goals (Think College National Coordinating Center Accreditation Workgroup,

2021, p. 3).” Out of the 100 management employers surveyed, 71 % reported offering

CIE for individuals with a disability. This data, along with the high percentages of

employers reporting the importance of digital technology skills for entry-level

employees, suggest digital literacy education is necessary in IPSEs’ programs of study.

Digital literacy education’s potential impact on persons with ID obtaining and sustaining

CIE in today’s workforce is significant enough to become a programmatic element in

IPSE programs’ career preparation curriculum.

o Curriculum evaluation. An essential starting point to providing individuals with

ID digital literacy education is examining the content of the given program’s

curriculum aligned with the targeted strengths and deficits of this population to

determine whether digital literacy education is sufficiently addressed and in what

areas digital technology education can be integrated if the skills are unaddressed

(Hollister et al., 2017). The IPSE faculty and staff can evaluate programs’

curriculum using similar producers employed in this study.

• Digital literacy assessment. Assessing students’ digital literacy provides IPSE staff with

valuable information that can inform learning and instruction (Laanpere, 2019;

Lowenthal et al., 2023). Having insight into students’ proficiency in each digital literacy

competence areas will aid educators in developing personalized plans for students to

target every subskill. Identifying potential gaps and struggles for students in this

population in general could allow for national research focused on ways to teach skills

with higher order and problem-solving skills in technology.

• Sector partnerships. The IPSE programs should partner with local companies to identify

the digital skills gap and subsequently prepare highly skilled graduates in digital

technology (Alexander et al., 2017). Identifying the digital literacy competence required

in the industries of students’ interest will provide programs with valuable information for

career planning. For example, Central Florida is known for its tourism, which creates a

demand for employees in the hospitality industry. The University of Central Florida’s

(UCF) IPSE program offers students a hospitality track certification. The IPSE program

staff can partner with organizations such as Rosen Hotels, Universal Studios, and Darden

Restaurants to assess their digital technology proficiency requirements and embed these

skills into the hospitality program track coursework. In doing this, employers can be

confident that students graduating with the hospitality certification obtain the digital

skills desired for employment at their organization. Furthermore, in the future ,UCF’s

IPSE program staff can consider working with these partners to establish an endorsement

of their digital workforce training curriculum for hospitality.

The current study showed that 21% of the employees sampled worked at an

organization that did not offer customized training for individuals with disabilities, and

17% did not offer any digital technology training, even if the skills were required for

employment. Therefore, IPSE programs partnering with organizations in the community

to develop modified training and training materials for individuals with ID would be

advantageous for both parties. For example, the IPSE programs will gain insight into the

needs and expectations of local businesses that can inform their practices and preparation,

and the organizations will gain disability awareness and inclusion training in working

with professionals knowledgeable about the population. Sector partnerships that

establishes collaborative efforts such as these are critical for the social inclusion of

individuals with ID and increases the populations’ employment outcome (Raja, 2016).

Resources for Practice

The guiding framework for this study, the Digital Competence (DigComp 2.0) Conceptual

reference model was developed as a tool to aid in the successful implementation and

incorporation of many of these recommendations (Pérez-Escoda & Fernández-Villavicencio,

2016; Vuorikari et al., 2016). DigComp 2.0 has been used internationally to strengthen digital

literacy. As one of the most comprehensive frameworks for digital literacy, this practical tool

provides common understanding and language used to assess individuals’ current level of digital

competence and identify the areas in which they need to improve. Furthermore, the framework

consists of examples of knowledge, skills, and attitudes for each of the five digital literacy

competence areas and an assessment of digital literacy competence to adequately prepare

individuals to use digital technologies effectively. More importantly, all the DigComp 2.0

resources are free and accessible. The structure this framework offers IPSE programs in

evaluating curriculum, assessing students’ digital competency, and closing the digital technology

skill gap is significant and could have a great impact on the way individuals with disabilities are

prepared in 21st-centruy digital literacy.

For example, as an adjunct professor at an IPSE program, the researcher used the DigComp

2.0 framework and resources to embed digital literacy education into an upper-level career

planning course specifically for students with ID in the program. The researcher took the pre-

existing course syllabus and evaluated what digital literacy subskills were already addressed and

whether additional preparations could be included. For example, one of the final projects for the

course was a digital portfolio that students could share with employers to showcase their

experience and development in the program. The researcher used this unit to explicitly teach

students digital information and data literacy and digital content creation subskills. Other

subskills were addressed in the same manner.

