EXAMINING THE CHANGING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LITERACY
AND TECHNOLOGY IN AN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Lyford Cay International School (LCIS), located in Nassau Bahamas, stands as a
prestigious symbol of excellence. It represents the high standards of the community in
which it is domiciled, and reflects its vision to become a leading educational institution
within the Caribbean. Since it opened its doors 53 years ago, LCIS has transformed itself
into a Junior Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 12 international school, boasting an
enrollment of 350 students from 24 different countries. LCIS embedded the International
Baccalaureate (IB) Programmes in 2005, when the school expanded its scope to add a
high school. The IB programmes have established rigorous educational standards, and are
recognized throughout the world by universities as an exceptional form of education.
These IB programmes, which are a part of the International Baccalaureate Organization
(IBO), encourage students to be internationally-minded within a complex and
hyperconnected world.
The International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) was founded in 1968. Today,
there are more than 5,578 International Baccalaureate (IB) Programmes offered
worldwide across 4,335 schools. The goal of the International Baccalaureate Programmes
is to provide students with opportunities that will enable them to become knowledgeable,
caring, respectful students who take responsibility for others in the global community
(International Baccalaureate Organization, 2015.). The IBO offers four distinct
programmes, which were developed over time. The Primary Years Programme (PYP)
1
was designed for students ages 3-12. This programme incorporates local and global issues
into the curriculum through five related transdisciplinary themes: (a) who we are; (b)
where we are in place and time; (c) how we express ourselves; (d) how we organize
ourselves; and (e) the planet. The Middle Years Programme (MYP) was designed for
students ages 11-16. The MYP comprises eight subject areas that embolden students to
make meaning between the content of their courses and how that content is applied in the
real world. The Diploma Programme (DP), the original programme, is intended for
students ages 16-19 who are in their final two years of high school. The DP was designed
to teach students to learn by critical analysis rather than by rote memorization. Most
recently, but not discussed in this study, the IB has added a new fourth programme, a
career-related programme created for students 16-19 that can be taken instead of DP
(International Baccalaureate Organization, 2015.).
Today, LCIS is one of 298 schools worldwide to offer three of the IB programmes
(PYP, MYP, and DP). Designed as a continuum, these programmes stimulate students to
be intellectually curious and equip them with the knowledge, conceptual understanding,
skills, reflective practices, and attitudes needed to become autonomous lifelong learners.
The IB programme continuum recognizes that learning is a process, not a product.
Through the three programmes, teachers are encouraged to challenge students to excel in
2
both their education and personal development, in order to become internationally minded
and to think beyond their immediate environment.
Since the advent of technology and literacy pedagogy, today’s students learn
differently than those in past generations. Technology requires students to have
increasingly multifaceted skills and to navigate ever more complex territory throughout
their education. While the IBO does emphasize the importance of technology literacy,
particularly the notion that technology literacy encourages students to express themselves
in multiple modes of communication, it does not prescribe specific technological
frameworks and/or hardware or software applications for schools offering the IB
curriculum. Technology is considered an integral component to teaching and learning in
the IB programmes. Instead, the IBO requires that technology support students’
intercultural understanding, global engagement, and multilingualism; inspire students to
be effective creators and consumers of information in various formats; and help students
to understand how being digitally literate will help them in the future, personally,
professionally, and academically. The IBO views technology as a means to support and
enhance the curriculum, not to replace it.
In December 2015, the IBO published “Teaching and Learning with Technology”
for IB schools. The publication examines the various definitions of technology, discusses
how technology policies can be formed in schools, and suggests frameworks to guide the
implementation of technology. Most importantly, this document describes the distinction
between the implementation of technology and the integration of technology.
Implementation refers to the technological tools and infrastructure itself, while integration
3
refers to how an educator uses that technology to present pedagogical content within
various subject areas. While the IBO’s document does encourage teachers to use pedagogy
to drive technology, it provides only a few examples of how to execute this.
One important component missing from the publication is the important
conversation around “new literacies.” Traditionally, literacy refers to reading, writing,
listening, and speaking (Holum & Gahala, n.d.), encompassing the vast variety of skills
and knowledge that “literate” people have possessed for generations. These literacy skills
were put to use from the advent of the earliest writing systems and utensils. “Literacy”
existed with tools as simple as a pencil and paper, a book, or a voice and a receptive ear.
Today “literacy” refers to much more than a range of skills; it is a social practice, a
practice that helps literate people to create different kinds of meanings, establish different
relationships, and produce different social identities (Jones & Hafner, 2012). That is,
notions of reading and writing “differ according to culture and context, and have specific
cognitive, cultural, and social effects” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000, p. 16). This concept of
literacy as a social phenomenon, as opposed to the traditional view of a set of thinking and
technical skills, is known as new literacies (Street, 2003a; Leu, 2000; Lankshear &
Knobel, 2011; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2013).
According to Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, and Leu (2008), new literacies involve
“knowing how and when to make wise decisions about which technologies and which
forms and functions of literacy most support one’s purposes” (p. 4-5). That is, “new
literacies” engage people in texts and discourses, inclusive of multiple languages, across
space and time, and on screens. Through the utilization of new media, communication
4
occurs instantaneously and ubiquitously. These “new literacies” build on the foundation of
traditional literacy skills, such as reading comprehension, phonemic awareness, and
writing. This understanding suggests that students must build on these traditional literacy
skills in order to adapt to the “new literacies” of the future (New South Wales Department
of Education and Training, 2010).
Assigning a new definition to the word literacy is the result of our expanded
scholarships and paradigms for literacies, in particular the evolving understanding “that
there are many different literacies that shift with context, text and identities of the people
using the text” (Roswell & Walsh, 2011, p. 55). The term “new” encompasses multiple
perspectives—from cognitive sciences (Gee, 2003) to sociolinguistics (Kress, 2003) to
cultural anthropology (Street, 2003a). Other scholars conclude that literacy is multimodal
— that learning evolves through image, animated movement, writing, speech, gesture, or
gaze (Kress, 2003, 2010; Lemke, 2002). The New London Group (1996) asserted that
digital communication media and multimodal approaches create diverse forms of literacy
practices— multiliteracies—that are inclusive of one’s culture, communication, and
experiences.
While some of these literacies were recognized before the widespread use of
technology, these new literacies have come to inform policy and professional decisions,
which now suggests that “technology has increased the intensity and complexity of literate
environments” (“NCTE Definition,” 2008, para. 1). These new media, such as the Internet
and communication technologies, have created affordances and constraints regarding
“what we can do, what we can mean, how we can relate to others, how or what we can
5
think and finally who we can be” (Jones & Hafner, 2012, p. 5). Our twenty-first century
learners will need to engage in new social practices, communication skills, and strategies
in order to effectively implement new literacies (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008,
p. 14). Computers have become much more than a tool for retrieving information. They
provide opportunities for us to make different kinds of meaning, selfexpression, play, and
relationship-building. Buckingham (2008) writes, “Outside of school, children are
engaging with these media, not as technologies but as cultural forms” (p. 74). As
educators, we therefore have a responsibility to ensure that our students have access to
this media within our schools. However, it is this intersection of media, both commercial
and technological, that often causes confusion for educators. The optimist concludes that
this media allows us to do things better and faster, providing more time for students to
create and collaborate with one another. Conversely, the pessimists believe media causes
distraction and prevents students from thinking deeply.
These contrasting views have resulted in a critical analysis of “digital literacy.”
“Digital literacies” has become a crucial topic for educators in general, and for the
IBO in particular. In acknowledgement, this study examined digital literacies in relation to
IB contexts and pedagogy. Gilster (1997) defined digital literacy as “the ability to
understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide variety of sources when it
is presented via computers and particularly through the medium of the Internet” (p. 6).
Digital literacy practices—blogs, social media (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram), video
games, video chats, and online texts—reflect the influential role that technology has in our
lives, specifically where communication is concerned. Habits of critical thinking (e.g.,
balancing skepticism and open-mindedness, evaluating sources of information, and
6
analyzing information for validity and usefulness) are essential to developing skills within
the area of digital literacies practices (New London Group, 1996; Gee, 2007; Street,
2003b). Additionally, given ominous and salient threats such as hacking and privacy
invasion, it is especially important to develop abilities to innovate and to problem solve
both individually and collectively, in order to prepare for the full scope of technological
evolution and to ensure our well-being as digital participants.
With so much at stake and so much to gain, technology stands at the center of our
lives. In an IB setting, however, it is students who are always at the center of our
programmes. Teachers support students in learning how to think for themselves and how
to drive their learning processes. The challenge for IB educators is to understand how to
effectively integrate digital literacy within the IB programmes and how to equip students
with the skill sets they need to construct meaning, shape their understanding in diverse
formats, and develop ways of working for both their future and our shared global future.
More specifically, teachers need to ensure that technology integration is derived from their
own pedagogical content knowledge and extends to the pedagogical practices they employ
to successfully teach their subject (Shulman, 1987).
As few studies have been conducted in IB schools regarding digital literacies and
technology integration, this practitioner research study examined the forces, contexts, and
situations that influence how digital literacies are perceived, take up, or resisted at an IB
School in Nassau, The Bahamas. In particular, this study provides an opportunity to
carefully examine teachers’ experiences within the IB curriculum as they learn and begin
to work with digital literacies. Further, the study explored how a school’s vision of
7
technology, organizational structure, and professional development programs influence
the teaching of digital literacies across all grade levels.
Statement of the Problem
Increases in information and communication technologies have now created a need
for the integration of digital literacy and technology throughout the educational arena.
These are now critical elements of successful participation in academic life, the
workforce, and society. It is thus surprising that the IBO has only recently begun to
examine the notion of digital literacy and how it should be implemented in an IB school.
This delay is especially puzzling given the emphasis the IB places on being responsive to
new research in pedagogy.
As principal of Lyford Cay International School (LCIS), I confront regular demand
from parents and community members to ensure that the school upholds its rigorous IB
programmes, especially its holistic and innovative approach to education. The community
earmarked donations for the rollout of educational technology platforms, fundraising well
over $1.5 million over 10 years. This dedication to educational technology came with
clear expectations that the school develop a curriculum that effectively integrates
technology and that educators expand their notions of literacy. A pilot study was
conducted in the spring of 2014 to examine teacher attitudes and beliefs regarding the
utilization of technology as an instructional tool at LCIS. Data collected during this study
suggested that teachers are ill equipped to strategically incorporate technology in their
curriculum. The IBO requires that teachers use technology to support students’
intercultural understanding, global engagement, and multilingualism, as well as to teach
8
them to be effective creators and consumers of information across various formats. Yet if
teachers are ill equipped to provide this integration, the LCIS students are at risk of
leaving school without being digitally literate. Teachers must therefore believe and
embrace the fact that meaningful integration of technology plays a critical role in
instructional practices, especially as it relates to digital literacies.
Digital literacy has been the focus of educators since the early 1990s, when
technology became affordable, readily usable, and pervasive. Now, digitally literate
individuals are not only required to share their ideas through the use of appropriate tools,
but they also need to engage in the following:
•Build intentional cross-cultural connections and relationships with others, in order
to pose and solve problems collaboratively and strengthen independent thought.
•Design and share information for global communities to meet a variety of
purposes.
•Manage, analyze, and synthesize multiple streams of simultaneous information
(“NCTE Definition,” 2008).
If we are to accomplish this goal, IB educators must begin to rethink their
methodologies as they relate to literacy and their previous assumptions about teaching and
learning. Currently, there is a mismatch between informal learning—learning that occurs
outside of a school or institution, often done voluntarily and generated by personal
motivation—and formal education—learning that occurs in a highly regulated
environment (Davidson & Goldberg, 2012). Our current educational institutions are not
9
using the digital literacy practices and tools in formal education settings that are available
to and employed by our students in informal learning contexts.
The goal of technology integration is for teachers to use technology to enhance
their lessons, increase students’ critical thinking and research skills, and engage students
in solving open-ended problems. This should not be confused with technology
implementation, which can be distinguished as “the process of acquiring and introducing
devices and applications as well as managing systems that support technology use”
(International Baccalaureate Organization, n.d, para 5). Simply using a device or digital
tool is not integration.
If technology integration and digital literacy is to be connected to teaching and
learning, we must start with our teachers. Teachers directly affect classroom instruction,
and there is substantial research (Ertmer, 1999; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997;
Dexter, Anderson, & Becker, 1999) that suggests that their attitudes and perceptions affect
their pedagogical strategies. Consequently, the scholarship surrounding teacher attitudes
and beliefs are critical for educators to understand, especially where technology is
concerned (Lim & Chan, 2007). While there is ample research (Mishra & Koehler, 2006;
Wozney, Venkatesh, & Abrami, 2006) suggesting that teachers’ pedagogical beliefs can
and do influence the choices that teachers make regarding technology, there is
significantly less scholarship on teachers’ pedagogical beliefs regarding the use of digital
literacies and technology integration specifically within an IB setting. Ertmer,
Gopalakrishnan, and Ross (2001) posited that we must understand teachers’ pedagogical
beliefs so that we can transform them. These pedagogical beliefs are often a direct result
10
of their experiences. Ertmer, Gopalakrishnan, and Ross (2001) also suggested that
increased professional development opportunities, coupled with specifics regarding how
teachers can adapt their constructivist practice to reflect the barriers that they experience
at their school sites, will increase teacher growth. Therefore, it is imperative that
educators and stakeholders in school settings become aware of the impact that teachers’
beliefs have on the implementation of digital literacies and technology integration. This
understanding is critical if teachers are to begin to think differently about digital literacy
practices.
Purpose of the Study
Students entering the Lyford Cay International School (LCIS) are already curious
and keen on schooling. They are generally inquisitive, hungry for knowledge, and capable
of thinking about their local environment within a global context. This student profile
lends itself well to a curriculum that mandates the integration of technology into academic
and daily life. Our students need to manage, analyze, and synthesize multiple streams of
information. Likewise, our teachers need to promote higher-order thinking skills in our
students, inclusive of digital literacies and technology, to more effectively facilitate their
students’ construction of knowledge and meaning.
The IBO expects teachers to use technology to support students in becoming
“problem solvers who can appreciate the role of technology in their daily life”
(International Baccalaureate Organization. 2011, para. 1), and who can respond critically
and resourcefully to real-life challenges. Through Information Communication
Technology (ICT), LCIS aims to provide students with opportunities to “investigate,
11
create, communicate, collaborate, organize and be responsible for their own learning and
actions” (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2011, para. 2). The IB programme
requires students to be creative and innovative users of technologies. Teachers should thus
expose students to globally significant ideas and should “explore different perspectives in
order to understand evolving cultural and social norms” (International Baccalaureate
Organization, 2011, para. 1). Technology has become an invaluable, stimulating
component of our students’ educational experience. However, at LCIS, there appears to be
a disconnect between the understanding of technology integration and the implementation
of technology, specifically where digital literacies practices are concerned. LCIS does not
face this problem alone. In a recent study by the National
Center for Educational Statistics (NCES; Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010), only 40% of
3,300 teachers surveyed reported using technology for instructional purposes. Rather, the
majority of teachers reported that they use technology primarily for taking attendance and
grading. Further, Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, and O’Connor (2003) argued that, despite the
increased spending and access to technology that schools provide, many question whether
these emerging technologies are improving teaching and learning.
A recent survey conducted by the LCIS Technology Director indicated that only
50% of teachers are effectively implementing technology into all components of their
curriculum. According to the National Education Technology Standards for students:
Effective integration of technology is achieved when students are able to select
technology tools to help them obtain information in a timely manner, analyze and
synthesize the information, and present it professionally. The technology should
become an integral part of how the classroom functions —as accessible as all
other classroom tools. ("What Is Successful Technology Integration?” 2007, para.
4)
12
Further, research clearly indicates that educational leaders must expand their
personal knowledge about technology and develop an understanding of how technology
affects teaching and learning (Davies, 2010). That is, administrators are a key component
to successful technology integration; they must be personally invested in building a shared
vision as it relates to technology.
Research Questions
The use of digital literacies within the IB programme is gaining more attention.
The IBO encourages school leaders to “carefully examine technological concepts and
processes that broaden student experience and prepare them for participation in the larger
world” (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2014, p. 5). Therefore, my focus and
positionality as a principal are reflected in the following research goal: examining how
teachers in all three divisions of the school — Early Learning Center (ELM), Elementary
(ELM) and Secondary School (SS)— are integrating digital literacies within the
International Baccalaureate Programme (IB). Three research questions advance this goal:
1. How have teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, or personal experiences with technology
shaped their instructional practices?
2. How have teachers interpreted “technology integration” within the IB programme,
and how has the programme influenced their teaching of digital literacies
practices and technology?
3. What happens when I, as a school administrator, begin to explore how the school’s
vision of technology integration is influencing the implementation of digital
13
literacies within the IB programme? How does what I learn influence my work as
a school leader?
4. This research led me to deepen my understanding of the forces, contexts, and
situations influencing current perspectives of digital literacies at LCIS. By
examining teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, I evaluated whether these collective
professional convictions affect the implementation of digital literacies in the
classrooms.
How teachers implement their pedagogical strategies is directly linked to their
belief systems (Pajares, 1992). Satchwell and Miller (2006) proposed that students’
successes or failures are dependent upon teachers’ expectations. Therefore, I examined,
described, and interpreted these teachers’ belief systems about digital literacies as they
relate to instructional practices at LCIS. By employing case studies to focus more closely
on four teachers from each division of the school and their classroom practices, I
examined their ideas about what impact professional development had, what professional
development should encompass, and how their personal experiences and the school
culture affect their instruction. The results of this study informed my practices as the
school leader and helped me to work with the faculty to co-create a healthy digital
ecology in an IB setting to advance teaching and learning.
Summary
This chapter outlined the significance and purpose of this study and its specific
research questions. This study has been designed to understand teachers’ mindsets—their
ways of thinking and their attitudes about technology integration and digital literacies
14
practices within our IB setting. As the leader of the school, I am responsible for acquiring
and implementing technology. Therefore, it is imperative that I comprehend how teachers’
attitudes are affecting the integration of new technologies in relation to the scope of my
leadership and to the school’s goals. The next chapter discusses the key bodies of
literature that frame this scholarly research.
15
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study is to examine the forces, contexts, and situations
influencing the faculty’s current perspective of digital literacies at LCIS. This chapter
outlines three key bodies of literature that inform this study: new literacies, with emphasis
on digital literacy, professional development, and practitioner research.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework graph illustrating how the select bodies of research intersect with IB education
New Literacies
In this study, I drew primarily on Street (2003a; 2003b), the New London Group
(1996), Gee (2007), and Lankshear and Knobel (2011), all of whom defined literacy as a
16
social practice in which people construct, utilize, and interact with texts in multiple
contextual ways. In other words, what counts as literacy is governed by the socio-cultural
norms of groups and institutions, as influenced by history, economics, politics, and other
social contexts. According to Street (2003a), two models of literacy have historically
dominated its definition: autonomous and ideological. The autonomous model defines
literacy as traditionally instantiated in schools—literate competence across contexts and a
set of discrete skills. In other words, the autonomous model frames literacy as the key to
improving students’ critical thinking and to improving their social and economic
opportunities, which, together, help make students better citizens (Street, 2003a). The
“ideological” model, however, suggests that individuals do not just read and write texts.
Instead, they interact with texts and with one another (Gee, 2007). Street (2003b) posited
that literacy is about “knowledge, identity, and being,” (p. 78) rooted in a “particular
worldview” that is driven by context and power (p. 78). Critical to Street's framing is the
distinction between “literacy events” and “literacy practices.” This concept has since been
augmented to include spoken languages as well as written ones. Heath (1982) first defined
“literacy events” as “occasions in which written language is integral to the nature of
participants' interactions and their interpretative processes and strategies” (p. 50). Literacy
practices are the patterns of literacy events in a society. Personal experiences, social
structures, institutions, and power relationships influence these practices. They are also
shaped by an individual’s cultural practices, both locally and historically. Street (2003b)
defined literacy practices as “being embedded in socially constructed epistemological
principles” (p. 78). Simply put, “literacy practices are what people do with literacy”
(Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanič, 2000, p. 7).
17
This lens of literacy practices was important not only because it is frequently
discussed in relation to digital literacies practices, but also because literacy practices are
not always observable (Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanič, 2000). Literacy practices include
attitudes, values, beliefs, and social relationships (Barton, Hamilton & Ivanič, 2000).
Individuals also constantly change their literacy practices as they communicate via
websites, Twitter, Snapchat, or blogs (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004). According
to the International Reading Association (IRA), the Internet and other forms of
technologies are redefining the nature of reading, writing, and communication.
Further, the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) encourages the
teaching of digital literacies. To be digitally literate means to:
Access a broad range of practices and cultural resources that you are able to apply
to digital tools. It is the ability to make and share meaning in different modes and
formats, to create, collaborate and communicate effectively and to understand how
and when digital technologies can best be used to support these processes. (Hague
& Payton, 2010, p. 4)
IB teachers are encouraged to establish a culture that critically engages students
with technology and supports the development of their social awareness about how
technology is used to convey meaning and information. Teachers must demonstrate how
communication is represented in different contexts to different audiences (e.g., visual,
audio, or textual modes) and teach students how to critically evaluate and select relevant
information. However, understanding how to translate digital literacies into teaching and
learning is not always clear or well understood (Hague & Payton, 2010). If teachers at
LCIS incorporate digital literacies effectively, students will have the opportunity to
become creators, consumers, and competent users of technology. For generations,
individuals have been consuming information, via print and broadcasts. With the advent of
18
new technologies, students now have the opportunity to consume information not only
through print but also through the Internet, blogs, wikis, and so forth. They can create,
problem solve, collaborate, and share their creations. The school’s goal is to nurture
digitally literate students who are poised for greater personal, academic, and career
success and who better understand and value the IB concepts of global citizenship and
lifelong learning as a result of their skills.
Consequently, examining how and why teachers are integrating digital literacies as
a part of IB programme is critical for LCIS. As technology integration is a key component
of the IB programme, looking closely at how teachers enact “technology integration” in
the classroom and how IB has influenced the teaching of digital literacies will shed light
on how it has been taken up or resisted at LCIS. Moreover, this examination enabled me
to home in on teachers’ interactions with digital literacies relative to integrating
technology—specifically, how teachers’ social processes and interactions factor into their
classroom practice.
In the 1980s, researchers began to examine the traditional view of literacy, which
was defined as areas such as reading, writing, listening, and speaking. As a result of these
examinations, a new field emerged: New Literacies Studies (NLS; Gee, 1990). NLS
framed literacy not only as a set of skills one acquires, but also as something people do
within society (Gee, 1990). Gee (1990) argues that literacy was a social practice—
“literacy was about ways of participating in social and cultural groups—not just a mental
achievement” (p. 2). That is, literacy needs to be inclusive of varying contexts—
cognitive, but also social, cultural, historical, and institutional.