Within the first two weeks of the semester, students were given the DigComp Digital Skills

Assessment tool as a pre-test to evaluate students’ digital literacy competence in each of the five

areas. The assessment results were then used to scaffold lessons and input additional supports

that may be needed for students. For example, for competence areas where students received a

“foundation” level evaluation, extra resources such as video tutorials and visuals were available

for students to review before the lesson. Additionally, task analysis charts were created to help

students walk through certain activities’ steps. Some lessons were extended for extra rehearsal

before moving on to a new or compounding skill. Also, at the end of each class students engaged

in a class discussion centering how each digital skill could be used at their internship or in a

future career. The researcher implemented this “exit ticket” activity to help students understand

how the digital skills they acquired could generalize from one environment to another.

During final exams, students were again given the DigComp Digital Skills Assessment tool

as a post-test. The pre and posttests were compared to assess students’ progress in each

competence area. The researcher also performed one-on-one interviews with students to assess

their perception of their growth and competence in digital literacy and the teachers’ instruction.

The data results were analyzed to improve learning and instruction for future course sections.

Three things IPSE Programs can do to Promote Digital Literacy for the Workforce

Promoting digital literacy is essential in today's technologically advanced workforce. The

IPSE programs can play a pivotal role in promoting digital literacy and equipping persons with

ID with the skills to navigate the digital world effectively and responsibly. Presented below are

three things IPSE programs can implement to foster digital literacy among individuals with ID:

1. Job carving. Once students’ digital competence is assessed and their strengths are

identified. A helpful strategy for marketing students’ digital employability skills

is job carving. Job carving is a process where customized job roles are broken

down into tasks, responsibilities, and functions to suit individuals with ID unique

abilities and skills (Wehman et al., 2021). Job carving involves tailoring

employment opportunities to accommodate individuals' specific strengths and

interests, allowing them to contribute meaningfully to the workforce. This

approach promotes inclusivity and empowers individuals to overcome limitations,

fostering a sense of independence, productivity, and self-worth (Wehman et al.,

2021). Job coaches can use job carving to create a work environment that

recognizes and harnesses the diverse talents and capabilities of individuals with

ID.

2. Digital task analysis. The IPSE program faculty and staff can develop digital-

based task analysis to help students with ID learn new digital literacy skills. Task

analysis involves breaking down a skill into sequential steps to match students’

abilities (Randall et al., 2020). Presenting each step in order allows students to

follow the steps logically and perform the task correctly, which is critical for

persons with ID learning new and complex skillsets. Staff can also teach students

how to create task analysis on their own. Access to the task on a phone or other

digital devices can help persons with ID achieve independence, an essential

component to obtain and sustain employment (Randall et al., 2020). By utilizing

task analysis, IPSE program staff can break down complex digital skills into

manageable components, cater to individual learning needs, and effectively

support students with ID in acquiring new skills.

3. Competency-based credentials. Competency-based credentials are certifications

or qualifications awarded based on an individual's demonstrated mastery of

specific competencies or skills (Thorne et al., 2023). These credentials focus on

assessing and validating a person's abilities and proficiency in performing specific

tasks or functions relevant to a particular profession or industry. A typical digital

technology competency-based credential used in career programs are digital

badges. According to 1EdTech Foundation (2021), digital badges are a widely

awarded micro-credential, with over 40 million badges awarded to date. These

credentials are often valued by employers who prioritize practical skills and

performance-based outcomes.

Competency-based credentials can be an alternative or complement to traditional

degrees or certifications, offering individuals a flexible and targeted pathway to

demonstrate their expertise in a specific field (Braxton et al., 2023), which is

beneficial for individuals with ID. By incorporating competency-based credentials

into IPSE programs, individuals with ID receive targeted, practical training, while

organizations benefit from a more skilled and qualified workforce that meets their

specific needs.

Implementing these strategies can promote and empower students with ID to develop essential

21st-century digital technology skills; this, in turn, enhances their independence, employability,

and overall inclusion in the digital society.

Recommendations for Future Research

After analyzing the results of this investigation and considering the limited research on

this topic, the researcher identified areas of future research to expand the literature on the digital

preparation of students with ID enrolled in IPSE programs. The first research topic involves

creating a connection between education and career preparation for students with disabilities and

computer science to address the diversity of the topics. Conducting interdisciplinary research

allows for synthesizing concepts and characteristics from various disciplines, which is essential

for unraveling multilayered topics such as this. Additionally, interdisciplinary research

emphasizes the importance of diverse partners and networks, which often provides a bridge

between research, policy, and practice (Brown et al., 2019).