19
Another perspective of new literacies is that literacies are multiple and
demand different modes. Linguistic, aural, spatial, visual, and gestural modes are
regularized sets of resources for meaning-making. While many of these modes have
always existed, they were not previously recognized acceptable forms of expression.
These modes are resources utilized together or in isolation and are integrated through the
use of a wide range of semiotic resources. This concept is defined as multimodality—
how individuals make meaning with different kinds of modes. Kress (2010) concluded
that in order for us to truly understand individuals we must begin to accept the many
modes of communication that individuals utilize.
Multiliteracies, a term developed by the New London Group in the mid 1990s, was
used to describe a new approach to literacy pedagogy—specifically, how literacy can
equip students for the changing social environment that both students and teachers face.
The New London Group (1996) comprised 10 leading scholars from around the world
who came together to understand the new direction of literacy education. They argued that
new technologies led to a shift in the way individuals were communicating and called for
a broader view of literacy pedagogy than the traditional language-based approach (New
London Group, 1996). According to the New London Group, the multiliteracies
perspective combines modes of communication and meaning-making with the idea that
literacy is influenced by an individual's culture, communication, and experience.
Therefore, it includes the diverse forms of literacy practice required for work and play,
community participation, personal growth, and cultural expression (O’Rourke, 2005).
Multiliteracies are also often used to describe the aptitudes and abilities individuals need
20
to acquire in order to create digital media. It is thus helpful to think of digital literacy not
as a set of skills but, instead, as a framework that draws across multiple literacies.
Digital Literacy
Digital literacy is one of these “new literacies.” Gilster (1997) first proposed the
term, defining it as a need to know not simply how to use the Internet but also how to use
it critically. Digital literacy was defined in terms of attitudes, character, and technical
performance. Eshet-Alkalai (2004) describes digital literacy as “a large variety of complex
cognitive, motor, sociological, and emotional skills that users need in order to function
effectively in digital environments” (p. 93). He asserts that literacy extends beyond being
a competent computer user. Lankshear and Knobel’s (2011) work supports this viewpoint.
Inclusive of Gee’s sociocultural perspective, they broaden the notion of digital literacy to
digital literacies. As indicated above, Gee (1990) frames literacy as not just a set of skills,
but as a spectrum of multiple literacies that vary according to space and time. As the
technological age advanced, NLS evolved into New Media Literacy Studies (NMLS).
According to Gee (2009), NMLS was concerned with “how people give meaning to and
get meaning from media, that is, things like advertisements, newspapers, television, and
film” (p. 10). Therefore, NMLS seeks to understand how people can become more
“critical” or “reflective” consumers of digital literacies. Gee (2009) argues that digital
tools gave rise to major transformations in society, and that technology has changed the
nature of social groups, formations, and power. With the development of social media,
individuals also have the ability to stay connected in real time regardless of location (Gee,
2009, p. 12-13).
21
Martin (2008) has identified three levels of digital literacy development: digital
competence (skills, concepts, approaches, and attitudes), digital usage (applying one’s
digital competence), and digital transformation (when digital usage enables innovation
and creativity). The importance of this perspective is rooted in the understanding that
digital literacies practices are producing a “profound shift” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009,
p.172) in education in a social as well as a pedagogical sense. Instilling digital literacy
within the IB curriculum has the potential to enable students to engage with such shifts in
formal education contexts. A digitally literate IB classroom could offer opportunities for
students to practice higher-order skills, such as collaborating on a web-based,
multiauthored Google document, blogging, and analyzing credible sources on the Internet.
Further, it would offer students the opportunity to discover and utilize resources that assist
them with creating a personal learning connection to their subjects. Martin (2008)
summarized the importance of digital literacies:
In viewing literacy within the context of digitally infused society as, at one level
functional, and another socially engaged, and at a third as transformative, we can
see it is a powerful tool for the individual and the group to understand their own
relationship to the digital: to be aware of the role of the digital in their own
development and to control it; to place the digital at the disposal of their own goals
and vision. (p. 156)
Both digital literacy and technology integration are necessary in order to successfully
infuse emerging technology throughout the curriculum and, ultimately, to extend these
kind of transformative experiences and roles to students.
Technology Integration
Technology has long been present in K-12 classrooms, from typewriters and
calculators to computers and tablets. As these new technologies have evolved, so has the
22
notion that they have become an integral part of classroom activities (Dias, 1999; Gee,
2007; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). The challenge for educators is how to utilize these
emerging technologies to create innovative learning opportunities for students.
Dockstander (1999) describes technological integration as “using computers
effectively and efficiently in the general content areas to allow students to learn how to
apply computer skills in meaningful ways” (p. 2). This suggests that successful
technology integration should improve the learning process and outcomes, involve
multiple opportunities for practice, and be interactive and transparent. In order to facilitate
these goals, software applications need to provide students with the opportunity to
integrate technology “purposefully and creatively” (Dockstander, 1999, para 3) As
Dockstander (1999) further elaborates, “technology integration is having the curriculum
drive technology usage, not having technology drives the curriculum” (para 3). The
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) has also defined technology integration
as the “incorporation of technology resources and technology-based practices into the
daily routine, work and management of school” (United States Department of
Education, 2002, p. 2). These definitions demonstrate that technology integration should
increase the intensity and complexity of literate environments and provide students with
opportunities to develop the ability to retrieve, access, and apply information
(Dockstander, 1999). Further, technology integration is most effective when it is used to
engage students in meaningful learning (Dias, 1999).
In “Teaching with Technology: Creating Student-Centered Classrooms,”
Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer (1997) drew on 20,000 teacher experiences from a
longitudinal study with Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow that was designed to examine
23
pedagogical issues in relation to technology. The authors employed case studies focused
on teacher learning and teacher beliefs as they related to technology integration. Their
findings identified five stages that teachers engage in as they navigate how to integrate
technology: entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation, and invention.
During the entry phase, teachers are still utilizing instructional technologies such
as “blackboards, textbooks, workbooks, and overhead projectors” (p. 37). They struggle
with how technology will fit into their instruction. During this phase, students also
indicate that teachers have little understanding of how technology is beneficial. Once
teachers acquire the basics, they find new ways to integrate technology and thus begin to
think differently about it. When teachers enter the adoption phase, they begin to
incorporate activities such as “keyboarding, word-processing, or drill-and-practice
activities” (Dias, 1999). Teachers consider how software can be utilized for instruction, as
they report that students are more motivated during this phase. By the time they reach the
adaptation phase, technology is thoroughly integrated into teachers’ instructional practice.
Students now use “word processors, databases, some graphic programs, and computer-
assisted-instruction packages” (p. 40). Productivity is key in this phase. Next,
appropriation is viewed as a milestone rather than a phase. Specifically, there is a
significant change in teachers’ attitude toward technology. Teachers embrace the idea that
technology is an essential tool for instruction and apply it effortlessly. Finally, during the
intervention phase, teachers begin to see technology as means for creating meaningful
learning. Teachers experiment with new pedagogical approaches to enhance their teaching
and with ways of interacting meaningfully with students and their colleagues. Teachers
begin to reflect on their teaching as it relates to technology integration, to increase
24
collaboration among students and teachers, and to examine the changes they are seeing in
their students. In this stage, teachers are now comfortable with a new set of beliefs about
teaching and learning.
This study acknowledges that it was extremely difficult for many participating
teachers to reach this final phase. It expanded on support mechanisms to assist teachers to
this end; however, participating teachers were unable to identify specific triggers or
turning points that moved them through these stages of development. This suggests that
while technology can serve as a catalyst for improving teacher practice and instructional
change, effective technology integration is generally arduous and requires a high level of
support (Ringstaff & Yocam, 1994). Through this study, Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer
(1997) demonstrated that meaningful use of technology requires going beyond just
placing computers in classrooms. Technology alone cannot be a change agent for
education. However, technology combined with curriculum could make a difference
(Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997).
It is evident that we must increasingly put technology into the hands of students.
Nevertheless, we cannot deny that learning to integrate technology can be a daunting task
for some educators. It is important to consider that many educators did not grow up using
these modern technologies. As a result, learning how to use them requires more time and
effort than they may want to invest. Therefore, it is equally important to recognize how
teacher beliefs, attitudes, and barriers are both informed and surface, and how schools
address the changes that take place (“Transform Teaching and Learning,” n.d.). That is, if
teachers can see the benefits of technology, particularly via professional development or
frameworks that can guide their instruction, it may become possible to confront their
25
beliefs about teaching, learning, and, ultimately, technology integration (Ringstaff &
Kelley, 2002).
Professional Development
Both national (“CDW-G Higher Education IT Security Report Card,” 2006;
Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010) and international (Voogt, 2008; Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010) research has indicated that teachers’ efforts to use technology
to support student learning have improved. In the Teachers Talk Tech survey, to which
more than 1,000 teachers responded, 79% reported using computers “to teach students”
(“CDW-G Higher Education IT Security Report Card,” 2006; Ertmer &
OttenbreitLeftwich, 2010). However, other research, such as Project Tomorrow (2008),
has suggested that we still do not have adequate technology integration, either in the U.S.
or internationally (Kozma, 2003). A technological infrastructure alone does not change
teacher practice to facilitate or engage with constructivist teaching strategies (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE],
2008; “Partnership for Twenty-First Century Learning,” n.d.). If we want our teachers to
effectively integrate technology in the classroom, we need to provide adequate training
that will help teachers understand how technology integration can support students in
constructing deep knowledge that they can connect to real life situations (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
Professional development is critical to advancing the use of technology for
teaching and learning. It also has an important role to play if we want to encourage
teachers to differentiate their teaching for an increasingly diverse student population
26
(Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). In Teachers Talk Tech (“CDW-G Higher Education IT
Security Report Card,” 2006), the authors discussed the following findings:
•Technology is bridging the gap between twenty-first century skills and the core
curriculum.
•The teaching process is fundamentally changing as professional development
takes teachers from learning how computers work to using technology to change
how they teach.
•Teachers believe technology is increasingly influencing how they teach thinking
and learning skills to develop lifelong learners.
•Education is today where businesses were 20 years ago—on the cusp of radically
transforming their fundamental environments.
While the Talk Tech data indicate that professional development is changing teachers’
pedagogical practices, Bauer and Kenton’s (2005) classroom observation study of 30 tech-
savvy teachers indicated the contrary, suggesting that technology in the classroom is not
being used to enhance the curriculum. Teachers need support in understanding how
technology can facilitate meaningful learning through which students can construct deep
knowledge (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). As Lawless and Pellegrino (2007) noted,
“technology can make it quicker or easier to teach the same things in routine ways” (p.
581). It also makes it possible to “adopt new and arguably better approaches to instruction
and/or change the content or context of learning, instruction, and assessment” (p. 581).
Today’s teachers find the latter idea most challenging, possibly because they require a
fundamental change in their attitudes and beliefs, as well as a meaningful program of
27
training and support (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Letwich, 2010). This research suggests that the
most successful professional development experiences occur when they are tied to the
content and the grade level taught and include continuous practice and support (Ertmer,
2005; Fishman, 2006).
Multiple studies (Ertmer, 2005; Fatemi, 1999) also suggest that professional
development regarding technology integration needs to contain the following essential
components:
…a connection to student learning, hands-on-technology use, a variety of learning
experiences, curriculum specific application, new roles and functions for teachers,
collegial learning, active participation of teachers, ongoing process, sufficient time,
technical assistance and support, administrative support, adequate resources, continuous
funding, and built-in evaluation. (Glassett & Schrum, 2009, p. 140) The context in which
professional development for technology integration occurs is also a key factor. The most
effective professional learning often occurs in “social and participatory ways” (Knobel &
Kalman, 2016, p. 8). New Literacies and Teacher Learning (Knobel & Kalman, 2016)
outlines multiple case studies of how professional learning will not improve without
opportunities for teachers to participate in social activities where their input is valued and
to critically think about the range of meaning and ways through which digital media has
changed the educational landscape. Further, teachers require not only training, but also
leadership from their site administrator (Dawson & Rakes, 2003). Fullan (2007) indicated
that, without leadership, innovations have little chance of success, even when practitioners
are highly committed to the initiative. It is the responsibility of school leaders to explore
not only the affordances of technology, but also the constraints caused by technology. That
is, the policies and/or guidelines created by administrators often fail to address the
conflicts between technology and classroom practices. This means that the innovation
school leaders consistently espouse wanting to see in the classroom is often hindered by
working conditions and lack of pedagogical knowledge (Knobel & Kalman, 2016).
If school leaders and policy makers want to see quality teaching and effective
professional development with digital technologies, we must acknowledge that it is not
28
about the digital technologies alone. Professional learning must have supportive and
sustained collaboration on meaningful projects, where teachers feel connected, feel that
their contributions are valued, and engage in social practice (Knobel & Kalman, 2016).
Technological Frameworks
Significant challenges surface when integrating digital literacies into the
curriculum. While professional development is clearly one way in which we can support
teachers’ technology integration, institutions can provide further help through the adoption
of technological frameworks. A teaching framework is typically designed to serve as way
of planning or guiding teachers regarding topics within an academic subject, including
how to think about or approach that subject. Further, teachers can use these frameworks to
build on or expand their knowledge or pedagogical skills. A technological framework can
be particularly useful for teachers who may be new to integrating digital literacies as a
part of their curriculum. However, if the framework is used prescriptively or as a mandate,
it is dangerous. Teaching is complex; the most beneficial frameworks support teachers in
designing curriculum or lessons and allow them to strategically address content, all while
considering varying perspectives. Therefore, the IBO encourages the use of frameworks to
support technology integration. They propose that a technology framework be viewed as
“lens” to review the curriculum. The IBO also recommends that the value of the
frameworks be regularly evaluated. They further suggest that, since most frameworks are
developed for specific contexts, one framework may not be sufficient. Accordingly, they
offer several frameworks for IB educators to examine.
29
Agency, Information, and Design (AID)
Agency, Information, and Design (AID) is a
technological framework designed exclusively for
IB schools. AID was designed to help IB educators
“view the IB curriculum with technology-minded
lenses” (International Baccalaureate Organization,
n.d, p. 3).
AID is a cycle that teachers can use to plan
curriculum or to think about technology. It is built on three basic principles: Agency:
ways of being; Information: ways of knowing; and Design: ways of doing. Agency
refers to the mindset that teachers and students can adopt as they discover how technology
enhances various subject areas. It also refers to technology-related skills and concepts that
both teachers and students can acquire as they extend their technological abilities.
Examples of such abilities might include becoming an effective digital citizen or learning
to code. Information supports teachers with regard to helping students effectively
research, evaluate, and synthesize the information that is available to them across
expanding information technology contexts. The design outlines how students can move
from being consumers to creators though activities such as gaming, multimedia design,
and product design. The IBO suggests that schools also begin to think about how
technology can be developed as a subject to enhance our understanding of digital literacy,
as well as how it can be connected with Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (the STEM movement). The IBO views AID as both conceptual and
30
Figure 2.
Agency, Information, and Design (AID) lens.
practical. Teachers are encouraged to use it as tool for unit planning, while administrators
are encouraged to use it to facilitate thinking about how technology integration and digital
literacies are being used within the IB contexts (International Baccalaureate Organization,
n.d.).
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
Another framework suggested by the IBO
is Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). Mishra
and Koehler (2006) built on Shulman’s (1987)
belief in ‘‘pedagogical content knowledge.’’
Shulman (1987) posited that pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK) is based on what teachers need
to know about a given subject, what they teach, and the strategies they use teach those
subjects. Mishra and Koehler (2006) extended this idea to include the effective
integration of technology into pedagogy.
The TPCK framework focuses on increasing teacher professional development and
attempts to “capture some of the essential qualities that teachers require for technology
integration in teaching, while addressing the complex, multifaceted, and situated nature of
this knowledge” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1). Mishra and Koehler (2006), in their
descriptions of technology, included analog technologies, such as the pens, paper and
31
Figure 3. Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK).
chalkboard typical of traditional literacy, along with the digital technologies, such as
computers, the Internet, and interactive whiteboards typical of digital literacy. Mishra and
Koehler’s (2006) definition of technology also includes the knowledge, skills, techniques,
and practices that teachers must possess to effectively teach in a digital landscape (Mishra
& Koehler, 2006).
The TPCK framework focuses on three key elements: (1) the teacher must
understand what technology integration and digital literacy are; (2) the teacher must know
how to implement strategies to accomplish specific tasks in the classroom; and (3) the
teacher must recognize when using technology is appropriate and when it is not. In other
words, TPCK is a way of thinking strategically about how to plan, organize, and
synthesize the use of technology integration and digital literacies in specific subject areas
to support student learning. The challenge is that most teachers learned this content before
the advent of technology. Teachers will not be able to teach the way they were taught.
Teaching with technology will require them to change their teaching perspectives and
strategies. The TPCK framework is thus dedicated to developing this shift in mindset for
our teachers. TPCK encourages dialogue surrounding educational technology, including
the consideration of pedagogical design and strategies, all while viewing the integration of
technology through an analytical lens. If our educators are to prepare our students for the
future, they must begin to rethink, relearn, and redesign curriculum and instruction so that
our students are ready for this expanded form of literacy.
32
Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs
There is growing research to indicate that teacher beliefs are linked to their
personal experience (e.g., professional development), values, and how they see
themselves positioned in the world (Xu, 2012). Loucks-Horsley (1998) defined teacher
beliefs as “ideas people are committed to—sometimes called core values…They shape
goals, drive decisions, create discomfort when violated, and stimulate on-going critique”
(p. 18). Loucks-Horsley’s (1998) definition suggests that the strategies teachers use are
closely related to their pedagogical beliefs. Therefore, these ideologies have the potential
to shape student learning environments and influence student motivation and
achievement. That is, teachers may resort to their own belief systems, particularly when
delivering instruction where formal knowledge is uncertain.
Pajares (1992) expounded on these ideas. He concluded that understanding teacher
beliefs can inform educational practice: “Few would argue that the beliefs teachers hold
influence their perception and judgments, which, in turn, affect their behavior in the
classroom” (p. 307). Further, he acknowledged that much of the difficulty in teacher
beliefs rests with the varying definitions—that is, that beliefs are “messy” (Pajares, 1992).
He also posited that when these beliefs are “clearly conceptualized, carefully examined
and consistent in understanding,” teacher beliefs are the single most important factor in
the educational arena (Pajares, 1992, p. 307).
Lumpe and Chambers (2001) examined teacher “context beliefs,” particularly how
these beliefs influenced the integration of technology in the classroom. They define
“context beliefs” as “The ability of external factors or people to enable a person to reach
33
their goal” (p. 95). Their study focused on determining a teacher’s core beliefs, such as
what curricular issues were most important to the teacher or what significance they placed
on integrating technology. Their study also examined how teachers’ core beliefs were
affected by their “self-efficacy beliefs,” such as how well teachers believed they could
succeed at integrating technology (Jakopovic, 2010).
Lumpe and Chambers (2001) concluded that teachers believe that technology
integration was essential for their instruction. However, the factors affecting their use of
technology are highly dependent on the availability of hardware, software, and Internet
connections, as well as on professional development opportunities, time constraints, and
locations where they could utilize technology, such as computer labs. Lumpe and
Chambers (2001) also suggested that if teacher beliefs do lead toward action or inaction, it
is essential that careful consideration be given to how to assess those beliefs. That is to
say, when teachers are not provided with positive circumstances, such as when they do not
have access to ample equipment or proper training, negative beliefs about technology are
reinforced. Therefore, teachers will only pursue technology integration when they
perceive they have the means or opportunities to do so.
According to Earle (2002), barriers to the integration of technology in the
classroom include extrinsic forces such as “access, time, support, resources, and training,”
and intrinsic forces such as “attitudes, beliefs, and practices” (p. 11-12).
Attitudes refer to an individual’s response to a purpose, whether favorable or unfavorable
(Panagiotis, George, Nikos, & Ioannis, 2005). Teacher attitudes toward computers then
determine their responses and purposes regarding the utilization of computers in their own
34
teaching practices. Addressing teacher attitudes is thus essential, because teachers take on
a major role in deciding the extent to which technology is used in the classroom.
Teo (2008) surveyed 139 pre-service teachers and contended that teachers have the
potential to pass their own beliefs on to students, and, by extension, affect students’
attitudes towards instructional technology. This may potentially result in students’ missing
out on key informational literacy and technological development in areas such as critical
literacy, critical assessment of information sources, and research skills. Teo (2008)
suggested that there is a direct correlation between teachers’ background knowledge of
technology hardware and software and their attitudes toward instructional technology.
That is, when teachers possess effective computer-related skills and knowledge about
instructional technology, they exhibit a positive attitude toward implementing technology
in the classroom. Teo (2008) concluded that if any success was to be expected from
technology integration into the classroom, teachers’ negative attitudes must be identified
and amended. In other words, the more positive attitudes teachers have toward
technology, the more likely they are to use technology in the classroom.
Albion and Ertmer (2002) suggest that teachers are not motivated to alter their
beliefs about technology integration unless they understand how it will improve teaching
and learning. This implies that difficulties in incorporating technology within the
classroom stem from intrinsic forces such as teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
Ertmer (2005) expounds on this idea by indicating that to change teacher beliefs, schools
must communicate positive values regarding technology integration. Therefore, schools
should provide opportunities for teachers to engage in peer observations and to have
35
access to technological experts as they try to incorporate technology in their instruction
(Albion & Ertmer, 2002).
Practitioner Research
Historically, the role of the principal has been a varied and complex one—an
implementer of educational policy, building manager, advocate for school change,
employer, evaluator, and leader of student learning—even as the position has become
increasingly disconnected from the classroom. This has often meant working in isolation
and implementing a top-down approach so that schools improve their state assessments in
this era of accountability. However, Schmoker (2006) claimed that in order for a school to
make real change, there must be a shift in the role of the school principal, from that of an
instructional leader to that of a “learning leader” (p. 125). He suggested that leadership
practices, such as shared vision and autonomy, are critical for improving teaching and
learning. Further, he contended that principals needed to work collaboratively with
teachers by creating an environment of exploration and creation. To do this, principals
must unravel the complexities of their job and work on transforming “teaching, learning,
leading, and schooling in accordance with democratic principles and social justice goals”
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 118).
Practitioner research and administrator inquiry (Dana, 2009) represent two
interrelated tools that administrators can utilize to take charge of their professional
development, to facilitate this development within their institutional and practice contexts,
and to become change agents and decision-makers. Dana (2009) suggested that this notion
of administrator inquiry was built on the foundation of teacher action research (Dana &
36
Yendol-Hoppey, 2009; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Therefore, it holds promise for
principals toward identifying specific areas of concern in their schools and gaining deeper
insight into their administrative practice, particularly their role as a leader in school
improvement.
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) advanced a practitioner research framework of
“inquiry as stance” (p. 118). When taking up an inquiry stance, educators not only
explore how things get done, but also focus on their own practice contexts and
positionalities, asking questions such as who makes institutional decisions, who decides
what needs to be accomplished and why, and, most importantly, whose framing of social
and political contexts informs the ways in which student and stakeholder interests are
understood and served. Hong and Lawrence (2011) also suggested that this inquiry
perspective encompasses a comprehensive evaluation of teaching and learning, inclusive
of principals analyzing their own practices and reflecting on how their decision-making
affects learning outcomes.
Administrator inquiry differs from traditional educational research. Throughout the
past several decades, two paradigms have dominated educational research. In one
paradigm, known as process product research (Shulman, 1987), principals implement the
findings of an “outside” expert (Dana, 2009, p. 6). That is, administrators as practitioners
do not have the opportunity to inquire or problem solve. Instead, they simply moderate
those dilemmas framed by the outside experts and implement the recommended
curriculum or strategies (Dana, 2009). The second paradigm is known as “qualitative” or
“interpretive work” (Dana, 2009 p. 6). Much of this paradigm is oriented toward
university-based academics. While this research provides insight between theory and
37
practice, the practitioners themselves still play limited roles. Moreover, knowledge of
teaching and learning is still generated from the “outsider’s” perspective (p. 5).
Recently, a third paradigm of practitioner inquiry and/or practitioner research has
emerged. This research engages the practitioners in the “design, data collection, and
interpretation of data that centers around their question” (Dana, 2009, p. 5). Because this
paradigm positions administrators as playing a part in their own research process,
administrators are more likely to facilitate changes based on the knowledge they generate.
In 2000, Anderson and Jones conducted a study on how to improve the research-based
knowledge for educational administration. The study explored the various methods
administrators used, as well as the “practical epistemological and political dilemmas they
encountered” (p. 428). They wrote:
We do believe, however, that intentional, systematic and disciplined inquiry on
educational practice by “insiders,” although fraught with unique epistemological,
methodological, political and ethical dilemmas, has great potential for challenging,
confirming and extending current theory and for identifying new dimensions of
administrative practice for study. (p. 430)
They also suggested that we ignore the knowledge generated by insiders all too often, thus
giving academics outside individual practice contexts the “permission to ignore action
research” (Anderson & Jones, 2000, p. 430) and discount it as formal knowledge.
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) suggested that practitioner research and
practitioner inquiry are umbrellas that “refer to a wide array of educational research
modes, forms, genres and purposes” (p. 38). They further argued that, when practitioners
took on the role of the researcher within their professional context and there was
38
collaboration among researchers and learners, the participants could become “knowers,
learners, and researchers” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 42).
This new change in inquiry-driven leadership will not occur on school campuses
until principals begin to “drive transparent, collaborative reflection,” continually assessing
“what is working” as well as learning from those things that do not work
(Fullan & Langworthy, 2014, p. 8). Sound decisions must be based on high-quality
39
information. Principals will be sufficiently equipped to make changes and foster
improvements within the educational landscape only when inquiry is at the center and
they have the opportunity to conduct research, be reflective, formulate strategies for
improving a given situation, clarify such situations in ways that yield new understanding
of the problem, and collaborate (Robinson & Lai, 2006; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009;
Dana, 2009).
Summary
Research (Street, 2003a; Gee, 2007; Heath, 1982) has suggested that digital
literacy offers students new ways to learn and teachers new ways to teach. Literacy is the
key to ensuring that we are meeting the needs of our twenty-first century learners.
Teachers must provide a broad range of practices that allow students to research, create,
collaborate, and communicate effectively (Hague & Payton, 2010). Through an effective
implementation of digital literacies and technology integration, teachers have an
opportunity to critically engage our students and increase their social awareness of how
technology conveys meaning.
This cannot happen without understanding teachers’ pedagogical beliefs regarding
issues such as technology, strategic professional development, access to resources, and
continuous engagement in activities where they can share, feel valued for their
contributions, and effect leaders committed to making a change with emerging
technologies. Changing teachers’ traditional teaching techniques and increasing their use
of technology will involve time, training, preparation, and changes within their school
environments. Research has also clearly demonstrated that traditional professional
4 0
development workshops are often “short term, devoid of adequate follow up, and do not
address specific school context” (Jones, 2001, p. 36).
Finally, effective leadership cannot be overlooked. If administrators are going to
make gains in this area, they must become change agents. They cannot achieve this
without examining how to become a “learning leader” (Schmoker, 2006, p. 125) in
collaboration with teachers and parents.
41
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to examine how teachers are integrating digital
literacies within IB programmes and to understand what influences the depth of digital
literacies implementation. Importantly, this study was designed to inform my practice as a
school leader, specifically with regard to supporting my work with faculty to co-create a
healthy digital ecology in an International Baccalaureate (IB) programme that advances
teaching and learning.
This chapter is divided into six sections. The first section provides an overview of
this study. The second section provides a description of the constructivist research
paradigm that informed the case study research design component and the methodologies
employed. The third section provides a description and rationale for research site choice,
including a description of the participants. The fourth section describes data collection
methods, types, and researcher positionality. The fifth section describes data analysis,
validity measures such as triangulation, and study limitations. The final section outlines
the trustworthiness of the study.
Research Design Overview
This study draws on a constructivist paradigm, described in Section II. A case
study methodology was employed as the primary methodological approach to explore the
forces, contexts, and situations influencing the current perspective of digital literacies in
an IB school. The decision to use a case study inquiry was geared toward examination of
teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, experiences, and influences regarding their implementation of
42
digital literacies. It also specifically addressed the conceptualization of teacher beliefs as,
in essence, core values that have a direct impact on the type of instruction teachers
choose to deliver. Further, the use of a case study allowed investigation of teachers’ use of
digital literacies as situated within their own professional contexts.
This study was conducted over a six-month period, from June 2015 to November
2015, in a Junior Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 12 independent IB school located in
Nassau, The Bahamas. Four teachers participated in the study. All participants are
women; they teach in different areas of the school and possess varying teaching
experience and backgrounds. One semi-structured interview was conducted with each
teacher, followed by three classroom observations. The main purpose of the observations
was to see how teachers were implementing digital literacies and technology integration
within their instruction.
While most of this study’s findings are derived from qualitative data, quantitative
methods were also employed. A survey was created to gather information from a larger
sample of teachers and to examine trends regarding teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about
the implementation of digital literacies. Following initial analysis of the survey data, two
focus groups were formed. The focus groups allowed the participants the opportunity to
discuss four main questions:
1. What do teachers perceive as technological competency?
2. How are digital literacies defined?
3. Are there students who benefit the most from technology integration?
4. Do barriers for implementing digital literacies still prevail?
43
Data analysis was conducted through a recursive process (Hancock & Algozzine,
2011). The data was first organized by assigning codes. After several readings, the codes
were refined, assigned definitions, and then examined to see whether the codes fit the
expected categories. Next, key themes were identified in alignment with the research
questions. Lastly, a theory was constructed by verifying emergent relationships between
each case using replication logic.
Three research questions guided this study:
1. How have teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, or personal experiences with
technology shaped their instructional practices?
2. How have teachers interpreted “technology integration” within the IB
programme, and how has the programme influenced their teaching of digital
literacies practices and technology?
3. What happens when I, as a school administrator, begin to explore how the
school’s vision of technology integration is influencing the implementation
of digital literacies within the IB programme? How does what I learn
influence my work as a school leader?
Research Paradigm
This study’s research framework was primarily informed by constructivist
epistemology. Creswell (2009) proposes that constructivists examine the theory of
knowledge and focus on how we acquire knowledge. Constructivists’ knowledge is not
discovered but built, or constructed, through experience. They reject the notion that there
is one definitive truth. Instead, constructivist research methodologies suggest new ways
44
of thinking about issues; in this study, I am specifically referring to literacies and learning
issues, problems, and hypotheses. The researcher or learner is often an active participant,
not a passive observer (Creswell, 2009). Researchers who work within constructivist
frameworks “seek to understand the context or setting of the participants through visiting
this context and gathering information personally” (Creswell, 2009, p. 8).
This study employs a practitioner research “inquiry stance” and, more
specifically, engages in administrator inquiry. An administrator inquiry stance refers “the
process of the principal engaging in systemic, intentional study of his/her own
administrative practice and taking action for change based on what he/she learns as a
result of the inquiry” (Dana, 2009, p. 2). Administrator inquiry is based on the
CochranSmith and Lytle (2009) idea of “inquiry as stance.” Cochran-Smith and Lytle
(2009) assert that practitioner research enables educators to question the basic
assumptions about teaching and learning by intentionally studying one’s own professional
practice. Developing professionally, legitimizing what they do, and getting their voices
heard are critical for educators to become change agents in the design, implementation,
and evaluation of educational reforms. We must understand how to effectively use
appropriate tools that foster student learning. As Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) write,
“more and more practitioners are now expected to be the gatherers and interpreters of
school and classroom data as part of larger initiatives to improve school achievement” (p.
1).
Qualitative Research
This primarily qualitative study employs descriptive case study methodology.
Merriam (2009) posits that qualitative researchers examine how individuals construct
45
meaning. That is, they explore the experiences, reasons, opinions, and motivations for
“how people make sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world”
(Merriam, 2009, p. 13). Case study research can be defined as “a research strategy that
focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings” (Eisenhardt, 1989,
p. 534). A case study is most appropriate when one is studying how and why questions,
and when there is a contemporary phenomenon where “behavior cannot be manipulated”
(Yin, 2003, p. 12). This study therefore employs a multiple case study to generate a more
comprehensive study via which to explore differences within and among the four
individuals participating in the research. The focus of this study’s cases is how and what
teachers experience as they implement digital literacies within the IB programme. The
goal of these cases is to replicate, which means that if two or more of the cases have the
same theory, replication logic can be claimed. When coupled with cross-validation at
various times and under various conditions, this can confirm the validity of a theory with
confidence (Yin, 2003). Yin (2003) describes multiple types of case studies:
1. Explanatory: usually used to explain how or why a sequence of events has
occurred; that is, investing in causality.
2. Exploratory: often conducted to define research questions and hypotheses.
3. Descriptive: often used to describe events that take place in a specific context.
This study made use of a descriptive case study method. It uncovered, described, and
analyzed the belief systems and personal experiences of participating teachers, with
emphasis on how these teachers have interpreted the meaning of digital literacies and
technology integration and how their belief systems have affected their instructional
practices. This study also generated a description of how the school’s technology vision
46
affects teachers’ use of digital literacies. Lastly, data was used to explore and expand the
vision of what it means to be a technology leader; that is, how digital literacies and
technology can be used to enhance teaching and learning.
This case study research is grounded in practitioner research. Practitioner research
is particularly relevant to facilitating this study within my own site of practice, with
special focus on issues related to my own work as an instructional leader (Cochran-Smith
& Lytle, 2009). As both principal and researcher, this study’s findings regarding literacy
and technology will inform policy at this site, such as working with teachers to introduce
new pedagogies that enable students to construct deep meaning and directly prepare the
students for the future (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). As new literacies and technology
are an integral component of the IB programme, there is clear value in identifying the
barriers to successfully implementing technology in our school.
This study was also examined through the lens of an administrator inquiry based
stance (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2009). The IB programme states “the school
community should be engaged in a dialogue to ensure a positive educational experience
by understanding how to use the Internet and web-based devices safely, responsibly, and
smartly (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2011, para. 3). In fact, the school is
evaluated on this metric in order to continue its accreditation. In response to these goals
and metrics, this study’s findings include a description of how teachers interpret this
mandate, how teachers are using digital literacies and technology to support teaching and
learning, and what is happening in their classrooms. With regard to the IB’s directive to
support students in becoming digitally literate, it is critical that school leaders have a
47
clear understanding of both what this directive means to faculty and how they are taking
up and/or resisting digital literacies.
Quantitative Research
Quantitative research employs methods such as experiments and surveys, which
typically yield numerical data based on responses to predetermined questions (Creswell,
2003). This study employed a survey to generate quantitative data. Surveys are
“fundamentally a matter of asking a sample of people from a population a set of
questions and using the answers to describe the population” (Fowler, 2009, p. 2). Mertens
(2009) outlined three types of surveys: descriptive, cross-sectional, and longitudinal.
Cross-sectional surveys examine how different groups respond to survey questions about
a specific topic. Longitudinal surveys follow one group over a significant period of time,
usually years. Descriptive surveys take “a snapshot in time of the variables being
studied” (Mertens, 2009, p. 191). A descriptive survey was most appropriate for the
purposes of this study because a static “snapshot” of the site’s environment generated
quantitative information to support the examination of multiple teaching variables, such
as (a) the diversity of teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about digital literacies and
technology integration; (b) teachers’ knowledge levels pertaining to technology; (c)
teachers’ practices related to digital literacies; and (d) the factors influencing teaching
practices within the school culture.
A survey can provide four advantages over interviewing:
1. Questions can be created to elicit long or complex responses and reach more
individuals in a shorter time span.
48
2. Surveys can be carried out by the researcher with limited effects on reliability and
validity.
3. Survey results can typically be quickly and easily quantified.
4. The anonymous nature of the survey increases the likelihood that respondents will
share sensitive information, thus making the data more valid (Fowler, 2009, p.
72).
Fowler (2009) cautioned that a self-administered survey requires carefully designed
questions and that open-ended questions are not always useful, as there is no quality
control over the responses received.
This study’s survey was designed to generate more understanding about the LCIS
faculty’s attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions as they relate to “technology integration” and
digital literacies. Within the context of my role as school leader, an anonymous survey
appeared to be the most advantageous way to learn more about the staff at large and to
increase the likelihood of gaining genuine information. The survey (Appendix E) was
developed specifically for this study and comprised 16 questions, including 11
closedended and 5 open-ended. Open-ended survey questions extended more opportunity
for participating teachers to discuss their perspectives on technology integration and
digital literacies. It also provided opportunities to elicit unanticipated responses. The
survey was divided into four sections: (a) Questions 1-3 addressed teachers’ backgrounds;
(b) Questions 5-6 addressed personal technology practices, that is, how they use
technology in their personal lives; (c) Questions 6-13 addressed influences on
49
participants’ existing pedagogical practices with technology; and (d) Questions 14-16
addressed teachers’ attitudes and beliefs.
Description and Rationale of the Research Site
LCIS is an accredited, independent IB school. Due to limited classroom space, the
current enrollment cap is 350 students across Junior Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 12.
The student body is 38% Bahamian and 62% international, with the majority of foreign
students coming from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. More than 11
languages are spoken among the student body and teaching staff. The majority of our
students come from highly affluent families, and less than 4% of families take advantage
of the school's robust financial aid program. The recent influx of international families
who can pay the full tuition contributes to the low use of financial aid. All of our Grade
12 students matriculate to college, 38% of whom attend colleges labeled “first tier,”
(“National Universities Ranking,” 2016).
The average length of employment at LCIS is six years, and the average age of
the faculty is 40 years old. There are 41 female teachers and nine male teachers.
Currently, 54% of the faculty hold advanced degrees. Consistent faculty turnover, owing
in part to the number of expatriate teachers, results in a lack of continuity and consistency
in instruction.
Stake (2011) proposes that one’s ability to fully understand a specific
phenomenon depends on choosing the research case well. As he explains, “The case to be
studied is a complex entity located in a milieu or situation embedded in a number of
contexts or backgrounds” (p. 127). My choice to use my own school site was guided by
50
multiple factors. First, LCIS teaches the full continuum of the International Baccalaureate
programmes, all of which espouse global citizenship, a status that largely depends upon
the connections that technology provides. Therefore, I had a mandate to examine the
integration of digital literacies within the curriculum, as well as the luxury of analyzing
its implementation across a wide age group, from preschool to high school, in a
manageable setting of only 350 students and 50 teachers. Furthermore, LCIS is an
educational leader in the Caribbean. As a result, I expect this study will be useful to other
independent international schools in the region that are contending with similar issues,
most specifically integrating technology in instruction.
Second, LCIS has strong a technology-based infrastructure, largely funded by
donor contributions. This substantial investment, coupled with the fact that the majority
of our parents are technologically savvy and rely on technology in their businesses,
contributes to the school community’s expectation that our students will successfully
develop digital literacies. While there were some productive and exciting uses of
technology prior to this study, a significant portion of the teaching and learning practices
were not taking advantage of the resources at hand. Part of the problem stems from the
challenges The Bahamas faces as it tries to keep pace with technological progress. For
example, all students either own or have access to Apple Mac computers (Grades 6-12) or
iPads (Junior Pre-Kindergarten-Grade 5), yet there is a limited supply of vendors on the
island who are able to service the hardware.
A primary goal within our strategic planning regarding technology is not simply
the use of technology, but also its innovative use. Stake (2011) asserts that case studies
are supposed to represent the population being studied. As the literature attests,
51
(Sandholtz, Ringstaff & Dwyer, 1997; Project Tomorrow, 2008; Ertmer &
OttenbreitLeftwich, 2010), resistance to using technology to advance digital literacies is
found in many educational environments. Therefore, such a study is both necessary and
valuable in evaluating the attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about technology integration
that may impede the process. However, at LCIS, we are faced with an additional
challenge as an international school situated in The Bahamas. A former British colony
that gained its independence relatively recently, the Bahamian people harbor stiff
resistance to foreign entities, resulting in distrust and enmity. At times, cultural
predispositions have seemed responsible for rigid opposition not only to foreigners (46%
of LCIS staff is expatriate), but also to changes in the curriculum, teaching approaches,
and day-to-day operations. Thus, conducting the research at LCIS offered an opportunity
to better understand our Bahamian teachers and to work on breaking down barriers that
have prevented a cohesive and collegial environment.
Selection of the Participants
Using purposive sampling, I conducted the majority of this research study with
four teachers, including one from each division of the school and one of the technology
teachers. Specifically, I used critical case sampling, a type of purposive sampling that is
particularly useful in exploratory qualitative research. Patton (1990) notes, “the logic and
power in purposive sampling lies in selecting information rich cases for studying
indepth” (p. 169). Patton (2002) recommends a small number of subjects when
conducting a critical case sampling, as small case samplings are more likely to "yield the
most information and have the greatest impact on the development of knowledge" (p.
236). Therefore, four participants were appropriate for this study. Further, working with
52
one teacher from each division allowed me to explore all areas of the IB programmes,
including the Primary Years Programme (PYP), Middle Years Programme (MYP), and
Diploma Programme (DP), as well as to capture a wide range of perspectives.
Purposive sampling was also employed to select focus group participants. A total
of eight teachers were selected. Two groups were formed: one that included four teachers
from the ELC and ELM schools, and one that included four teachers from the Secondary
School. The participants for both the case studies and focus groups were selected based
on the following criteria:
•All were women. As 82% of the teachers at LCIS are women, limiting
participation to women resulted in the most representative sample of the teaching
staff.
•There was a range of technology knowledge and expertise within this group of
participants. They have different levels of knowledge about technology and how
to implement digital literacies in their practice.
•All participants were from different cultural backgrounds and represent varied
teaching experience.
•The participants represented all three schools: Early Learning Center (ELC),
Elementary (ELM) and Secondary School (SS). The technology teacher teaches
across all three schools.
•These teachers are required, as mandated by the IB programme, to use digital
literacies to enhance technology integration the students.
•These teachers volunteered to participate because they felt they had something to
say about digital literacies.
53
By using maximum variability (Patton, 2015), I had the opportunity to deepen my
understanding of how the digital literacies are being utilized across the three schools—
ELC, ELM, and SS, as well as across the three IB programmes—PYP, MYP, and DP.
When using a maximum variation, the researcher’s sampling method is often small.
Following only four teachers was, therefore, methodologically appropriate.
Data Collection
I began my data collection by conducting four semi-structured interviews,
followed by three observations of each participant. Following the interviews, it was
evident that I needed a larger baseline representing the whole staff. Therefore, I designed
and administered a survey to all LCIS teachers. After analyzing the survey results, I
conducted the two focus groups. The focus groups elaborated on information originally
yielded by the survey results. In an effort to document how the study informed my
practice as a leader, I kept a reflective journal. The reflective journal allowed me to
document and examine my practice as I was collecting the data. I also used field notes,
which enabled me to detail the events and activities in the participants’ classrooms. I
wrote six analytic research memos to capture my thoughts and ideas following the
completion of observations. Additional data collection included three lesson plans from
each participant and postings from each teacher’s Facebook account. These additional
data points provided a background on the participants that they might have neglected to
share (Mertens, 2009). Table 1 summarizes the data collection methodologies in
alignment with the research questions.
Table 5
54
Summary of Methodologies
Instrument Type Participants Number
Participants
Number of
Sessions
Date
Administered
Semi-Structured
Interviews
One teacher
from each area
of the school
(ELC, ELM,
SS, and one
who works
across all three
school)
4 4 July 2015
Survey Teachers 45 1 September 2015
Observations Teachers 3 12
Completed
between June
2015-
November 2015
Reflective
Journaling Researcher 0 Weekly
Weekly
reflection every
Friday for eight
weeks
Research Memos Researcher 0 4 Six memos
Researcher Positionality
It is important to consider the relational dynamic between researcher and
participants, or positionality. This consideration enables a researcher to identify the lens
through which he or she interprets the social world (Beverly, 2011). Maher and Tetreault
(2001) write, “knowledge [is] valid when it takes into account the knower’s specific
position in any context, a position always defined by gender, race, class and other socially
significant dimensions” (p. 22). As principal, I am the primary decision maker regarding
technology purchased for the school, and I clearly have a strong bias towards the
integration of technology and digital literacies in the classroom. Qualitative research is
55
guided by the specific perspective of investigator (Creswell, 2007). It was my assumption
that digital literacies are not only optimal for enhancing instruction but are a requirement
for improving education and preparing our students for the future world.
And, of course, it is a requirement of our IB programme.
LCIS has been implementing some form of technology for more than seven years.
Feedback from our evaluating bodies, and the struggles teachers have encountered with
the nexus of teaching digital literacies and technology integration, led me to explore this
research. My prior knowledge about the school environment influenced the
methodologies I used, my assumptions about the research, and the questions I posed. As
Denzin (1986) notes, "interpretive research begins and ends with the biography and self
of the researcher" (p. 12). Bias provides information about the researcher's position and
intentionality as it relates to the research question (Shenton, 2004).
This concept should not be confused with prejudice, baseless results, or out-
ofcontext perceptions. As the researcher, I have critically uncovered my bias through
selfanalysis and reflection so that it did not corrupt nor invalidate the results. Wolcott
(1995) explains that “bias should stimulate inquiry without interfering in the
investigation” (p. 165). That is, as a researcher, one is not searching for total objectivity,
but rather how bias can be made explicit. If both the purpose and assumptions of research
are clear, then bias can become a meaningful component of the study (Jones, 2001).
To address the issue of positionality, I used the reflective journal methodology.