As noted in the literature review, more research is needed to explore digital technology

preparation for students with ID in transition and inclusive postsecondary education. Research

investigating how the current digital technology standards used throughout the U.S. (the ISTE

Standards) are being implemented in K-12 education for students with more significant

disabilities and how transferable and relevant the skills are toward students’ postsecondary goals

could provide a platform for further discussion on digital technology standards and practices for

the population. Research in this area is critical for developing digitally competent citizens.

Specifically, information is needed on the type and quality of preparation students with ID

receive throughout their K-21 education. All students deserve to be prepared with the skills

necessary for success inside and outside the classroom, regardless of ability or disability

category.

Another direction researchers can explore to strengthen digital literacy for persons with

ID is assessing pre- and in-service educators’ digital technology competence. If special

educators, transition educators, and other support personnel involved in workforce preparation of

their students improve their knowledge about digital technology their students’ outcome will be

directly affected (Dogan & Robin, 2008; Lee et al., 2021). Therefore, assessing educators’ digital

technology competence is critical to understanding whether teachers are prepared with the

knowledge and tools necessary to teach students with disabilities digital literacies and, if not,

what teacher preparation and professional development is required to address the skill gap.

The data in the current study were not disaggregated by industry. Therefore, another area

for future research involves determining which digital technology competencies and skills are in

demand and the digital proficiency expected in entry-level employees in the industries most

likely to hire individuals with ID. Furthermore, evaluating IPSE programs’ instructional

practices in digital technology preparation and students’ digital literacy competence post-

instruction would also further this research and assist in establishing best practices for the

population. Finally, additional exploratory research on this topic will add to the inclusive

postsecondary literature and inform various stakeholders devoted to individuals with ID career

preparation and employment.

Limitations

Due to the sampling procedures applied in this study, it was not possible to collect any

identifiable information from the sample, thereby preventing the researcher from gather more in-

depth data. The use of focus groups would have allowed U.S. employers to expand their

perceptions of the importance of digital technology skills for entry-level employees. Therefore,

limitation of this study was the researcher-developed instrument. Though the researcher used a

framework to develop the survey, several modifications were made to fit the study better.

Although the role of instrument psychometric properties was used to address this concern,

employing an instrument with robust reliability and validation data is ideal and would have

strengthened the study. Lastly, the researcher’s use of only publicly accessible data sources also

limited the scope of this exploration. Though the researcher contacted programs directly for

clarification on digital preparation information found online, if no digital technology preparation

was presented online, the researcher did not contact the program to verify. While conducting

college or program searches via the internet is typical, programs may not provide every detail of

their program online.

Conclusion

Recent changes in the workforce have increased the importance of completing a certain

amount of postsecondary education to compete in the job market (Pew Research Center, 2016).

Over the past two decades, IPSE programs have been identified as a bridge to employment for

people with ID (Grigal & Papay, 2018; Hendrickson et al., 2017; Prohn et al., 2018). Thus,

according to Southward and Kyzar (2017) and Grigal and colleagues (2019b), participation in

IPSE programs predicts competitive pay for individuals with ID.

With an increased enrollment of individuals with ID into IPSE programs and the

relationship between IPSE attendance and competitive pay, stakeholders must focus on providing

students with career preparation and development that aligns with the needs of the field. In

addition, a robust line of literature has established that digital literacy is a 21st-century skill in

strong demand in the workforce (Siddiq et al., 2016; Van Laar et al., 2017, 2020; Voogt & Roblin,

2012). Therefore, integrating the digital literacy and skill development required in the workforce

within the curriculum of IPSE programs is critical.

The results of analyzing the digital technology skills important in the U.S. workforce and

the digital technology preparation at IPSE programs provide program administrators and other

stakeholders valuable insight into the digital competencies most valued for employment and the

current level of relevant training at IPSE programs. This study’s overarching question was whether

IPSE programs for individuals with ID are preparing them with the digital technology skills

employers deem important in the 21st century. Given that 51% of the programs sampled did not

address any digital technology preparation based on their publicly accessible information and more

than 75% of the preparation addressed only two competence areas of digital literacy and at a very

basic level. The researcher must conclude that IPSE programs are currently not sufficiently

preparing students with the type of digital technology preparation required for them to be

competitive in today’s job market.

Digital technology is becoming a topic of great interest for researchers, policymakers,

educators, and organizations. However, digital technology preparation for perons with ID has yet

to receive the persistent research and discussion it deserves. The current study contributes to that

research and reinforces that all individuals with and without disabilities should be prepared to enter

employment with the skills necessary to be successful in the workplace.

Students also viewed