The use of a critical friend was also instrumental in this process. This notion of a “critical
friend,” recommended by Stenhouse (1975), suggests that a critical friend is a
56
collaborator who can provide feedback and give advice when an educator is conducting
action research. Elliott (1985) expands on the role of a critical friend. He posits that a
critical friend role is one of facilitator, of outsider. As the outsider, the critical friend is
conducting “second order action research” (Elliott, 1985). In this case, the critical friend
would help teachers to reflect deeply on how students create and consume digital
technology, what skills the teachers need to develop to teach digital technology, and what
it means to be technologically component. My role as the researcher was to conduct “first
order action research” (Kember, Ha, Lam, Lee, Ng, Yan, & Yum, 1997). That is, I was
focused on improving teaching and learning at the school in general, rather than on
individual teachers. The use of the collective reflective process allowed me to identify
issues and evaluate pedagogical goals. It also supported in constructing my knowledge as
it related to my leadership practices. Additionally, frequent debriefing sessions with my
chair and committee members allowed me to widen my viewpoints and notions about a
particular event.
Validity of the findings can be jeopardized or enhanced depending on the
relationship between the participants of the study and the researcher (Jones, 2001). Hall
and Stevens (1991) recommended establishing trust, creating a positive environmental
setting, and being attuned to the participants’ language and setting, as well as developing
a strong rapport and frequent interactions to address these concerns.
As the principal, I am also the evaluator of each participant in the study.
Therefore, I was concerned that participants might over-report practices and actions that
were compatible with values deemed “socially acceptable” and might under-report those
deemed undesirable. This is known as “social desirability” bias (Neely & Cronley, 2004,
57
p. 432). As such, participants may have been afraid to share their thoughts openly with
me and may have responded in accordance with what they felt I would like to hear.
Finally, given the pressure of being an IB school, I did not want to overestimate the
power of technology. However, the purposive sampling was designed to address this
issue. By identifying those teachers who had something to say about this issue, I tried to
ensure that my subjects were not afraid to express their opinions. To further address this
concern, I developed a strong rapport with each individual and consistently reminded the
participants that they could contribute ideas and talk about their experiences without fear
of retribution or losing their job.
Interviews
For the purpose of this study, I began my data collection with one semi-structured
interview that consisted of open-ended questions. Interviews provide detailed information
about participants’ experiences and viewpoints on a particular topic (Turner, 2010) and
are believed to provide a “deeper” understanding of the topic (Gill, Stewart, Treasure, &
Chadwick, 2008). Each of the participants was interviewed for about 45 minutes. Each
interview was recorded and later transcribed. The semi-structured interview format
afforded me an opportunity to gather information about teachers’ backgrounds, personal
experiences with digital literacies and technology integration, and perspectives on the
influence of the school’s vision of technology on their instructional practice. The use of
the semi-structured interview format also allowed me to be flexible with my questioning
and investigate more deeply. Additionally, it allowed the participants to share their
individual views about what they believe needs to be put in place and how to increase the
use of digital literacies within the IB programme. Finally, during the conclusion of the
58
interview, the teachers had the opportunity to add additional information that did not
come up during the interview session.
Observations
Once the interviews were completed, I began the observations. I used participant
observation, a process where the researcher reports and examines daily activities to make
sense of them (Stokrocki, 1997). I conducted three observations in each participant’s
classroom, for a minimum of 45 minutes per observation. The observations took place
between September and November 2015. I wanted to understand how the teachers
incorporated these “digital literacies” specifically during literacy instruction across
content areas. As principal, I often engage with the students when I am conducting
observations. Students can offer valuable comments about what they are learning as it
relates to technology. I thus interacted with the students when appropriate and recorded
my interactions in field notes.
The use of participant observation provided a context for understanding the data I
collected such as definitions and terms that participants may have used in interviews.
This allowed me the opportunity to observe events that participants were unable or
unwilling to share during their interviews as well as situations that participants described
in their interviews, thereby discovering any inaccuracies. In other words, I was able to
observe the four participants’ cultural and social contexts, including their relationships
with their students, and to document events, behaviors and activities–what they do, how
frequently, and with whom (Mack, Woodsong, MacQueen, Guest, & Namey, 2005).
59
Further, using participant observations also increased the potential validity of the study,
as participant observation has been shown to provide a better understanding of the
context and phenomena one is studying (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002).
Table 6
Observation of Participant Demographics and Characteristics
Participants
(Pseudonyms)
Nationality Years of
Teaching
Experience
Years
at
LCIS
Grade
level
Age Taught
Abroad
Degree(s)
Rachel Bahamian 10 9 Junior
Pre-K
42 No B.Ed.
Heidi Canadian 17 4 Grade
2
49 Yes B.Ed.
Donna Bahamian 7 5 Grades
6-10
42 No B.A.
Ava Swedish 4 2 Grades
10-12
27 Yes M.A.
Focus Groups
Two 60-minute focus groups were conducted following a preliminary analysis of
the survey results. This offered an opportunity to explore the survey responses in greater
depth with a representative sample from the target population. Focus groups include only
a small number of people who discuss a highly focused topic in depth (Patton, 2002).
Because a focus group can be used to document how group members respond to each
other’s perspectives and beliefs (Bryman, 2008), the creation of the focus groups afforded
me an opportunity to elicit the diversity of views within this study’s group of
participating teachers, with particular insight into the beliefs underpinning their dialogue.
60
The participants were purposefully selected using the same criteria as for the case
studies. Six open-ended questions were formed with the purpose of expanding on the
participants’ definition of digital literacies, explaining how digital literacies enhance their
instructional practice, and understanding who benefits from the integration of digital
literacies. Interviews were conducted by the “critical friend” who would help the teachers
think more deeply about what it means to be a digitally competent teacher, what
influences teachers’ use of digital literacies, and what obstacles prevent them from using
technology. Focus groups offer participants the opportunity to hear each other's responses
so that they can expand upon or alter their original statements (Patton, 2002). Focus
groups are not undertaken to achieve consensus, nor are they a platform for vocal
participants to dominate with their views. Instead, focus groups are “collective
conversations” where the primary aim is “to describe and understand meanings and
interpretations of a select group of people to gain an understanding of a specific issue
from the perspective of the participants of the group” (Liamputtong, 2011, p. 3). The
focus groups also allowed for the collection of a wide range of responses (Watts &
Ebbutt, 1987).
My third research question—What happens when I, as a school administrator,
begin to explore how the school’s vision of technology integration is influencing the
implementation of digital literacies within the IB programme? How does what I learn
influence my work as a school leader?—addressed what I am personally learning as a
leader and how that learning influences my work as a principal. Kember, McKay,
Sinclair, and Wong (2008) posited that change occurs out of critical reflection. As the
61
researcher, my actions can be influenced by unconscious assumptions or constraints. The
focus groups were an ideal opportunity to unleash those constraints.
Table 7
Focus Group Participant Demographics and Characteristics
Name Nationality Number of
Years in
Education
Number of
Years at
LCIS
Grade Level(s)
They Are
Teaching
Age IB
Programme
Hope American 13 8 7, 8, 9 English 49 MYP
Asia Bahamian 8 1 8, 9, 11, 12
Science and
Biology
29 MYP/ DP
Catalina Bahamian 39 7 7, 9 Math 61 MYP
Faith British 4 2 7, 8, 9, 11
Spanish
31 MYP/DP
Whitney Bahamian 19 6 Junior Pre-K 45 PYP
Diana American 10 2 1 45 PYP
Zoey Bahamian 20 4 4 44 PYP
Macy American 13 1 5 36 PYP
Reflective Journaling
It was my intent to learn from this study and to use its data to inform future
actions. To accomplish this, I systematically documented my interactions with school
staff during my meetings with my leadership team and during the teachers’ professional
learning community meetings, with emphasis on discussions and contexts related to
embedding digital literacies in the classroom. As a part of this study, I also engaged in
dialogic reflection. Hatton and Smith (1995) described four types of reflective journaling:
•Descriptive writing—simply describing events as they occur without any
reflection.
62
•Descriptive reflection—beginning to construct meaning about how and why
individuals do things.
•Dialogic reflection—reflecting at a deeper level. The researcher removes
him/herself from an event or practices and begins to consider alternative
viewpoints on how and why events are occurring.
•Critical reflection— examining both the social and historical perspectives of an
event (Hatton & Smith, 1995).
I reflected on teaching strategies that I had observed in the participants’ classrooms,
as well as on barriers teachers were experiencing with the implementation of digital
literacies (e.g., developing students’ research skills, communicating digital content, and
collaborating among themselves more). Journaling is an excellent methodology to sort
things out, to “clarify, organize...thoughts, connect old knowledge to new, and, in the
process, personalize the content” (Hughes, Kooy, & Kanevsky, 1997, p. 187).
Consequently, dialogic reflection enabled me to tap into the knowledge that I gained
through experience of conducting this study. I tried to make sense of varying perspectives
by considering multiple viewpoints that were being shared in the interviews, focus
groups, survey, and conversations with my leadership team and teachers. Once the ideas
were documented, they were hard to ignore and begged to be either considered,
rationalized, or discarded (Jasper, 2005).
Research Memo
Research memos were used to substantiate my findings throughout the data
collection process. Patton (2002) said, “recording and tracking analytical insights that
63
occur during data collection are part of fieldwork and the beginning of qualitative
analysis” (p. 436). Memos were written following the interviews, survey administration,
observations, and two focus groups. The memos enabled me to examine my positionality,
begin some proposed coding, and identify some conceptual ideas regarding my results.
Most importantly, the research memos allowed me to revisit what I was thinking at a
given point in my data collection process.
Data Analysis
A key reason for conducting case study research is “summarizing and interpreting
information as a basis for understanding the topic being investigated” (Hancock &
Algozzine, 2011, chapter 9, para. 3). Data from the case studies was collected recursively
(Hancock & Algozzine, 2011). That is, I constantly interacted with the data throughout
the research process, rather than reviewing it at the end of the process, as is done in other
forms of research. With this in mind, the inductive process of searching for patterns and
theories was the best approach for this study (Bernard, 2011).
I began my analysis with the interview transcripts. My first step was pre-coding,
reading the transcripts and underlining any words or phrases that emerged as “codeable
moments”—passages that struck me as worth analyzing. During the pre-coding, I also
used the jotting strategy—writing key words or phrases that represent various passages
(Saldaña, 2013). I was looking for key concepts that related back to my research
questions. This type of coding is known as in vivo coding (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña,
2014). In vivo coding is most appropriate for novice researchers and is the most widely
used coding in qualitative research (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014).
64
Next, I began to search for patterns within the coded data. I looked for
similarities, differences, and frequency of codes. Initial codes and their meanings were
recorded in Dedoose, a web-based data analysis platform. Table 4 outlines the initial
coding system I developed after reading the four interviews several times.
Table 8
Coding System Categories, Titles, and Descriptions
Pedagogical Practices with Technology and Digital Literacies: How
teachers use technology in the classroom
Code Title Description
1 Examples of Teachers’
Technology Use
Sections where teachers describe specific
technological use.
1 Factors Influencing
Technology Use in the
Classroom
Factors that support/hinder teachers in using
technology within their classrooms.
3 Pedagogical Teachers’ decisions regarding the best
technology-specific pedagogical approach.
3 Specific Resources School technology resources that teachers
implement in their classrooms.
3 Personal Style Teachers’ personal reasons for implementing
technology.
Teachers’ Personal Technological Practices:
How teachers use technology in their personal lives
7 Individual Use How they use technology on a daily basis.
7 Individual Knowledge How they rate their technological skill set.
Views: How teachers think and feel about technology
10 Teacher Beliefs Ideas that are linked to teachers’ personal
experiences.
11 Value They are committed to their core values.
10 Teacher Attitude An individual response, either favorable or
unfavorable, to a purpose.
65
13 Balance Teachers conclude that they need both
traditional and digital literacies.
13 Necessary Digital literacies are required for future student
success.
13 Happiness Students and teachers do enjoy using digital
literacies and technology.
10 Teacher Perspective A teacher’s point of view relating to technology.
Survey results were used as a baseline to inform the qualitative data. Since the
survey was administered electronically, I was able to examine the results immediately.
Descriptive analysis was used to examine survey data. Descriptive analysis is a method of
examining data that allows for visualization of emergent patterns. When using descriptive
statistics, the researcher does not draw conclusions beyond the data itself nor reach
conclusions about a theory (“Descriptive and Inferential Statistics,” n.d.). The survey data
were analyzed for themes and patterns in reference to my three research questions. The
open-ended questions were analyzed for emerging patterns and compared to the data
from the interviews. Early into the review of the data, it became clear that it would be
valuable to gather more in-depth analysis about teachers’ understanding of digital
literacies, their definition of what it means for a teacher to be technologically competent,
and how the school’s vision was influencing their implementation of digital literacy and
technology integration. When the majority of the data gathered elicits new questions,
those detailed analyses are adjusted by the researcher throughout the study, potentially
resulting in new routines and procedures (Hancock & Algozzine, 2011). As a result of
this early analysis, two focus groups were created. Focus groups allowed me to make
more sense of the data and to get answers to the questions the survey left unanswered.
66
The observations were conducted to confirm the information shared by
participants during the interview process. During the three observations, field notes were
taken and the data was transcribed according to an observation protocol (Appendix D).
The same cross-case strategies used for the interviews, reflective journal, and focus
groups were also applied to the observation field notes and protocol.
Next, I employed a cross-case analysis. According to Eisenhardt (1989), when
using cross-case studies, the researcher should “select categories or dimensions, and then
to look for within-group similarities coupled with intergroup differences” (p. 540).
Consequently, the semi-structured interviews and focus groups transcripts, as well as the
open-ended survey questions, observations, and my reflective journal, were reviewed
repeatedly for significant commonalities and differences. At the end of the cross analysis,
I created a diagram (Appendix F) to summarize my findings. This diagram is organized
into the following categories: essential codes, categories and themes.
Finally, as a part of this process, data was collected and analyzed, and a theory
arose from that analysis. This approach is known as grounded theory. It is a research
approach for “constructing theory grounded in data” (Corbin & Strauss, 2015, p. 6).
Using this method allowed me to gain new insights into problems such as teachers’ issues
with classroom management when using technological devices, allocation of time on the
creation of digital content, and student distraction when using digital literacies and
technology integration. Understanding these new insights can lead to improvements in
teacher knowledge and skills as well as to improvements in students’ effective
communication of digital content.
67
Triangulation
According to Maxwell (1996), “Although methods and procedures do not
guarantee validity, they are, nonetheless, essential to the process of ruling out validity
threats and increasing the credibility of your conclusions” (p. 125). One such method is
triangulation. Data triangulation involves "using different sources of information in order
to increase the validity of a study (Guion, Deihl, & McDonald, 2011, p. 1). The goal of
triangulating methods is to strengthen the validity of the overall findings.
For this study, I employed methodological triangulation. I used multiple
qualitative and quantitative methods to study teachers’ beliefs about digital literacies and
technology integration. Results from the survey, interviews, observations, focus groups,
and other data were compared to determine whether results were similar. Validity is
established when results are similar across varying methods. However, according to
Patton (2002), it is a fallacy that triangulation should have consistency across data
sources or approaches. Patton (2002) concluded that inconsistencies should not be viewed
as weakening the evidence, but instead as an opportunity to uncover deeper meaning in
the data collected.
Trustworthiness
Good research requires rigor. Without it, research loses its usefulness. Therefore,
reliability and validity are critical components in all research methods. Lincoln and Guba
(1985) identify reliability and validity as “trustworthiness” and establish criteria within
the qualitative paradigm to ensure “trustworthiness” via the constructs of credibility,
transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
68
According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), credibility involves the truthfulness of the
study. Credibility is an essential element in establishing trustworthiness. By utilizing a
survey, interviews, focus groups, observations, reflective journal, and research memo, I
sought to accurately portray, depict, and capture the experiences of participants as they
describe them (Hammersley, 1992). Corbin and Strauss (2015), in their characterization
of grounded theory, posit that researchers have a responsibility to stay true to the method
and to add to the knowledge of the subject they are studying.
Transferability allows the results of the study to be applied to other contexts
(Shenton, 2004). Detailed descriptions of the data in context, coupled with reporting data
in detail, will provide the readers with enough information to determine for themselves
whether the findings are transferable to their contexts.
Limitations
A crucial aspect of research findings is dependability, which requires the
researcher to demonstrate that the findings are consistent. The data collected for this
study occurred over an 18-week period. Results will begin to answer how teachers
interpreted “technology integration” within the IB programme and how the programme
influenced their teaching of digital literacies practices and technology. It will also
provide some insight for other IB heads. However, the results cannot be applied on a
wide scale. Firstly, the study was conducted at only one IB school site. While all IB
schools are required to integrate technology at some level, there may be differences in the
number of resources and access to resources among IB schools around the world.
Secondly, as the researcher and leader of the school site, my familiarity with all of the
69
participants may constitute a certain bias. However, the use of an outside reader, an
objective moderator for the focus groups, and multiple forms of data collection reduced
the potential biases and increased the truthfulness of my results.
Chapter 4
QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to explore how teachers incorporate digital
literacies within the International Baccalaureate (IB) programmes at LCIS, and to
examine the extent to which digital literacies are taken up or resisted. This study was also
intended to inform my practice as a school leader and support my collaboration with the
faculty to co-create a thriving digital environment to advance teaching and learning in an
IB programme.
The following research questions guided this study:
1. How have teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, or personal experiences with technology
shaped their instructional practices?
2. How have teachers interpreted “technology integration” within the IB
programme, and how has the programme influenced their teaching of digital
literacies practices and technology?
3. What happens when I, as a school administrator, begin to explore how the
school’s vision of technology integration is influencing the implementation of
digital literacies within the IB programme? How does what I learn influence my
work as a school leader?
70
In order to answer these questions, both quantitative and qualitative data were
collected. This chapter reports on quantitative findings and includes the following two
sections: (1) A summary of this study’s survey data, which served as a baseline to
generate data about the larger population of LCIS teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about
technology integration and digital literacies in an IB setting; and (2) A description of the
focus group data and its emergent themes.
Survey Results
An electronic survey was administered as a baseline for the larger teacher
population. All 52 LCIS teachers were invited to participate in the survey; 45 responded.
The survey was introduced to teachers at a staff meeting, after explaining the goals of the
overall study. During this explanation, it was emphasized that survey participation was
both anonymous and voluntary. Following the presentation, an email with a link to the
electronic survey was sent to all teachers.
The survey (Appendix E) was created and administered via SurveyMonkey.com.
The use of an electronic tool for data collection significantly reduced the time needed for
implementation while increasing cost effectiveness. Additionally, I was able to
continuously track response rates and, once completed, view results immediately. The
survey consisted of four sections, each one designed in alignment with this study’s three
research questions (RQ): (1) background information; (2) teachers’ personal experiences
with technology (RQ1); (3) how teachers are utilizing digital literacies in their
classrooms (RQ2); and (4) teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about technology integration
and the school’s vision (RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3). It should be noted that I failed to prevent
71
participants from skipping questions and, as a result, not all 45 participants answered
each question. Appendix H summarizes how many participants answered each question.
The following sub-sections summarize key themes in alignment with the study’s
research questions.
Attitudes, Beliefs, or Personal Experiences With Technology
Of the 52 teachers, 45 completed the survey. The participant demographics are as
follows: 36 (80%) were women and nine (20%) were men. Nine (20%) were between the
ages of 21-30, nine (20%) were between the ages 31-40, 20 (44%) were between the ages
of 41-50, and seven (16%) were over the age of 50. While not a question on the survey, it
should also be noted that nine (18%) of the teachers are enrolled in a university program
to complete either their Masters or Doctoral degree.
The greatest fraction of participants, or 26 teachers (58%), has taught in high
school (Grades 10-12) at some point in their educational career. The smallest fraction, 10
teachers (22%), has taught in the early grades, Junior Pre-Kindergarten through
Kindergarten. The large number of participants who have taught high school is of
particular value, because I wanted to understand whether the students in Grades 6-12,
who are involved in our one-to-one laptop program, were more likely to create and
consume digital content.
The survey revealed the degree to which digital technologies are prevalent in the
personal lives of participating LCIS teachers. One hundred percent of the teachers use
email and digital collaborative tools (e.g., Microsoft Office and Google Docs) and modes
of communication (e.g., Skype and Whatsapp) both personally and professionally. A
72
much smaller number of teachers, seven (15%), cited use of more advanced technologies
such as data virtualization, music and filming software, and programming software.
Finally, more than 40 (88%) indicated that they engage in some type of social media.
All 45 LCIS teachers (100%) reported using computers, outpacing total adult
usage in the U.S. by 39% (Purcell, Heaps, Buchanan, & Friedrich, 2013). One hundred
percent (45) also cited the use of laptop computers for teaching. With regard to
smartphones, 40 (88%) teachers use them in their personal life and 18 (40%) use them for
teaching. 43 (96%) teachers use tablets primarily in their personal life, again exceeding
total adult usage in the U.S. (96% of LCIS teachers vs. 24% of adults in the U.S.).
However, only 23 (51%) use tablets for teaching. This was not a shocking discovery; with
the one-to-one iPad program in Junior Pre-Kindergarten through Kindergarten, there are
fewer iPads available for whole class use in Grades 1-12. Fewer than 6 (13%) teachers
claimed to use other forms of hardware, such as Kindles or GoPro cameras, as a part of
their teaching, networking, or for their own higher education. However, 26 (57%) use
these tools in their personal life.
When asked whether they believe that implementing technology into the
curriculum is important for student success, 28 of the 32 teachers (87%) responded that
technology is critical to student success. The following response excerpts illustrate the
range of participant views regarding this question:
•“Yes, because technology has become an essential part of our daily lives and
brings the opportunity to motivate students and relate the academic curriculum to
their interests and needs.”
73
•“It is important because it helps to connect students to the technological world
around them.”
•“In a society that utilizes technology, students should be exposed to working with
technology from as early as possible.”
•“Yes, I do, because technology forms part of our everyday life and it will be an
intrinsic part of their working and social life in the future.”
These responses show how teachers are clearly affirming the value of technology
integration and the use of digital literacies for our students’ futures. However, they also
described conflicts between teaching with digital tools and teaching without. One teacher
wrote, “Yes, [it is important] but there should certainly be a balance of technology and
off-screen time.” Another stated: “I believe that it is important to have a balance between
technology and other strategies.” Here, teachers made it clear that there is a difference
between teaching and learning with and without technology integration and digital
literacies. They suggested that there should be a balance between the teaching of
traditional literacy—using traditional tools, such as pen, paper, books, and specific
technical skills, and the teaching of digital literacies—using emerging technologies and
literacy as a social practice. The teachers’ responses also suggest emphasis on the use of
the digital tools as opposed to a set of multimodal skills.
Digital Literacies and Technology Integration Within the IB Programme
Survey responses indicated that teachers expressed a reasonable level of comfort
with technology use. More than 30 (66%) categorized themselves as either competent or
proficient users of technology, while 11 (25%) rated themselves as advanced users. At the
74
same time, only 6 (14%) claimed to use the Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and
Math (STEAM) resources, which were expressly designed to increase the use of digital
literacies skills. STEAM resources help teachers bring real world experiences to student
work by supporting them in designing and sharing digital content and making
connections to the global world we live in. For the past year and half, LCIS teachers have
received professional development related to the use of STEAM resources. One would
assume that the teachers who are advanced users of technology would make more use of
the technological resources that the STEAM program offers. The disconnect between
teachers’ self-assessed proficiency with technology and their lack of self-declared use of
STEAM resources seems contradictory.
Teachers indicated their own personal use of technology as the top reason for
implementing digital literacies in their classrooms, followed by inspiration from the
Internet and student activities. One teacher wrote, “I already know a lot about technology
from my own use. It is naturally the most influential choice.” Another said, “Student use
inspires me to use more tech during teaching to appeal to students.”
When asked to provide a specific example of activities used when implementing
digital literacies, 15 of the 30 (50%) respondents cited using specific tools to support the
use of digital literacies. They shared examples such as, “I use iPads, the Internet, and the
computer on the class projector,” “Use of on-screen assessments,” and “I have used
YouTube videos in class to start discussions with students on issues that they are
passionate about. I have also utilized laptops and iPads to teach concepts in class that
were traditionally done using only pencil and paper.” Seven of the 30 (23%) reported that
they used digital tools to support research within their classes. The last eight (26%)
75
reported that they use digital literacies tools to help students create and collaborate. When
asked specifically about the tasks that support creation, collaboration, and research,
teachers reported the following:
•77% (27) created tasks that support students’ collaborative work.
•57% (20) engaged students in evaluating Internet content.
•85% (30) used tools such as YouTube, video streaming, and TED talks to
enhance tasks.
The least cited reasons for implementation of digital literacies were participation
at conferences outside of LCIS, the school’s mission and vision, and the IB programme.
Once teacher commented: “I went to the LCIS website to check the vision/mission
statement but couldn't find it.” Another wrote, “Many times the workshops, although
interesting, do not apply directly to my classroom setting.” Yet another commented, “Not
sure how it [IB] relates to my technology teaching in terms of understanding what to do. I
do use the units of inquiry to drive my technology use though.” While this teacher clearly
gets the importance of teaching and learning and technology integration, her struggle
seems to be with a lack of clarity from the IBO. The IBO does provide a website on how
technology should be integrated within the larger programme. However, it fails to provide
clear direction on how technology integration and digital literacies intersect with the IB
programmes. The IBO’s many suggested frameworks may be creating confusion and
uncertainty among the teachers. The above evidence suggests that: (1) Teachers believe
that the IBO professional development sessions offer little in the way of how to integrate
digital literacies skills within their classrooms; (2) Teachers do not perceive the
correlation between their professional development regarding integrating digital literacies
76
and the subjects they teach; and (3) Teachers are not clear on when and how the IBO
expects them to integrate technology within their units of inquiry.
School's Influence on the Integration of Digital Literacies
When asked to describe what prevents teachers from implementing digital
literacies, 8 of 29 (27%) teachers cited unreliability of technology, specifically issues
such as power outages, spotty wireless connectivity, and technology that does not work.
Four of the 29 (13%) mentioned a lack of user support and that the technology itself is
distracting to students. One teacher wrote that, when using the computer in class,
“Students tend to use other applications instead of focusing on the task.” The remaining
responses were centered around this tension between the use of digital literacies and
traditional literacies. For example, one teacher wrote, “When learning language,
especially at the beginning, it's important for students to write. You remember what you
write by hand more than what you type.” Another stated, “[Technology] is less
concretebased and lessens social interaction.” The first comment demonstrates the
teacher’s belief that writing with a pen represents different cognitive processes than does
writing with a keyboard. To achieve the “balance” they seek, teachers believe that
students must begin to master traditional literacies skills—that is, specific skill sets such
as reading, writing listening and speaking—before they can begin to tackle digital
literacies skills. It also implies that the teachers do not have a full understanding of what
digital literacies skills entail. Digital literacy is part of the “new literacies” phenomena.
77
New literacies advocate that literacy is not only a social practice, but that students must
also build on traditional literacy skills in order to acquire digital literacies skills (New
South Wales, 2010). The second comment implies that teachers fear that the increased
presence of technology within our school has created students who are unable to develop
the social skills they need to effectively handle interpersonal relationships.
In summary, the results of the survey demonstrated that the LCIS teachers believe
that digital literacies and technological integration are vital to our students’ future.
Results also show that the teachers are integrating digital practices in their personal lives.
Furthermore, the results illustrate how teachers are working to foster the creation and
sharing of digital content with their classrooms. Seventeen teachers (47%) reported using
some form of digital literacy skills on a daily basis within the classroom. Most report
believing that there must be an element of balance between traditional and digital
literacies. That is, they believe that students need a full repertoire of skills that encompass
both traditional and digital notions of literacy. One teacher wrote, “Moderation [is] very
important,” while another stated, “Technology does not replace good teaching. Flashy
and new does not always mean better.” As further demonstration of their belief in the
importance of “balance,” 14 teachers (39%) noted that they use digital tools only when
appropriate and when they add value to the lesson. That is, while the school has a
plethora of digital resources available, teachers do not simply use technology for
technology's sake. The survey data further suggests that some teachers believe that
technology was replacing traditional ways of teaching literacy areas such as reading,
writing, speaking, and listening. It appears that teachers do not understand the connection
between traditional literacies skills and these new digital literacy skills. That is, they may
78
not believe that this new array of skills will help students navigate this complex world of
information. Further, they may view the implementation of these new skills into their
teaching as representing yet one more thing they have to do, on top of all their other
professional obligations.
Finally, based on my observations, there appears to be a disconnect between how
teachers rate their digital competency and what they report as occurring in their
classrooms. I wanted to understand more deeply how LCIS teachers define technological
competency, specifically whether they really understand digital literacies and what kind
of “balance” they seek. To address these questions, I formed two focus groups. The
details are outlined in the next section.
Focus Groups
Focus groups were formed following analysis of the survey results. Eight teachers
from across the three schools were selected using purposeful sampling, based on the same
selection criteria used for the case studies’ participants. The first group, called the
secondary focus group, included four teachers, all women, who taught in the Middle
Years Programme (MYP), the Diploma Programme (DP), or both. Two teachers were
Bahamian, one American, and one British. The second group, called the elementary focus
group, also consisted of four women, including one Early Learning Center teacher who
taught Junior Pre-Kindergarten, and three from the Elementary School who taught
Grades, 1, 4, and 5. Two teachers were Bahamian and two American. All teachers in this
group teach the Primary Years Programme (PYP) in a self-contained class, with three
79
main subjects per day: Language Arts, Math, and Unit of Inquiry, which encompasses
both Science and Social Studies.
The focus group findings revealed four key themes: (1) Appropriate users of
digital literacies; (2) digital literacies reach multiple learners; (3) digital natives vs. digital
immigrants; and (4) tension between traditional and digital literacies. These themes have
been organized in accordance with this study’s research questions.
Attitudes, Beliefs, or Personal Experiences With Technology
Appropriate users of digital literacies. Teachers in both groups concluded that
in order to develop students’ digital literacies practices, they first must improve students’
critical thinking skills. Without critical thinking skills, students are incapable of
effectively using tools or evaluating content. They are not properly armed to navigate the
Web, select relevant content from a sea of results, create and share digital content, and
ultimately, become effective digital citizens.
What does it mean to be digitally literate? Both focus groups were asked to
respond to the following definition of digital literacies: “Digital literacy means not rote
learning but experimentation, process, creativity; not just technology but multimedia
imagination, expression—and principles, too. It means learning why we don't have to just
be consumers of technology but also active participants in its flourishing. Digital literacy
helps us to believe in and fight for the Web" (Davidson, 2011, p. 13). The participants
generally agreed with this definition, and added that a focus on the appropriate use of
digital content is more important than students creatively expressing themselves. Students
often delve into digital content without embracing the key digital literacies skills needed
80
to fully understand the potential implications and consequences of the World Wide Web.
That is, students need to be good digital citizens who are critical and reflective of digital
content as well as competent users of various operations. Students today face issues of
cyberbullying, plagiarism, and online privacy and etiquette. Asia, a Science MYP teacher
in the secondary focus group, indicated:
We definitely need to fight for proper use of the web, especially when it relates to
digital literacy skills being implemented in a classroom. When it is applied to a
classroom setting, certain mechanisms need to be put in place regarding the
school’s network and students’ ability to access information from the internet.
Teachers need to control what information students have access to…Because at
times students stray off topic and delve into areas of the web that could actually
be more harmful rather than beneficial.
Asia’s comment pointed to the need to support students in becoming good digital citizens.
Her comment demonstrated some frustration that, while students are developing this skill
set, the teachers have little means of monitoring them and providing teachable moments.
Concern over lack of monitoring is particularly relevant at LCIS, where students use their
own laptops instead of ones provided by the school, which makes daily monitoring of
technology extremely difficult. Teachers were anxious, therefore, about how to
effectively help students to be responsible and develop a sense of ownership about the
decisions they make online without having the proper tool kit to “control” what students
are doing in their classrooms.
Creators and consumers of digital content. A few teachers concluded that one
key component of digital literacies is that students need to experiment to create new
digital content. Faith, an MYP and DP Spanish teacher in the secondary group, stated:
81
Experimentation [is] how I’ve acquired most of my personal digital literacy
skills, through experimenting and the process of elimination. If something works, it
works, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t. Researching on the web, watching YouTube videos, that
kind of thing, so I think the experimentation part is definitely true. Macy, a Grade 5 PYP
teacher in the elementary group, shared, “I think it's important for them to be able to use
technology to better express themselves and to use it creatively. When it [the definition]
says, ‘It means learning why we don't have to just be consumers of technology but also
active participants in its flourishing,’ it's something I think is important.” As educators we
want our future students to as questions like “How can I effect change?” “What do I need
to build?” To do this, they must be innovators and risktakers, and they must embrace
failure. Macy expressed a desire to develop digital pedagogies so that our students can
unleash their creativity on the world and address the challenges that they are most
passionate about.
Evaluation of content. Teachers were also concerned about the impact of the
Internet on students’ expectations of instantaneous information. That is, teachers believe
that students lack the patience to locate information needed for research, and, more
importantly, that they are unable to evaluate websites and other electronic resources for
quality and reliability. Macy, a PYP teacher, shared, “I think it is important for students to
be able to discern the quality of digital resources. Just because it exists, it doesn't mean
you have to use it.” Zoey, a Grade 4 PYP teacher, stated, “Things [new information] just
keep coming at us [teachers and students] all the time. Students have to be able to
decipher what they need and teachers need to determine what is relevant to what we are
teaching.” Acknowledging the rapid changes in digital tools, Zoey, a PYP teacher,
demonstrated concern for how we as teachers support students in developing the
82
appropriate skill set for judging the quality of online information, particularly when those
skills are difficult for teachers as well.
Both focus groups emphasized that teachers must provide students with specific
practices for searching for relevant research materials. Teachers agreed that digital tools
have created increased complexity for teachers when they teach literacy skills. For
instance, it is easier than ever for students to plagiarize, so teacher vigilance has to
increase. There are a growing number of digital tools designed to address such issues;
they support plagiarism prevention and detection, reference management, and proper
citation. At the same time, teachers reported a decline in students’ basic academic skills.
Knowledge of grammar rules or how to write a basic essay has been lost. Students have
more information than ever at their disposal, but they do not know what to do with it.
Hope, the MYP English teacher, stated, “They know what to do to go on but they require
more complex understanding of exactly what is at their fingertips and how to use it
responsibly. It’s not necessarily control but teaching them to be responsible.” Hope
identified the struggle the teachers face in trying to support students in developing
research skill sets while also reminding them how to be good digital citizens.
Digital distraction. Teachers in the secondary focus group suggested that
students’ ability to think critically and use technological tools is hampered because proper
controls for teachers were not in place. However, the primary concern of the secondary
focus group was digital distraction. When students read a textbook, while they are
engaging with the printed word and meaning of the text, the act of reading the printed
word is a static process. That is, students can only read in one way, front to back. A
books’ borders provide an opportunity for students to focus on a single page of the book
83
without losing sight of the whole text. However, when using digital tools, students are not
only actively engaged with the printed word, but they are also engaged in making choices
about how to understand digital content. For example, a digital reader often provides
students with hyperlinks leading to additional content, which can sometimes draw their
attention away from their original task. Catalina, a MYP Math teacher, shared:
We need to put more controls in place for digital learning in the classroom, For
instance, sometimes during a class assignment, you are walking around monitoring the
students and two or three of them are in chat boxes … they are trying to trick teachers
into thinking that they are doing what they need to be doing in class. If we are going to
move forward, controls need to be in place. Catalina recognized that the digital
environment presents tempting and potentially easily disguised distractions for students.
She also recognized the burden placed on teachers to counteract such distractions,
including the consequences of failing. Catalina confirmed this later: “We need to keep
them, students, focused on where they should be, rather than going off down ‘little dark
alleys.’ Typically, at the end of most lessons, more than 70% of the class can give you a
really good piece of work. However, there is another 30% that gives you a lot of excuses.
I think the other 30% we’re losing somewhere on the Web.”
Secondary teachers suggested that they needed either a tool to monitor student
computers or the ability to more deeply imbue each student with the IB learner attribute
of “being principled,” or, in other words, a good digital citizen. Catalina further
suggested:
Students need to be principled, even when nobody’s looking. Students need to
understand that they need to be principled, if no teacher is policing you, if no
parents are questioning you, when nobody's looking over your shoulder, be a
principled person.
84
Participating teachers expressed wanting their students to develop a skill set for using
technology appropriately, responsibly, and safely. For instance, today’s students are
highly engaged in social media, the norms of which change rapidly. Teachers want to
provide students with more support, so they can minimize the risks they may encounter
online. However, while this is a valid concern, their desire for more “control” and to be
the “expert” is contradictory to the inquiry approach of the IB philosophy.
Digital Literacies and Technology Integration Within the IB Programme
Digital literacies reach multiple learners. Both focus groups agreed that the use
of digital literacies allowed teachers to enhance the delivery of their lessons. This
enhancement keeps students engaged, provides teachers with the opportunity to help
students learn how to analyze media and construct their own meanings, and, ultimately,
enables teachers to reach students’ diverse learning styles. Asia, the MYP Science
teacher, shared:
It’s easier to reach higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy when using digital
literacies. The students are able to test how well they’re able to apply what
they’ve learned. Also, they’re able to synthesize or create anything really,
depending on what subject it is. Like in science, it allows us to really make the
subject as authentic as possible for the students. The student experience is
enhanced by all of the technology that we have available to us. At the previous
schools where I’ve taught, it was very difficult reaching the higher levels of
Bloom’s taxonomy in the classroom.
Diana, a PYP Grade 1 teacher, stated: “I think [digital literacies tools are] effective and I
think you reach more children, their interests, because it's not just one way of teaching.”
Whitney, a PYP Junior Pre-Kindergarten teacher, recounted how transfixed students have
been when she integrated technology. She said,
85
“Certainly, you're getting their attention when there is something on the
Promethean board (Interactive Whiteboard). For example, when we're doing
either the letter or the number of the week, everyone’s eyes are zoned in, even the
ones who may not even be able to pronounce ‘four’, they're hearing it. That's
enhanced for them, and they're seeing it, and then we're stomping our feet four
times.”
Teachers highlighted the notion of a participatory culture among students. Jenkins,
Purushotma, Weigel, Clinton, and Robinson, (2009) pointed out that there is a direct
correlation between the type of communication tools used by students and the levels of
collaboration they engage in. The implementation of activities such as blogging or
creating movies or advertisements allows the students to create, collaborate, and share
their information in multiple circles. Hope, an MYP English teacher, suggested:
Within the classroom, I know I have done a lot of sharing of Google documents or
having students communicating with one another. Those are skills that we need to
work on. A few years ago when I was teaching folktales, we were able to
collaborate with students from around the world.
Macy, the PYP teacher, described an example of how technology fosters
collaboration in inspiring ways. Her Grade 5 class had an opportunity to conduct a Skype
call with a group of scientists who were in the middle of the Pacific Ocean exploring the
world’s largest underwater volcano, Tamu Massif. She stated:
They said to us, "Aside from the people on this ship, you are the only people
who've ever seen this depth." We were just like, "That was amazing for us." It was
real. We're studying natural disasters. It was real-life application. We have been
talking about jobs, and we realized somebody was the tech guy on that ship or
somebody was the chef on that ship. It was allowing them to be open-minded and
seeing these people who are risk-takers, who are out in the ocean, and doing
math, and just making everything transdisciplinary.
Students in that Grade 5 class experienced a real-life application of the power of social
media. Talking, sharing, playing, learning, and working with others, even those on the
other side of the world, can be a powerful and transformative learning experience.
86
Tension between traditional and digital literacies. Both focus groups addressed
a tension between digital and traditional literacies. Teachers clearly believed that there
was a need for both. However, they did not agree on the reasons. Faith, the MYP and DP
Spanish teacher, stated, “Your classroom can be exciting without having any technology
in it whatsoever. Quite often I’m like, we are not using the computers today. We’re going
to do some work using pen and paper.” Faith’s statement revealed her belief that a pen,
paper, and a real book were still appealing to students and still has an important place in
the classroom. The participant’s focus here is on the digital tools, not how the digital tools
are impacting her lessons. Further, the participant is implying that traditional literacy,
operationally defined here as a set of technical skills that students need to acquire, has a
more important role in teaching and learning than does digital literacy. This made me
ponder whether the participant understands digital literacies and how they should be
implemented within their classroom.
For teachers, some of the appeal of the “balance” between traditional and digital
literacies seemed connected to teachers’ general comfort with traditional technical
instructional practices. In particular, they understand their value and their outcomes.
Diana, a PYP Grade 1 teacher, suggested:
I think sometimes teachers go back to their comfort zone. Sometimes it's easier to
just do it the way that you feel comfortable doing it. You do have to, like I said
earlier, step out of your box and do it differently. Because one day, that will be
your comfort zone where you do both easily. You integrate it as you can, and you
learn. You use your resources in the school, there are plenty, and you just find the
balance between the two [digital and traditional literacies].
Diana’s comments indicated that some teachers seemed to highly value traditional
literacies because they are easy and familiar. However, her comment also suggested that
87
there is a place for both digital and traditional literacies in the modern classroom. Yet
implementing both requires teachers to devote additional effort to learn a new way
teaching. Under traditional literacy frameworks, students are seen as “passive recipients”
(Cope & Kalantzis, 2000, p. 10). That is, students are typically understood as receiving
and reproducing representational forms. Traditional literacy pedagogy was aimed at
acquiring specific skills and competence to effectively obtain information in books and
other printed forms created with the advent of emerging technologies. In contrast, when
thinking about digital literacy pedagogy, it is necessary to consider how recent emerging
technologies have changed what is now regarded as literacy. In other words, literacy is
now viewed as a social practice. Asselin and Moayeri (2011) recommend that educators
must expand their mindset about literacy to include applications that are “participatory,
collaborative, multimodal, democratic and distributive” (p. iv). This means that digital
literacy must not only include elements of phonics, but also writing in multimodal forms,
visual interpretation, site navigation, media manipulation, and understanding how media
has altered the meaning of words. It is this expanded framework for communication and
expression that requires teachers to search for new pedagogical approaches in order to
prepare our students for the future.
Some teachers’ use of traditional or digital literacy practices appeared to be
dependent upon their pedagogical beliefs. For example, Faith, the MYP and DP Spanish
teacher, stated, “Sometimes I’ll display text [Spanish words] around the school, just to get
them outside. Also looking at the screen the whole time, is so bad for them and their
concentration levels.” Faith expressed the belief that students benefit from less screen
time because too much of it affects their ability to concentrate and to think deeply about
88
topics. Thus, assigning activities without digital tools that also get students moving
around outside the classroom was consistent with her pedagogical belief. Macy, the PYP
teacher stated, “I don't think you have to choose one or the other [digital or traditional
literacy], but you do have to teach that balance. It's fine if you want to read that little
picture book, and sometimes it's fine if you want to take your Kindle.” It appeared that
some teachers are afraid that, with the increased use of digital tools, students engage in
passive viewing rather than actively engaging with the printed word, thereby resulting in
a generation of intellectually lazy students.
School's Influence on the Integration of Digital Literacies.
Digital natives vs. digital immigrants. Participating teachers clearly articulated
that the increase in new technologies has resulted in new opportunities not only for
students, but also for them as teachers. Teachers recognized that they have a
responsibility to provide students with a wide range of resources to prepare them for life
beyond our school. When the teachers were asked to describe what it means to be
technologically competent, most teachers expressed that it means to have confidence in
and knowledge about using digital technologies. However, they also shared that their
students often know more than they do. Whitney, a PYP Junior Pre-Kindergarten teacher,
asserted that technologically competent meant, “Be open-minded, be vulnerable, and just
admit it. I told them [students] that I know the basics, but I just don't know all of it.”
Zoey, a Grade 4 PYP teacher, said:
I think for a lot of teachers, we have to be open-minded towards it. A lot of people
are sometimes shy and they're reluctant. Even when I'm introducing a new piece
of software to my kids, I would know the basics of it, but I will tell them, "Well, I
really don't know all of the components or how it really works, but let's go
89
through it together. Let's try it together. If you learn something new, share it with
the class.
All the teachers expressed a desire to effectively blend new ideas and create learning
experiences that go beyond the traditional classroom, regardless of their own
technological prowess. Hope, the MYP English teacher, stated,
What I have tried to do is, when I’m giving an assignment or having them do
something, I leave it open. I tell them, “I know you know that there’s more ways
to do this.” I give them the permission to use what they want and then show me
and then they teach me.
In this situation, the teacher is acting as the guide, providing the context and designing
instruction. However, students still have the flexibility to explore, create, and produce.
On the other hand, a few teachers expressed a sense of anxiety and described feeling
inundated. Hope, an MYP teacher, shared:
I want my lessons to be exciting and I want to be on the student's level but I find it
overwhelming. I look forward to creating the lesson, but I find all this information
coming at me and I don’t know where to start. Sometimes I tell my students that
they have to find the program. It’s not due to my lack of desire but it’s just
overwhelming and because I’m not a digital native.
Asia, the MYP Science teacher, succinctly defined technological competence: “To me it
means having the confidence to implement literacy in the classroom. Then also being
able to measure the impact of what you have actually taught.”
Teachers embraced the reality that the educational landscape is rapidly changing.
Most of them also acknowledged that they had been not adequately prepared in college to
effectively implement digital literacies. Nevertheless, they indicated that they want to
keep up with change. They also expressed the belief that doing so requires additional
90
support, especially in terms of support from the administration to take risks, make
mistakes, fail, and continue developing.
Summary
The focus groups revealed that participating LCIS teachers believe that students
need to understand how to create, interpret, analyze, and share digital content. Most of
the teachers concluded that digital literacies are indeed affecting the educational
landscape, primarily by helping them reach all types of learners. While they fully
understood that the implementation of digital literacies requires a specific set of practices
embedded within their lessons, they identified facing daily obstacles to ensuring seamless
implementation. These articulated obstacles included their own technological competence
in implementing digital tools; the need to be both vulnerable and open-minded; and the
realization that they do not have to be the sole source of knowledge in their classroom.
Some teachers further expounded on how their pedagogical beliefs influenced when and
how they implemented digital content, such as the notion that traditional literacies
practices are more important than digital literacy practices. In other words, they have
what Lankshear and Knobel (2011) refer to as “mindset one,” where the teacher is the
main source of knowledge and students are the receivers of their expertise. In this
mindset, digital tools are being used to do the same old things in “technologized” way,
and tasks are accomplished by means routines and longstanding assumptions. This notion
is supported in the study findings, as some teachers expressed the belief that digital
literacy practices have created a generation of distracted students and that constantly
looking at screens has long-term negative effects. Further, they asserted that our students
91
do not always use digital tools in responsible ways, citing examples such as the
increasing incidence of plagiarism. However, they also agreed that it was our
responsibility as educators to find answers to address such challenges.
While one cannot deny that emerging technologies have created increased
challenges for our teachers, I assert that the digital tools themselves are influencing some
of the teachers’ beliefs, diverting their focus from how students’ learning processes can
fundamentally be changed as a result of emerging technologies. Students must move from
being consumers of information to producers and explorers. Lankshear and Knobel
(2011) refer to this as “mindset two” (p.7): tools are for mediation and relationship
technologies; expertise is distributed; and social relations of emerging digital space are
visible (p.8). If we are to see a shift in mindset, teachers must begin to select tools that
will enable students to engage critically, thoughtfully, collaboratively, and ethically. As
Gee (2010) argues, “It is the study of new digital tools and new forms of convergent
media, production and participation, as well as powerful forms of social organization and
complexity in popular culture, that can teach us how to enhance learning in- and out-
ofschool and how to transform society and the global world as well” (p. 14).
92
Chapter 5
QUALITATIVE FINDINGS
This study was designed to explore how teachers are implementing digital
literacies within three International Baccalaureate (IB) programmes at Lyford Cay
International School (LCIS). This study was also intended to inform my practice as a
school leader, especially my collaboration with the faculty to co-create a thriving digital
environment to advance teaching and learning in an IB programme.
The following research questions guided this study:
1. How have teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, or personal experiences with technology
shaped their instructional practices?
2. How have teachers interpreted “technology integration” within the IB
programme, and how has the programme influenced their teaching of digital
literacies practices and technology?
3. What happens when I, as a school administrator, begin to explore how the
school’s vision of technology integration is influencing the implementation of
digital literacies within the IB programme? How does what I learn influence my
work as a school leader?
Chapter V discusses the qualitative results of this study. Specifically, I outline a detailed
narrative description of the four case studies conducted for this study. Each case
encompasses data collected from interviews, observations, and reflective researcher
93
journals. Additionally, a cross-case analysis was conducted, which identified common
themes across all sections of the data.
Case Studies
Case studies were conducted to elicit deeper understanding of what influences the
teaching of digital literacies and technology integration in the classroom, and how
teachers’ literacy practices are reflected in their teaching of digital literacies within an IB
program. Four teachers across the school divisions were purposefully selected to
participate. The first participant was a Junior Pre-Kindergarten Primary Years (PYP)
teacher in the Early Learning Center (ELC) who is also a competent user of technology.
The second participant is a Grade 2 PYP teacher in the Elementary School who considers
herself a novice user of technology. The third participant is a Middle Years Programme
(MYP) and Diploma Programme (DP) humanities teacher in the Secondary School who
primarily teaches Grades 7, 11, and 12 and is a proficient user of technology. The final
participant was the instructional technology coordinator, who is an advanced user of
technology and works across all three-school divisions. She was previously the
Secondary School’s MYP Design teacher.
Each case study sheds light on the study’s research questions from the different thematic
vantage points.
Rachel
Rachel considers herself a competent user of technology who actively
incorporates strategies to support the teaching and learning of digital literacies. She is a
Bahamian national with 10 years of teaching experience. She has been at LCIS for nine
94
years, and during this time she has taught Grade 2 and Junior Pre-Kindergarten. She has
not taught outside of The Bahamas.
Rachel is currently pursuing her master’s degree in teaching and learning through
an online Nova Southeastern University program. She has been trained in Level I and II
of the PYP. In a self-contained classroom, she teaches literacy, math, the PYP units of
inquiry (which include both science and social studies), and art, with the support of a
fulltime instructional aide. Specialist teachers teach Spanish, physical education, and
music. Inside her classroom, there is an interactive whiteboard and a cart with 18 iPads
loaded with various age-appropriate software. Additionally, she has access to GoPro
cameras and a variety of STEAM-related resources. Her students attend school from
8:30 a.m.- 2:45 p.m., with most literacy instruction occurring in the morning.
Attitudes, beliefs, or personal experiences with technology
Rachel exhibits a favorable attitude toward technological use, and she uses digital
tools frequently in her personal life. Specifically, she shops and banks online, and she
stays connected with family members both within and outside the Bahamas with video
applications such as Skype, Whatsapp, and email. Additionally, she stated that she most
recently upgraded all of her televisions to Liquid Crystal Display (LCD). Several
researchers have investigated whether digital literacy practices in the classroom are
influenced by teachers’ personal use of technology. One such example is Tour’s (2015)
study, which suggested that there are “common patterns” in how teachers use digital tools
in their personal and professional life. That is, how the teachers make use of specific
technologies in their personal life are apparent in the type of experiences that they offer
95
their students in the classroom (Tour, 2015). Rachel also reported that while she is taking
online classes for her master’s degree, the program itself uses technology only minimally.
She shared that her undergraduate teacher education courses did not prepare her to use
technology to support teaching and learning in the classroom setting. Although she
completed her undergraduate degree in 2000, when technology was becoming ubiquitous
in higher education, she could not recall one educational technology course nor any
general technology being utilized during her teacher educational programme.
Despite her lack of preparation to teach technology, Rachel articulated that
technology adds significant value to student learning. She stated,
[Technology] [is] very valuable. It is valuable because, they [students] have to
function in the era that they were born in. In order for a child today to function,
they have to be technologically educated. Have to be. They just won't make it.
They just won't.
Consequently, her enthusiastic description of what technology integration looks like
within a lesson aligned with the value she assigns to it. She stated:
It looks like something that can definitely reinforce a skill. It should be
interesting. The children should be motivated because the children I'm teaching
now, they're in the era of technology. It's not strange; it's not scary for them
[students]. To me I think it's more exciting. I think students become more
interested when technological devices are used…[Technology] breaks this myth
of Piaget’s beliefs regarding students learning spans. When they use technological
devices [students are able to sit] longer, and these are little kids...they sit there the
whole time and then the students go from the language arts right into a math
lesson. That's amazing.
Rachel suggested that when digital tools are integrated into lessons, they have the
potential to revolutionize teaching and learning. Students, even at the age of four, are able
to sit for longer periods of time when working with digital tools such as iPads. They are
transfixed by technology in ways that teachers cannot as easily accomplish alone.
96
Dockstander (1999) supports Rachel’s notion. She asserted that when knowledgeable
educators use technology appropriately, these powerful tools could be valuable for
keeping students engaged in their learning process.
While Rachel expressed that technology was both valuable and necessary for 21st
century learning, she also proposed that the most successful classrooms need to achieve a
balance of teaching with or without digital tools. She noted,
The only thing is, we have to teach the children to put the technology in the right
place. Right now I feel as though for some children, it's excessive. They need to
be exposed to it, but it also needs to be in the right proportions and at the right
time.
This statement clearly indicates that Rachel does not see digital literacy as social practice.
While she articulates the importance of digital tools, she is viewing the use of these tools
in the traditional form of technology, such as use of web searches, presentation software
programs like PowerPoint, and word processing programs. She is not considering how
technology is changing the modes of communication for our students (Kress, 2010). That
is, literacy is no longer just confined to printed text. Instead, literacy is multimodal—
meaning-making occurs through the “reading, viewing, understanding, responding to and
producing and interacting with multimedia and digital texts” (Walsh, 2010, p. 213).
Instead, Rachel advocates that there is a time and place for the use of digital tools, and
that their use needs to be appropriate to the instruction. Additionally, she argued that it is
important for students to understand that they can still learn without the use of
technology. She used an example from her personal life, in which she described limiting
her son’s time on the computer or reminding him that he could still read a book, take a
walk, or write in a journal when there is no internet access available. For Rachel, learning
97
does not cease when there is no technology. She explained, “Just getting that, and getting
that into their minds early, that it is valuable. Use it, but it needs to be properly
managed.”
Research supports some of Rachel’s assertions. Dockstander (1999) posits that
technology integration becomes inappropriate when the technology use drives the
curriculum. That is, the decision to use digital or traditional literacy strategies must
depend on the particular needs of the learner. During her interview, Rachel was clear that
teaching digital literacies requires a different skill set than the one used to teach
traditional literacies, particularly with regard to the four year old age group that she
teaches. For instance, she needs to be sure that her students understand an app or tool
before conducting a lesson that makes use of them. This type of instruction is particularly
time consuming with such young children. At this point in the students’ academic career,
emergent literacy abilities are developing. Students are learning phonological awareness,
which is the ability to recognize and manipulate the sound units that make up words.
With this in mind, teachers working with children as young as four develop specific skill
sets associated with early traditional literacy development, such as language games and
nursery rhymes. Similarly, digital literacy skills require early development. Rachel
believes that skills such as exploration and independence are key attributes for young
students to develop in relation to technology use. The International Society Technology
Education (ISTE, 2008) supports Rachel assertions. These standards state a teacher
should "develop technology-enriched learning environments that enable all students to
become active participants in setting their own educational goals, managing their own
learning, and assessing their own progress" (p. 1). However, the standards also state that
98
teachers should use their knowledge about teaching and learning to “advance student
learning, creativity and innovation in both face-to-face and virtual environments” (p. 1).
It does not mention technology tools at all. Again, Rachel’s comments suggest that she
does not have an understanding of what digital literacy is or what she is expected to do.
Digital literacies and technology integration within the IB Programme
Rachel’s definition of literacy was: “the ability of the child to be able to read,
write and comprehend anything, at their level.” Her definition is similar to what many
define as traditional literacy, “the ability to be able to read, write, speak and listen”
(Schrock, 2016, slide 1). and what this research has defined as traditional literacy. Her
definition of digital literacies emphasized digital tools as opposed to social practices. As
she elaborated,
Digital literacy for me would be the ability to be able to not just read any device
that's digital, but to be able to comprehend the lingo because there are some
lingos that are specific to certain machines. Being able to comprehend the lingo
that's associated with specific technological devices. It varies depending on what
it is, you know, that you're using.
The role that technology plays in Rachel’s cultivation of digital literacy within the
IB programme is its reduction to the notion of “added tools.” That is, she uses digital
tools to enhance her lessons, rather than to engage students in digital literacy practices
that improve thinking critically, toward promoting self-regulated learning and enhanced
literacy skills. During the interview, she maintained that she works to emphasize
interactive, open-ended learning, in contrast with drills and practice. When planning her
lessons, she considers whether incorporating technology would support the teaching of
the lesson objectives, increase student motivation, and/or capture and maintain students’
99
interest. She stated, “I incorporate the technology in my instruction when it is effective
and meaningful. When the children are really truthfully learning from it, they're engaged.
But the key word for me is meaningful. How meaningful is this activity?” She further
elaborated that technology can be extremely engaging for students. She explained, “I find
that they become very engaged. Very, very engaged. Especially when they can have a
MacBook or an iPad for themselves.” Rachel’s understanding of students’ technology
engagement became even clearer when she described a unit she taught on how the world
works, specifically various forms of transportation, during which she used software like
Flip Chart and Brainpop. She used those tools to take her students on a virtual tour of the
various modes of transportation that have been used since 1950. She stated, “I just
remember the boys just being really all excited, and they literally wanted to make little
toy boats and little rafts.”
While Rachel articulated her belief that digital technology increases student
engagement, she also contended that strong classroom management is critical. She
emphasized that, when preparing lessons, particularly those in which technological tools
are being used, teachers need to be organized. She said, “If you don't demonstrate enough
[classroom management], it creates a problem because you're going to have 18 little
hands going up. ‘Ms. X is it this?’ or, ‘Which button should I press?’ ‘Well I didn't get
that.’’ ‘Show me.’”
Rachel asserted that time and safety are also limitations to designing instruction
that enables students to use technology and cultivates digital literacies. She stated, “Time.
Just finding the time because you always have to set up. There's always a set up before
some technological activity. Safety. How are we using these devices? Are we using them
100
in a safe manner?” Both the British Education Communication and Technology Agency
(BECTA; 2004) and Earle (2002) contend that teachers are often unable to make use of
technological tools due to lack the time.
Many of Rachel’s pedagogical beliefs regarding digital literacies and technology
integration were evident during all three of the observations. For example, the classroom
arrangement facilitated both student-centered instruction and students’ use of technology.
Throughout the three lessons I observed, there was evident use of multiple digital tools,
such as iPads, videos, an interactive whiteboard, and various apps. Additionally, during
all three lessons, Rachel’s instructional aide helped prepare for the lessons, worked
directly with individual students, and moved throughout the classroom, monitoring and
supporting where needed.
The lessons were designed around the PYP transdisciplinary unit of inquiry: Who
We Are: An inquiry into the nature of the self and what it means to be human. The central
idea of the unit was “Every day, I can learn about who I am and what I can do with my
body.”
Description of the Observations
Observation One. During the first observation, students were beginning to
examine how the inside of their bodies work. The objective of this lesson was to
understand heart function. Students first watched a video about the heart, and then they
went to various different stations throughout the class, where they engaged in activities
that they needed to access by inputting a QR code. The activities consisted of songs that
help students count to 100, clapping, jumping in place, and dancing. The idea behind
101
these activities was for students to move different parts of their bodies and increase their
heart rate. The students’ independent work consisted of drawing something new they
learned in their “My Body Can” booklet.
When I entered the room for this first observation, I noticed that the names of
each center had been labeled but the iPads were not set up. During the interview, Rachel
emphasized the importance of teacher preparation when utilizing technology. She pointed
out that a lack of preparation at this age level often led to an ineffective lesson. Despite
her strong belief in the importance of preparation, Rachel herself was not adequately
prepared for the lesson. It is unclear whether this lack of preparation was a one-time
event or an ongoing challenge for her.
During the first part of the lesson, she reviewed what the students had previously
studied regarding their body. Next, she had them take a sip of water and asked them to
think about where the water went. After asking several more questions, she had the
students watch a video on how the heart works. The interactive whiteboard was used to
display the video, rather than for multisensory learning, such as collaborative problem
solving, or a virtual field trip. Following the video, she asked the students to sit in their
table groups, only later realizing that she had forgotten to set up the iPads. Her
instructional aide quickly recovered them from the cart where they were stored and
handed one to Rachel. However, when Rachel began to use her iPad to model how the
students would use QR codes (something they had previously studied), it was evident that
she had not only forgotten to set them up, but she had also neglected to check the
software she intended to use. Unfortunately, she was unable to access the QR codes on
several of the iPads. Furthermore, several iPads had not been charged in advance, and one
102
was not working at all. During this delay, students quickly lost focus, and they began
chatting and playing with one another. After several attempts to make the software work,
she decided to dismiss the students to the centers. Even students with an iPad had
difficulty following the directions they had received; many students called out our names
for assistance. My presence was useful in this context, however, as I jumped in to help a
group. Rachel ultimately reduced the number of work groups from five to three, and she
asked some students to share iPads. Students who were forced to share became upset, and
some refused to engage in the activity. Finally, time ran out before the lesson was
completed.
Observation Two. During the second observation, the students were already
seated on the rug directly in front of the interactive whiteboard when I entered. Having
the students seated on the rug rather than at their desks allowed Rachel to maintain the
control she described during her interview. The students were in close proximity to her
when she gave them instructions. This allowed her to quickly check behavior when
needed. Again, she used the interactive whiteboard only to display a video, this time
about the parts of a computer. She consistently paused the video to check for
understanding. The objective of this lesson was to build on the prior lesson about parts of
the body, in order to demonstrate the similarities and differences between human parts
and computer parts. After the video, students were dismissed back to their desks, where
they each found a worksheet, glue, and some cut-out arrows. The students glued down the
arrows to indicate which computer and human parts were similar. Students completed the
worksheet as a group, allowing the students to use their peers as resources, while Rachel
remained at the front of the class to model how to answer each question.
103
Observation Three. During the third observation, Rachel again used the
interactive whiteboard, this time to teach the students a song about the letter H. During
the first part of the lesson, the students were seated on the carpet far from the interactive
whiteboard. Not only did she want to maintain control with the close proximity, she
wanted to ensure that they remained on task. Moving them away from the interactive
whiteboard allowed her to monitor the students and deliver the lesson. During this portion
of the lesson, she made the H sound and displayed words on flashcards that begin with
the letter H. This lesson design was consistent with her belief in the need for balance
between digital and traditional skills. As she introduced the letter H, she ensured that
students viewed the letter written on paper as well as on the computer screen. Next,
students were asked to stand up and turn toward the interactive whiteboard, where she
displayed a music video about the letter H that students sang along with three times.
Following the song, students were dismissed to their desks located in the center of the
room to turn to their literacy letter books. Students were asked to draw a picture of words
that Rachel described. For example, she would say, “I am thinking of a word that begins
with the letter H. It is something that we put on our head.”
Analysis of the Observations. The technology used during three observations of
Rachel’s teaching served multiple purposes. In particular, it gave students access to
engaging and interactive activities while also promoting student independence. The last
lesson was more in alignment with her stated pedagogical beliefs and the ways in which
she described other digital lessons during our interview. As part of the interview, Rachel
affirmed her strong pedagogical belief that teachers must be adequately prepared.
However, in lesson one, she failed to demonstrate adequate preparation. What did occur,
104
however, was just as she predicted: multiple hands went up, yet not all students were able
to complete every station. Watching the lesson and witnessing her lack of preparation, it
became clear why Rachel thought the school needed more technological expertise and
more dedicated technology personnel. She commented that if a technology specialist been
in the room, they would have assisted with the technology preparation and fixed
technology glitches while she and her instructional aide moved forward with the lesson. It
is with regard to this articulated technology perspective that Lumpe and Chambers’s
(2001) study about “context beliefs,” such as how external factors or individual to
support someone in achieving their objective, comes into play. It is possible that Rachel
believes that schools requires more personnel so that the burden of preparing for
technology lessons is shifted to the technology specialist.
While Rachel said that she believed technology should be used to enhance her
lessons, she did not use the digital tools to transform the way she teaches. For example,
lesson two could have been technologically enhanced had the worksheet been displayed
on the interactive whiteboard. Further, use of the interactive whiteboards would have
facilitated a multisensory learning opportunity, with students matching the parts of the
computer to the parts of the human body. This use would have further engaged their focus
on both the board and the objective of the lesson, toward understanding the similarities
and differences between the human body to the computer. Instead, many students shifted
their eyes from their teacher to their paper and struggled with not-yet dexterous fingers
when attempting to complete tasks like gluing thin arrows. These tasks ultimately
emphasized fine motor skills as the objective of the lesson. Additionally, Rachel should
have embedded some higher-order thinking skills into the lesson, such as connecting
105
images with words, especially given that students had a difficult time making the
connections between the human brain and the computer brain (the CPU). As this was a
difficult concept for an introductory lesson, making the lesson interactive and more
collaborative might have been more effective.
In lesson three, her use of a song engaged the students and reinforced her
objective to learn the sound of the letter H. She integrated what she considered digital
literacy practices—showing a YouTube version of the song on the interactive whiteboard
—with traditional literacy practices—having students (or at least those who could) draw
or write. Finally, during the technological component of lesson three, she maintained
control through clear behavior-management techniques. She was organized and prepared,
and students remained engaged as they problem solved to figure out the word Rachel was
describing.
School's influence on the implementation of digital literacies
Rachel believes that there are numerous advantages to implementing digital
literacies and technology into the IB programme. First, she indicated that teachers have
no more excuses for boring lessons. She also suggested that technological advances have
provided opportunities for teachers to expand beyond text-based learning and to engage
all learners. Technology has evolved into an adaptable learning tool that supports how we
demonstrate concepts, assign projects, and assess progress. As for LCIS, she advocated
for a clear technology curriculum that would seamlessly integrate into the PYP. She
stated, “I still feel as though, for the younger kids, it'll be beneficial for the children to
have a technology curriculum and have a teacher just to teach those basics.”
106
Currently, LCIS has one instructional technology teacher whose goal is to support
the teachers in their use of technology within the IB programme. Rachel advocated for
the addition of another specialist teacher who could teach the students specific
technological skills. Rachel’s preference for an additional technology is worth noting, as
it implies both reluctance and hesitation to fully accept the importance that digital literacy
has in the life of our students.
She further suggested that teachers need more time to work with the instructional
technology teacher to enhance their skills. She indicated frustration as well as
apprehension regarding her uncertainty about how to implement specific software or
apps. This frustration was evident when she was unable to access the software for the QR
codes in observation one. Most importantly, however, she expressed concern over not
having IT standards for the elementary students. She stated,
We don't have a curriculum for technology. Because we don't have technology
standards ... For example, as simple as my students being able to know what
letters are on the left and what letters are on the right of the keyboard…..Looking
at a whole keyboard and knowing what ESC means. Knowing what the arrows
going up or down mean.
Rachel indicated that teachers are encouraged by their school heads to use
technology within their lessons to enhance and reinforce their teaching. She provided
specific examples of how her head of school has supported her. She stated,
Taylor [pseudonym] expects you to keep improving. She always expects more
from you. She is very up-to-date with the programs and she is very savvy with all
of them. She can show you so many different ways of what you can do on just
one
program. I like that. There's always constant growth, there's constant
improvement of getting a job or an assignment, a task. I like that.
107
Rachel also indicated that the administration supports teachers with the necessary
resources and systems. She stated, “We would really be dishonest if we say we don't have
enough technology. We have a very good supply of technology.”
Rachel’s concluding remarks were poignant. She explained, “I don't like the
personal touch that technology sometimes takes away.” This belief is strongly linked to
Bahamian culture and history regarding technology. While high-speed Internet first
became widely available in the US in the early 1990’s, it did not arrive in The Bahamas
until 2000. Bahamian nationals are known for being friendly, outgoing, and informal.
They are very polite and hospitable. They also enjoy getting to know people, and sharing
a meal is the most common way to build a relationship. So, it is understandable that this
rapid technological revolution has brought with it some unintended consequences. Where
there would once be face-to-face conversations and personal reminders, they have been
replaced by email and the impersonal, all-school Friday memo. Rachel stressed how this
has changed the culture of the school. That is, while the school is progressing
technologically, with the addition of, one-to-one lap-tops and interactive whiteboards, the
implementation of Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics (STEAM),
and the development of a school website and electronic report cards, we have also lost
some of the simplicity and interpersonal skills that this country truly values.
Heidi
Heidi is a Canadian national with more than 17 years of teaching experience. She
taught for 10 years in Canada before marrying and relocating to The Bahamas. She first
108
taught at LCIS from 2000-2003. She returned in 2010 once all of her children were
school age, and she has been teaching Grades 1 and 2 for the past four and a half years.
All three of her children attend LCIS.
She holds a BA in Early Childhood Education from Ryerson University in
Toronto, Canada. She has been trained in level I, II and III of the PYP. Like Rachel, she
also teaches, literacy, math, and the units of inquiry course that is inclusive of both social
studies and science. Other subjects, including Spanish, physical education, art, and music,
are taught by specialist teachers. She has an interactive whiteboard in her classroom and
shares a cart of MacBook computers with the other Grade 2 class. Heidi also has access
to vast technology resources (i.e., iPads, GoPro cameras, and STEAM resources) from
our technology helpdesk.
Attitudes, beliefs or personal experiences with technology
Heidi classified herself as a novice user of technology. While she believes that
digital literacy and technology integration affect instruction and are useful for
maximizing student learning, she does not use it often in her personal life. She openly
acknowledges that technology is an area she struggles with inside the classroom. She
commented, “Do I like the digital literature for myself? No, I'm not comfortable with it
but I do see how excited the children get, especially, at the Grade 2 level when they're
new to it all.” She indicated that she does have a Facebook account but rarely accesses it,
and that she only uses Facetime and email to stay in touch with her family back home.
She rarely used technology during her teacher education courses, nor did her courses
prepare her to incorporate it into her teaching.
109
Although Heidi is not comfortable with digital tools, she does believe that they
bring value and build student confidence. She said:
I think it really helps to build their confidence, just becoming aware of
technology. I'm thinking about too when we first, when they first open up the
computer, a lot of them didn't know how to manipulate the keyboard at all. They
barely knew how to type, surprisingly enough, because I think they use their
iPads all the time. At the beginning of the year in technology class we did a lot of,
the kids learned how to manipulate the keyboard, basically. What every button
was used for. We've been having assessment on it so they could become aware of
it. I think after that, definitely after that, their confidence really develops
immensely because they were no longer afraid to use the computers.
Heidi also suggested that students aren’t “digital natives.” Heidi instead believes
that we should not assume that students automatically acquire technological skills.
Rather, she contends that technological skills are specific practices that must be
embedded within lessons. Therefore, teachers are responsible for teaching students
specific skills related to digital tools and literacy.
Heidi defined literacy as freedom: it confers the ability to express one’s thoughts,
analyze new information, and understand the surrounding world. She stated, “It means
you can write down your thoughts, your feelings. I personally love to write in my journal
a lot and it helps me work through issues I may be having or just allowing myself think
and write.” This pedagogical belief is rooted in the idea that traditional literacies develop
intellectual stamina and curiosity, build vocabulary and emotional resilience, and serves
as tools for lifelong learning. Heidi reads three books per day to her students and is
pleased with the school’s recent addition adoption of Junior Great Books. She believes
that these type of textbooks support higher-order thinking skills and stimulate powerful
conversations with her students. Yet, when asked to describe digital literacy, she said,
110
“obviously I think of computers, I think of an iPad, I think of anything technical.” Like
Rachel, she believes that digital literacy is nothing more than digital tools students can
use, thereby ignoring the social and cultural practices of digital literacy that can allow
students to make the most of their multiple interactions with digital media. Her views
also demonstrate her desire for more traditional literacy as opposed to less digital
literacy. This was most evident when she was asked to describe what technology looks
like when integrated into her classroom. She shared that, every day, she displays an
image on her interactive whiteboard to stimulate conversation. She felt that this is a very
rudimentary use of digital literacies. She rarely takes advantage of the medium to present
the multimedia lessons of which it is capable. Additionally, she struggles with balance,
especially when it concerns ensuring that both digital and traditional literacies are
appropriately integrated within her lessons. With the vast digital resources available at
LCIS, there is constant pressure to use them, even when teachers may not believe that use
of the tool is appropriate. This was exemplified when she stated, “It’s still really
important to be able to hold the pen properly but it’s equally as important to be able to
push the keyboard.” Here, she was referring to a recent PYP conversation surrounding
whether we should continue to teach cursive writing. While she recognized the
importance of learning to type for our students, she also believed that learning to read and
recognizing cursive handwriting is essential.
Heidi also stated that where technology is concerned,
I'm old school but I'm becoming more a new school. I think [technology] is fun,
exciting, challenging, mind-boggling and rewarding. It's been extremely
rewarding for me because [considering] where I started to where I am now, I have
really progressed nicely. I feel way more comfortable around the computer and
anything digital.”
111
Again, she knows the importance of developing student digital literacy skills but
she also recognizes that she has much to learn. She attributed her recent improvement in
using Web 2.0 tools—which require users to be able to interact with one another or
contribute content—to the support of a technology specialist. She said, “She's been
wonderful for me in terms of really helping me understand the importance of using
technology within my classroom and in my teaching.” This statement implies that she
may not have seen the benefits earlier. Her strong beliefs regarding the importance of
traditional literacies may have made her a particularly late adopter of technology in both
her personal and professional life. The availability of effective professional development
and one-to-one support seems to have influenced her acceptance of technology for
teaching and learning.
Digital literacies and technology integration within the IB Programme
Prior to the hiring of an instructional technology specialist, Heidi was primarily
using digital tools and software only during the second half of the school year. This
timing is directly related to her pedagogical belief that students are not ready earlier in the
year and first need to be taught key digital literacy skills, like keyboarding and using
search engines. Further, she was not comfortable with or knowledgeable about various
software programs for classroom instruction. She continually asserted during her
interview that she has made it a goal to increase the integration of technology within her
lessons, now that she has weekly support.
Heidi believes that students benefit from guidance, instruction, and practice where
digital literacies are concerned. This was most evident during my observations. All of her
112
lessons were deliberately designed to teach her students specific skills in sequence,
thereby laying the foundation they need to become successful technology users.
Description of the observations
Observation One. During my first observation, Heidi’s lesson was co-taught with
the instructional specialist. The lesson objective was to teach the students about
cyberbullying and to provide them with strategies to prevent it. Heidi launched the lesson
with inquiry questions, which were handwritten on sentence strips and placed on the
whiteboard. I wondered why she did not display them directly on the interactive
whiteboard. She posed questions such as: “Why do people bully?” “How do you think
bullying makes people feel? What kind of emotions do students feel?” and “What would
be the best thing to do if you were bullied?” All students were actively engaged and
raised their hands, responding appropriately. Next, the instructional specialist began her
part of the lesson where she showed a video about cyberbullying. The essential question
for this part of the lesson was: “What can you do when someone is mean to you online?”
She then used the interactive whiteboard to play a video for the students. Following the
video, the instructional specialist asked the students “If someone asked you to describe
what cyberbullying is what would you tell them? What would be your response?” A
student responded “bullying online.” The instructor technology coordinator was looking
for the students to put the definition in their own words, because she continued to probe
and encourage the students to use words other than online and bullying.
As she continued to probe, she asked the students what kind of advice they would
give a friend who is being bullied online. A student responded, “You could delete the
113
message.” Another student shared that you could block the site. The instructional
technology teacher continued to ask students a variety of related questions, such as who
could a student speak with if the cyberbullying continued, and what emotions the student
might feel when being cyberbullied.
After reviewing a video, Heidi read a scenario to the children and asked them
whether it was an example of cyberbullying. As a part of the scenario, one student shared
her password with a friend. Later, when the young girl logged on to her site, she saw that
the site had been tampered with. The students talked about the concept of trustworthiness,
including not sharing their passwords. Heidi reiterated to the children that the definition
of bullying is being mean, picking on someone, and saying hurtful things. She then
reviewed the definition of cyberbullying, which is specific to being mean to someone
online.
Following the directed lesson, students answered a series of questions, such as
how they define cyberbullying, identifying the countries where the most cyberbullying
happens, and brainstorming ways to end cyberbullying. Students were also directed to use
a search engine to find the answers to their questions. Heidi reminded the students about
how they had previously used search engines to find endangered animals for their science
unit of inquiry. The instructional technology coordinator concluded the lesson by
reviewing suggested phrases that students could use when trying to answer the questions.
Students then began to work independently on the questions.
Observation Two. During the second observed course, Heidi introduced a new
unit of inquiry. She began by displaying a photo on the Promethean board. The photo was
114
of her family. The students were encouraged to ask questions about the photo, and the
questions required full-sentence answers rather than simple yes/no questions. Heidi
wanted the students to become familiar with the processes of asking questions and
inquiring. Students began asking questions such as “Is that some type of river?” and
“What is the white line?” as well as “How many children do you have?” Throughout this
activity, students actively participated. Heidi worked to support the students in asking
inquiry questions while the students thought about the photo. During this portion of the
lesson, technology was used as an “added tool” solely to provide a visual display. The
rest of the lesson involved no technology. Students were randomly assigned to groups,
which kept students from working with their friends or usual work partners. The activity
encouraged collaborative work, required critical thought, and engaged the students’
interest.
Observation Three. During the third observed class, Heidi demonstrated
significant progress in developing digital content within her instruction. She used 2.0
tools and instructed the students independently. Upon entering the classroom, the students
were engaged in using a keyboard software program called Dance Mat, which is used to
teach typing skills and keyboard fluency. The software program has four levels, each of
which consists of three stages. Students participated at varied levels and stages, as the
program allowed them to move at their own pace. The program was extremely
interactive, with cartoon characters speaking to them along the way. All the students were
on task and actively engaged. Heidi and her instructional aide circulated in the room and
provided support when needed.
115
After fifteen minutes, the students were asked to stop. They were then asked to
switch to Keynote, a software program for Mac computers designed for creating beautiful
presentations. The students used Keynote to create their family trees, which included
learning how to place their names on their own trees to prepare for creating the different
backgrounds and shapes to make their family trees visually interesting. As Heidi gave
directions on how to log onto their Keynote presentations and find their saved work, most
students easily completed these tasks without direction. Before the students began
working on their family trees, however, she reviewed the concept of generations. Using
Heidi’s family as an example, the students helped her complete her own family tree,
going back to her great-grandparents. For the remainder of the lesson, students diligently
worked on their own respective family trees.
Analysis of the Observation. Heidi’s pedagogical beliefs were in direct
alignment with how she supported her students in developing and creating digital content.
During her interview, Heidi reported that she had learned a great deal from the
instructional technology coordinator. She stated,
I've been using a lot more technology this year because thankfully, we
now have an instructional technology teacher coming in once a week so
I have learned a great deal from her. She's got a great collaborative
mind. She's been wonderful for me in terms of really helping me
understand the importance of using technology within my classroom and
in my teaching.”
Given this positive relationship, it was not surprising to see the instructional technology
teacher co-teach during the first observed lesson. Heidi’s approach demonstrated that
each student has tremendous responsibility when working on the computer. She wanted
students to understand how to become good digital citizens. Digital literacy is not just
116
about digital tools; it is about students being able to function in digitally enabled society.
As a part of the IB progamme, teachers are encouraged to teach how students access
digital information in a safe and ethical manner. Further, she wanted to reiterate the
earlier lesson that bullying is not something that can only happen in person, but that it can
and does also happen online. Finally, she introduced the basic research skills one needs to
have when trying to gather information from the Internet. However, instead of just
jumping to research skills, she first grounded students in how they safely access that
information.
During the second observation, which was an introductory lesson into the
student's social-study unit of inquiry, fewer technological tools were used. She practiced
the belief that she stated during her interview, in which she asserted that students must
first develop traditional literacy skills on which they can draw—such as encoding,
decoding, vocabulary development, reading, and writing skill sets—in order to develop
the technical aspects of literacy. This lesson introduced complex words, and she had the
students handwrite their questions instead of typing them, as she believes that students
retain more information when they write by hand. Yet, what was missed here is that
literacy is much more than how a student acquires the technical abilities associated with
literacy. Literacy is how we make meaning, relate to others, and solve problems (Jones &
Hafner, 2012).
However, by lesson three, Heidi he was fully integrating 2.0 tools within her
lessons—in particular, students were learning to create with the digital tools. She was far
more at ease in teaching this lesson, acknowledging to the students that she did not know
how to do everything on Keynote.
117
Heidi was committed to helping students develop healthy habits and attitudes
when using technology. She also demonstrated her determination to ensure that her
students understand the benefits, dangers, and opportunities that technology provides.
Finally, she was careful about what she used. Rather than simply using technology for its
own sake, she sought to ensure that the technology she used actively enhanced her lesson.
She understood that students need to negotiate information in multiple modes, such as
text, visual, and audio, but she also struggled with what digital media to use.
Additionally, she continued to put emphasis on traditional literacy by shaping her lessons
around what are commonly framed as traditional skills sets of literacy “reading
handwriting, speaking and listening”. (Schrock, 2016, slide 1).
School's influence on the implementation of digital literacies
Heidi articulated during the interview that the school’s vision regarding the
development of digital knowledge and examples is clear. She said,
I think the school sees the importance of what we have to do to be competitive in
the world and where these kids are going. They have to be prepared to be able to
use technology to get to where they’re going and I think we’re starting at a very
young age.
She highlighted that the school’s policies are particularly clear regarding teacher
requirements for technology integration. However, when asked to provide some specific
examples, she listed how she used the tools to complete administrative duties rather than
classroom instruction. She stated:
Certainly any correspondence that goes on within the school is done through
email or Google Docs. As a teacher, there’s a lot reading which is fine. Sometimes
some days are more than others, but yes, in terms of understanding what’s going
on at the school you have to use the computer. It’s a requirement. Obviously, I’ll
118
report digitally. Correspondence with parents is usually done by emails. Just
navigating all of that is a requirement of the teachers in addition to, yes, trying to
incorporate it into the lessons, not all the lessons but into your teaching daily or
weekly absolutely.
It was the mundane rather than the pedagogical uses of technology that
immediately came to her mind.
She appreciated the support that the school provides for the teachers regarding
technology integration. Again, she reported that teachers have ample support for both
infrastructure and how to specifically incorporate Web 2.0 tools within lessons. Like
Rachel, she also talked about the support that her Head of School provides. She stated:
I can always speak to Taylor [pseudonym] whom I directly deal with. She herself
is very computer savvy and computer literate. I think she has pushed me, first of
all with my yearly goals, she has always made me incorporate technology as one
of my goals. She feels it’s important and useful within the classroom. She gets
excited when we do use it. That’s contagious. It makes me realize that I need to
step up my teaching. I need to step up my knowledge. I need to step my
understanding of computers and the use of technology in the classroom. I think it
is just her positive encouragement.
In her concluding remarks, she directly attributed her success to the support and
professional development that the school provided, both of which enabled her and her
students’ evolution from simply being consumers of digital content to becoming digital
content creators and collaborators. She shared:
I’m sitting and smiling because I think for me, taking time off from teaching and
coming back and having three kids who use technology a lot in their own personal
life as well as in their school life, that is allowing me to develop my comfort level
and it is amazing. I can make a mistake and not get screamed and yelled at, just
work on finding my comfort level. I think this school has really made it very
comfortable for me to step up my game and just feel more comfortable using
technology daily and personally and in my teaching.
119
Heidi was developing a level of confidence that encouraged her openness to integrating
more technology and digital literacies within her teaching. She felt supported to make
mistakes and take risks.
Ava
Ava is a 27-year old Swedish national and has been teaching for four years, two
of which have been at LCIS. Ava holds a BA and MA in Economics and Social History
from the University of Glasgow. Additionally, she attended an IB school as a student and
received her full Diploma in 2005. Currently, she teaches Humanities Middle Years
Programme (MYP) Grade 10 students and Humanities Diploma Programme (DP) to
Grades 11 and 12 students. All of the students she teaches are required have a MacBook
computer. She teaches in two different classrooms, both of which have an interactive
whiteboard.
Attitudes, beliefs or personal experiences with technology
Ava considers herself a proficient technology user. While she uses online banking,
movie streaming, and social media platforms such as Facebook to keep in touch with
family, she does not blog or use Twitter. She said, “I'm very careful with what I put online
because obviously it's a digital footprint, and that's something I learned when I was
younger. It was drilled into me, ‘Be aware with what you put on the Internet. Once it's
there, it's always there.’” It is interesting to note that even though she completed her
teacher education courses fairly recently, she indicated that those courses did not prepare
120
her to effectively model teaching and learning through connected, reflective, and
collaborative methods. She explained,
It [the teacher education program] touched upon technology integration, but going
into the state system in Scotland, where I did my first teaching job, they did not have the
resources. They were just beginning implementation ... I was part of the first-year group
of teachers trained for the Curriculum for Excellence which is pretty much equivalent to
PYP/MYP. The goal was to implement more technology, e.g. bringing in iPads, bringing
one-to-one laptops into the system. Ava believes that students should have the
opportunity to create rich multimedia and collaborative projects that improve their
higher-order thinking skills and teach them how to process the vast information they
encounter on the Internet. However, she also believes that there is role for traditional
literacies, such as face-to face conversations and collaboration, handwritten notes, or
reading print books. She stated:
There needs to be a good balance between technology and interaction with the
peers and with the teacher. Not everything has to be done with computer. Not
everything has to be shown in a PowerPoint. Sometimes talking about it is better.
Sometimes creating an online discussion forum for a certain post is ideal. ...
I think it's [Internet] is a great tool, we can do a lot with it but at the same
time, they have to be aware that they can't become too reliant on it. They still
need to be able to do basic proofreading. They still need to be able to find
research, use prints, not just Google. “I'll Google this” or “I'll go to Wikipedia and
check that out.”
Ava, like Rachel and Heidi, spoke about the digital tools that support literacy, not
literacy itself. Ava defined literacy as “reading, writing, calculations, and understanding.”
She stated,
I think literacy is something that we've always used and it's always been key in
education. To me, it doesn't matter if it's traditional literacy or if it's digital
literacy. The same skills are still required. The students still need to be able to
skim texts. They still need to be able to determine structures. They still need to be
able to write properly.
Consistent with this statement, Ava described how she worked to incorporate peer
assessments, continuous constructive feedback, and public speaking into her writing
121
assignments and presentations. Ava is closer than the other two participants to
understanding digital literacies. Like Jones and Hanfer (2012) outlined in Understanding
Digital Literacy a Practical Introduction, whether it is traditional or digital literacy,
“reading and writing are complicated processes” (p.12). While the skills may be the same
for traditional or digital literacy, what Ava does not touch on in her prior statement is that
reading and writing do require different skills depending on the situation. For example,
writing an English essay involves different processes than writing a science lab report.
Ava is not honing in on this idea of how students are making different meanings,
relationships, and identities in varying situations when engaging with literacy (Jones &
Hanfer, 2012).
Ava is most enthusiastic about digital literacies and technology integration when
they are used to support students in fostering cultural understanding and global
awareness. She enjoys creating authentic projects where students have the opportunity to
create and share with other students around the world. She posited, “At the same time,
they [students] can access so much more material. They can look at different
perspectives. If you set up a global classroom, you can have Skype conversations with
students on the other side of the world.” Despite her passion for increasing global
awareness, she, too, returned to this notion that students are losing something with the
increase of digital tools in education. She asserted that even the most sophisticated digital
tools do not help students if they do not have the traditional, fundamental skills of close
reading, grammar, spelling and writing. She said, “Yes, you can get your iPad, you can
get your computer to read the text back to you, but how you process that information is
122
not the same.” Again, she is focusing on the digital tools rather than how those tools have
begun to change what it means to be literate.
Ava believes that students must be critical and informed users of technology and
should leave school equipped with the skill sets required for being digital consumers,
creators, and collaborators. She believes that accomplishing this will require more from
teachers—more time, more professional development, and more knowledge about how to
use digital tools effectively.
Digital literacies and technology integration within the IB Programme
Ava stated that students are most engaged with digital content when the task is
open-ended and they are allowed to be creative. She was very passionate when describing
her most effective lesson using technology integration. This lesson challenged the
students to move away from their comfort zone and try something different. She shared
how she encouraged her students to be risk-takers:
You're all pretty proficient in doing PowerPoints and presentation lessons. Come
up with something else. Some of them came up with little videos. Some of them
came up with role-play. Some of them even created a poster. They had to have
certain pieces of information that had to be on the presentation, whichever format
they chose, but they like the freedom, and that's why technology is great. You
have freedom. You have choice. It doesn't have to be a poster; it doesn't have to be
a presentation. It doesn't have to be a blog. There are so many different tools that
you can use.
Ava endeavors to be an open-minded educator. For example, while not an avid
user of social media, she did encourage students to use that medium to express their
opinions and share their ideas openly. When I asked her if she directly incorporates
Twitter, blogs, or Facebook in her class, she stated, “Honestly, I would have no idea
123
where to start.” However, she followed up by stating that she nonetheless encouraged her
students to use them appropriately.
Ava’s articulated pedagogical beliefs included an appreciation of the value of
providing students with rich multimedia opportunities, offering choices for engaging with
digital tools, and fostering balance between digital and traditional literacies. These beliefs
were evident during the classroom observations that are described in the following
section.
Description of the Observations
Observation One. The first observation took place during a Grade 7 Middle
Years Programme (MYP) Humanities course. During the first part of the lesson, students
were completing a project on sustainability. Students had been asked to investigate a
specific policy, programme, organization, or development that was intended to, or
actually did, enhance sustainability. Possible examples included the development of
hybrid cars, resource efficiency, or recycling programmes in different countries. The main
objective was for students to research a chosen topic, show their research, and evaluate
their findings. Ava quickly reviewed the key components of the project to ensure that the
students had adequate resources and were properly citing their sources. Students then
worked for the next 30 minutes on finalizing their projects. They worked quietly and
were on task. Ava moved around the room providing support where needed.
Completed projects were uploaded into Google Docs for assessment purposes.
The class then moved into a new unit about food security. In a previous lesson, students
had covered basic ideas of food security, such as war, trade, transport, access to water,
124
politics, climate, and religion. During the first part of the lesson, Ava reviewed the
terminology from the previous day and recapped the seven issues that they had covered.
She asked them to provide examples for each issue to show their understanding. During
this part of the lesson, she directed students to close their computers and to focus on the
conversation and the PowerPoint presentation displayed on the interactive whiteboard.
She reminded students that they would have access to the presentation on the class
website. Only a few students had paper and a pen with them in order to jot down
additional notes.
Next, she asked the students to share what they had learned about Ancient Egypt’s
civilizations from the readings, and then showed students a short video. Ava asked
students to write down key words and ideas from the video while they watched. At this
point, she allowed them to take notes on the computer. At the end of the video, they were
asked to share two ideas from the video with a partner. The goal was for students to
collect nine different points regarding food in Ancient Egypt’s civilizations. Students
gathered ideas such as “they ate birds,” or “they harvested grapes and made wine,” or
“they ate a rich variety of breads.”
Next, they began to discuss how the Nile was the main source of food in Ancient
Egypt. The students were asked to come up with five issues that the Nile created for the
farmers in Ancient Egypt. Students’ responses included unintentional flooding, drought,
diseases, and the dangers posed to farmers by hippos. Ava then moved to the conclusion
of the lesson. She began speaking with them about the planning tools that farmers used to
address the issues of flooding and drought, which then led to a discussion of the
125
similarities and differences between the calendar used by Ancient Egyptians and our
modern calendar.
For the assessment of the lesson, Ava directed the students to complete a “Harvest
Wheel” that would include the seasons and months. She also wanted them to incorporate
three images that represented what took place during the various seasons. Ava never
directed them to a particular site to find images. However, students quickly opened their
computer and complied with ease. The students worked until the bell rang, and Ava
directed them to submit what they had done on Google Docs.
Observation Two. The Grade 10 students had been studying causes of World War
I and trench warfare. The students had strong background knowledge of the situation in
Europe in 1914. However, they had not yet looked at specific battles. As a part of this
lesson, Ava wanted to provide an opportunity for students to research specific battles and
to present their findings to the class. Students had begun work on their presentations
earlier in the week. Students were asked to focus on battle technologies, the course and
events of the battle, and both the immediate and long-term effects of a particular battle on
the overall war. Students had been placed into pairs (although one group had three
students), and each was assigned a specific battle from the following: the Battle of
Somme, the Battle of Jutland, the Battle of Verdun, and the Battle of Gallipoli. As a part
of their final PowerPoint presentation, students needed to include required details about
battle tactics, technologies, and outcomes. They also were required to make their
presentations appealing with the use of graphics, videos, sound, or music. Finally, their
work needed to include a bibliography.
126
During the next 50 minutes, students worked on their presentations. Ava walked
around and supported students where needed. During this time, she also consistently
reminded students that they should be creative and take risks in their presentations. As I
walked around, watching the students interact with one another, I noticed only one
student handwriting her notes in a notebook. The rest of the students collaborated on the
presentation via Google slides. As students were to be assessed on their presentation
skills, they practiced maintaining good eye contact, enunciating their words, avoiding
reading directly from the PowerPoint, and keeping their audience engaged. Following the
presentations, students in the audience provided feedback for the presenters.
During the second half of the class, the students gave their PowerPoint
presentations. I was able to observe three of them. The first group discussed the Battle of
the Somme with confidence and ease. The PowerPoint was well organized and visually
creative; they experimented with font styles and graphics throughout presentation. They
did not read from the slides and maintained direct eye contact with the audience. The
second presentation was on the Battle of Verdun. These students were clearly nervous.
This could be attributed to my (the school principal’s) presence in the classroom or to the
fact that the mother of one of the presenters is one of the school’s Department Heads. I
suspected he thought I would mention the presentation to his mother. As a result, the
student may have felt extra pressure to perform in my presence. He and his partner had a
difficult time recalling the facts and events of the battle and had to read directly from the
slides. Their slides followed the order of requirements in the syllabus. While there were
very few graphics, they did embed a video in the final slide, summarizing the events of
the battle.
127
The final presentation I was able to observe was on the Battle of Jutland. This
group included the student who had handwritten her notes. As she spoke about her slides,
she used her notes with ease to help her summarize key events. Most students’ slides
closely followed Ava’s example. Few students ventured far from the example she set or
took risk to envision a different presentation styles. Ava had reminded them that her
example was not definitive and encouraged them to take risks, but very few students did.
The final PowerPoint had minimal graphics, although it was well organized and the
students clearly knew their topic. They were articulate and presented with ease.
Observation Three. This lesson was conducted with Grade 10 MYP Humanities
students. They were also working on their presentation, creative, and collaborative skills.
Upon entering, Ava asked the students to collaboratively review the details they had
previously discussed about the effective use of PowerPoint. After a few minutes, students
were asked to share what their table had discussed. Group one shared tips on how a
PowerPoint should be organized, noting that fonts, images, and backgrounds should not
be distracting, slides should be organized, and salient bullets should be used. Group two
discussed how students should present, highlighting the importance of facing the
audience with good eye contact and in a voice audible to everyone. The next group
outlined what a good audience looks like: ay attention, do not chat with your neighbors,
close your laptops, and be respectful. The last group explained the rules of asking good
questions once the presentation was completed, including being respectful, being
attentive and present in order to avoid asking questions that have already been asked, and
providing feedback.
128
Students were studying the economics of tourism, and their assignment was to
market a type of tourism. The challenge was that students could not use traditional tourist
activities such as spring break, eco-tourism, sports tourism, or health tourism. Instead,
they had to come up with something unique, such as adventure tourism or religious
tourism. They again worked in pairs, with the exception of one group that had three
students.
As I moved around the room and watched the students work together, I noticed
that the group with three people could not agree on which type of tourism to choose. One
member in the group wanted to do recreational tourism, while the other two members
argued for religious tourism. One of the two girls argued that they needed to do
something different. By marketing religious tourism, she asserted that they could cover
how people traveled for pilgrimages, missions, or leisure purposes. However, the young
man in the group, who was very athletic, wanted to cover a more adventurous type of
tourism and incorporate sports. In the end, the girls convinced him to be a risk-taker and
they began working on religious tourism. Some of the other groups choose topics such as
festival tourism and “dark tourism”—tourism to historical places with morbid
associations.
After 30 minutes of work, students began presenting. Only one group finished in
the time available and presented on adventure tourism. They used an interesting video
that included extreme skiing and parasailing. Additionally, they used appealing
background images and music and incorporated voice-over. The other students were
engaged when watching the presentation. The presenters spoke clearly, had good eye
contact, and were genuinely excited about their topic. Afterward, the students in the
129
audience asked good questions and provided constructive feedback. Following the
presentation, Ava shared that they would complete the rest of the presentations during
their next period.
Analysis of the Observations. Ava heavily emphasized the use of multimedia
content, creativity, and both research and collaborative skills in all three of her lessons.
Further, she included what Buckingham (2008) identified as critical aspects of digital
literacies:
1. Representation: students had to identify varying viewpoints when conducting
research, such as when they looked at different opinions on how specific battles
affected WWI.
2. Language: students had to use visuals and texts.
3. Production: students used PowerPoint for their presentation.
4. Audience: students needed to understand who they were writing for and
presenting to.
Ava’s lessons required to students to integrate technical skills with critical
thinking skills. In each lesson, Ava included directions as to how and why students should
use their computers. Additionally, she wanted the students to understand how accessing
information online affects their interpretation and production.
During the first observation, Ava used a range of strategies for her students’
diverse learning styles. She used what she described as both traditional literacies and
digital literacies. However, I advocated that she was indeed using literacy as a social
phenomenon rather than just addressing the technical skills students need to acquire.
130
Students engaged in rich conversation, both with and without their computers, and she
also integrated video and PowerPoint into these conversations. Further, she encouraged
her students to be creators of digital content, such as asking them to select appropriate
images for their harvest wheel. Additionally, she emphasized the importance of being
digital consumers when they completed their task on sustainability. Her lesson on Ancient
Egypt allowed for student investigation, such as when they had to locate relevant images,
as well as student collaboration, such as when they worked in pairs. In this lesson,
students were doing more than using digital tools. They were engaging with and thinking
about digital media.
Lesson two integrated both research and collaborative problem solving skills.
Students worked together to locate information and graphics on their chosen battle and
figured out how to present information in a logical manner within a given time frame.
Each pair created no more than seven or eight PowerPoint slides, and all incorporated
images related to the topic. Yet, students demonstrated very little risk-taking as digital
creators. As Ava shared during her interview, many students lack the research skills
needed to complete assignments such as this. Students were required to synthesize,
summarize, compare, and contrast information from multiple sources. Typically, this type
of integration poses significant challenges for students, particularly when they are
working with multiple sources. In this particular lesson, students became focused on
finding appropriate information and not plagiarizing, thus leaving little time for
creativity. Their lack of digital creation can also be attributed to researching an assigned
topic and not whatever they wanted. Students may be more creative on a topic of their
own choosing that is presumably of greater interest to them.
131
Like the first two lessons, lesson three incorporated skills such as researching,
communicating, collaborating, developing, and designing. In lesson three, Ava also
embedded marketing and negotiation. Students would ordinarily have quickly gravitated
toward the tourism most closely linked with their personal interest. By narrowing their
choices, she forced them to move past their comfort zone and create something different.
I also observed the art of negotiation at play when members of one group had to convince
another member that they could do an excellent presentation that did not include some
aspect of sport.
Ava emphasized the importance of a teacher's lessons being organized and
engaging to reduce student distraction when using digital tools. During the interview, she
stated:
If they're a fully, engaged in a lesson, if you planned your lesson well, you're not
going to have any troubles with it. They [students] will want to perform, they will want to
do their best, whereas if you give them what they consider a boring task, whether it's
answering questions ... sometimes that's necessary, but then they're more likely to be
distracted and to go on sites that they're not supposed to be on. Because Ava presented
three well-organized lessons, students were engaged and focused during direct instruction
as well as when working independently. I did not witness students sneaking looks at
multiple screens or being distracted. They used their time wisely and were ready to
present within the allotted time. It was clear the Ava had set clear routines for her classes
and used technological tools for purposeful activities. In alignment with her pedagogical
beliefs, each of her lessons also included how communication is represented in different
contexts to different audiences; in other words, multimodal literacy. She incorporated
text, visuals, and audio within and around new communication media. Finally, students
132
were consistently provided with feedback and support during their independent work
time.
School's influence on the integration of digital literacies
Ava asserted that the school has articulated a clear vision for the faculty. She
lauded the school for embracing technology and all the challenges it brings. She stated:
You know that the world is developing, and that technology is constantly
changing. This school is not shying away from it. If anything, it's embracing it.
You're empowering both students and teachers to do something with it
[technology] and to use it effectively. In my opinion there is a very clear vision.
Ava spoke enthusiastically about how teachers receive professional development
and support at LCIS. Like Heidi, she also spoke enthusiastically about the technology
support they receive from the IT staff and the instructional technology teachers. She
particularly enjoyed professional development that involves peer-to-peer sharing. She
believes that it provides the most concrete information for teachers to accept and
immediately implement in their classrooms. She said:
I find it really inspiring when there is a forum for teachers and colleagues to talk
about what they're doing and how they're doing it. A lot of different ideas are
shared…. What it does, is it makes you think. It makes you think about your own
lessons, it makes you think about how you're utilizing the tools that you have at
hand or to make the lessons more interesting with the students. I remember key
observations with one of the other teachers. I was sitting observing this lesson. I
was like, "I didn't do that. That's a really good idea." She was using the
whiteboard as a drawing tool whereas she had something else up on the
projection.
Ava’s obstacles to integrating 2.0 tools had little to do with the school’s influence.
However, the school did help remove one obstacle when it added generators; previously,
frequent power outages were a source of frustration. Perhaps in accordance with her
133
notion that there must be a balance between digital and traditional literacies, she stated
that many frustrations stem from over-reliance on technology. She argued:
At the same time, we are becoming too reliant on technology. You forget what it's
actually like to just teach without the use of digital tools. You forget...the students
forget about getting back to the basics from time to time, such as the use of pen
and paper. Over reliance on technology is not always great, because if a computer
breaks down, all your resources are there. Then you are forced to go back to
basics and nowadays people act like they don’t know what to do.
Ava asserted that, because there is so much digital content available, today’s
students take it all for granted. Her concerns are the challenges that many digital
immigrants are facing: How much screen time is too much? How do I avoid digital
distractions when I am teaching? How do I support students in understanding that there
are multiple perspectives and that not all sources are reliable? She wants to help students
to develop critical thinking skills while using the Web 2.0 tools. She posited:
Like I said, it's to do with the reliability and the value of the information you're
reading. Obviously they have access to so many different perspectives.
Sometimes these perspectives are not always backed up; they just assume, "This
person said that. It must be true." Recently an extended essay student wanted to
use a quote from this girl who wrote her PhD that has not been published. I asked
her, “How can you use that? It has not been validated yet?” The student
responded: “But it's printed, it's written.” Another example is Wikipedia. I
remember there was a whole argument regarding its validity because individuals
could alter the information at any time.
Ava believes that, while digital tools have indeed made things easier and faster to
use, they have also created a whole new set of challenges for educators.
Donna
Donna is a Bahamian national who has been a teacher for seven years and has
taught at LCIS for the past five years. She holds a Bachelor of Business Administration
134
(BBA) in Computer Information Systems from The College of the Bahamas. Currently,
she is pursuing her MA in Adult Education from the University of West Indies. She
considers herself to be an advanced user of technology and is extremely enthusiastic
about all Web 2.0 tools. For the last four years, she has held the position of MYP Design
Technology teacher for Grades 6-10. In 2015, she switched positions to become the
technology coordinator. She is also the mother of two LCIS students: one in Grade 5 and
one in Grade 8.
Attitudes, beliefs or personal experiences with technology
While she does not consider herself a technology geek, Donna heavily uses
technology in her personal life. Besides, banking and shopping online, she reported
owning multiple gadgets: iPhone, iPad, and a few game consoles. She openly admitted to
being on the computer all the time. She prefers email to face-to-face communication and
often uses Skype instead of the telephone.
Unlike the other participants, Donna’s educational background did prepare her for
teaching technology in the classroom. Originally, Donna was trained as computer
specialist. While working at The College of the Bahamas, she was asked to train some of
the faculty on various computer applications. She enjoyed being able to support
individuals and seeing how much they progressed after she taught them something. That
experience encouraged her to go back to school to obtain her teaching certificate, and she
has been teaching ever since. However, she indicated that it was not the teacher education
program that had prepared her for teaching technology, but rather her own background in
computer applications. She believes that technology enhances a teacher's lesson and,
135
when executed properly, creates students who are excited to learn. Further, she spoke
about how technology allows teachers to reach multiple learning styles. She shared,
I think it [technology integration] reinforces the learning quite a bit. I like the idea
that technology is able to appeal to so many different types of learners: to the
visual learner, the kinesthetic learner, and the tactile learner. The students
appreciate that they can learn as well in different ways; they can learn by
watching, by doing, by listening. I think they're able to appreciate the lesson that's
being taught a bit more. The memory allows them [students] to remember
to understand a bit more what they are learning. They see connections better.
Nevertheless, like the other participants, she also advocated for the idea of
balance between digital and traditional literacies. She said, “I definitely think it
[technology] requires more thought and more preparation, but it also requires a balance.”
Donna suggested that, when teaching literacy, the teacher needs to be not only skilled in
teaching the cognitive processes, such as phonemic awareness, but also able to support
students in how literacy supports students in making meaning (Jones & Hanfer, 2012).
That is, her emphasis on “making meaning” aligned with the concept of literacy as a
social practice.
When asked to define literacy, Donna defined it as a set of skills needed for
comprehension. She stated:
Literacy means having the ability to understand the world around you and to be
able to function in that world. When I think of reading literacy I thinking of being
able to have a set of skills that allows me to communicate, enhance my life and
allows me to move forward.
She believed that literacy enabled one to apply one’s skill set to effectively
connect, interpret, and discern the intricacies of the world. It is interesting to note that,
when asked to describe digital literacy, she stated, “Digital literacy...means having the
ability to use the tools that we consider non-traditional to be able to function.” In other
136
words, she believed that digital literacies were a new way of seeing and thinking about
the world. She elaborated on this point when I accidentally referred to her course as
Information Communication Technology (ICT). She quickly corrected me: as a part of
her MYP Design Technology class, students are required to conduct research, synthesize
evidence, and apply their findings to the development of innovative products, services,
systems, and 2.0 technologies. The MYP Design Technology class is far more than an
ICT class, which focuses on basic use of software without the requirements of synthesis
and application. In an ICT class, students use, and in the Design Technology class,
students create. She explained:
In design technology, students are confronted with a challenge or they have a
problem that they must solve. The idea is to get them to be aware of vast tool set
out there that can assist them in solving their problem. In terms of connecting that
digital literacy to my subject, they have to have an awareness of the not only the
digital tools that are out there, but I am is also developing their critical-thinking
skill set. They must use research skills to figure out the best tools to solve the
problem.
While she uses technology on a daily basis in her classes, she emphasized that
teaching students to use specific digital tools is not always the objective of her lesson. As
an example, she described a task in which her students had to create a new logo for a
client. The focus of the lesson was how to communicate. As a part of the assignment,
students were required to conduct an interview with their client. She wanted students to
understand the importance of posing the right questions and how to collect data from
responses. Students also were required to do research, which developed their ability to
effectively locate, evaluate, and use information. The amount of technology used in her
lessons is driven by the objective of the lesson.
137
Donna believes that collaborative computer-based learning environments
enhanced both student learning and student inquiry. As did the other participants, she also
expressed belief that these environments present challenges such as student distraction
and increased teacher preparation. Like Ava, Donna asserted that when a teacher is well
prepared, students are engaged and distraction is minimized.
Digital literacies and technology integration within the IB Programme
Donna consistently affirmed that technology integration is the key to supporting all
students. However, she also indicated that the use of technology could have a negative
effect if lessons are not well thought out. She stated:
If they [students] all feel engaged, their behavior should be very good because
they're fully engaged. They're excited about what they're doing and they want to
do what they're doing. If they don't feel engaged, if it's too easy or if it's too hard,
you will lose them.
Donna is committed to ensuring that students are exposed to a variety of digital
tools and practices that allow them to reflect deeply about their emerging creative skill
set. She believes that when used appropriately, technology can enhance all content areas.
This belief was clearly evident in the practices I observed during her lessons.
Descriptions of the Observations
Observation One. The first observation took place during a Grade 9 MYP Design
Technology class. The students were studying product research; more specifically, how to
make an old product appeal to a new audience. During this particular lesson, students had
already completed a rebranding video and were now studying product evaluation. In other
words, how to determine whether the product does what it was intended to do. The
138
students were going to evaluate one another's videos and determine whether the product
redesign met the owner’s design specifications.
To open the lesson, Donna shared a one-minute video, completed by one of the
students. The product was Vibram five-finger sneakers. The sneakers have been marketed
as shoes to wear for every event. After watching the video, Donna walked the students
through various questions they could ask to determine the success of the product: did the
video demonstrate that the product was effective for the buyer? Was the background
music appropriate for the video? Did the camera angles capture the product
appropriately?
Over the next 30 minutes, Donna allowed the students to create questionnaires
regarding the design of their videos. Students created the documents using Google Docs.
In small groups, students shared and assessed each other’s videos. Students easily used
Google Docs to both create their own questionnaires and respond to classmates’
questionnaires.
Observation Two. Observation two was conducted in the Coding and Robotics
Club with Grade 7 and 8 students. The Coding and Robotics Club was designed to foster
an appreciation of the art of programming, robotics, and electronics. Students learned
how to teach computers do “anything.” This particular club was for students new to
programming, but it also encouraged students who already have some skills to have a
place to hang out and accept new challenges. For this lesson, students were becoming
familiar with the basics of programming in the JavaScript language, a modern and
flexible language with wide applications in web programming.
139
Donna opened the lesson by reviewing concepts in Java: how to assign values,
how to incorporate a loop, and the importance of including a background. Her website for
the club was displayed on the interactive whiteboard. She used the website to guide her
review of code writing. Once she completed the review, she shared the objectives of the
lesson, accompanied by the Mission Impossible theme music: to create an animation
scene that (1) made use of color; (2) made use of at least one moving; image; and (3)
incorporated at least five shapes. Students worked in pairs on this task for the next 20
minutes.
Next, students shared their creations. The first pair of students created a UFO that
moved downward and changed background colors. The students shared how they ran into
problems trying to change their background colors. The next pair had also created a space
ship; however, they were unable to animate it, as they had forgotten to include a specific
piece of code. The spaceship ended up being a bleep as it was stuck in a fast loop. Donna
asked whether anyone could assist with where they went wrong. The first pair pointed out
that they had forgotten the equal sign.
The next pair made the spaceship launch from Earth into space, but one of the
shapes was disconnected from the ship. Again, Donna asked the students for assistance to
see what command was missing. This took a bit of time, and Donna had to help the group
see what was missing. The final group’s computers froze, and initially they were unable
to share their creation. However, they sent it to another student’s computer and were
finally able to display their product, which was a UFO shooting up to space.
140
Donna concluded the class with praise for the students’ accomplishments. While it
was well after 4:00 pm, the scheduled end time for the Club, students wanted her to
continue, which was a clear indication of their enthusiasm and engagement.
Observation Three. Lesson three was conducted with both Grade 5 classes.
Donna was teaching this particular lesson instead of the classroom teachers, since it
served as an introduction to technological concepts and skills they would need for their
Social Studies Unit of Inquiry. Students were required to create a presentation depicting
information about a chosen civilization. Scratch was one of two applications that the
students could use to create their final presentation. The Scratch application would allow
the students to develop code by demonstrating their understanding through animated
roleplay.
Donna opened the lesson by having one of the students pretend to be a robot. She
shared that robots cannot think for themselves; they are controlled by the commands that
programmers give them. The interactive whiteboard displayed a PowerPoint highlighting
points that Donna wanted the students to remember about programming robots:
1. Cannot think for themselves
2. Take instructions from programmers
3. Follow instructions exactly as they are given
4. Contain a chip with instructions
5. Allow humans to do things that would be very difficult or impossible to do
unassisted
141
Next, she displayed a list of commands that the robot needed to be “programmed”
to follow. She asked one of the students, Jane [pseudonym], to pretend to be the robot,
and then prompted the class: “OK, let’s get this programming going.” As the robot, Jane
closed her eyes and was directed to follow all commands given her. Students could only
use the commands displayed on the board and no others. Commands included stand,
close, bend, walk, turn, and move. Donna led the students in reading the commands
aloud, ensuring that they understood all the commands. Next, she spun Jane around, and
the students had to use commands to move Robot Jane around the classroom. When the
student provided a good command, she would touch Robot Jane and Robot Jane would
move according to the command. This continued until the students successfully navigated
Robot Jane across the room to the assigned destination.
During the next part of the lesson, students watched an introductory video on
Scratch. Following the video, she asked them to share a few things they recalled about
Scratch from the video. Next, she had the students help her create a video using Scratch.
She showed them how the coding pieces fit together and that each color stood for
something, such as blue equals motion or purple equals sound. Together, the class used
the character Sprite to perform four functions: (1) say “Hello Grade 5,” (2) wait for three
seconds, (3) walk five steps, and (4) say “Welcome to Scratch.”
Next, laptops were distributed to the students and they all logged into Scratch.
Donna wanted them to simply play and experiment to create something. Once all the
students were logged in, the room became silent, as all the students were actively
engaged in trying to code.
14 5
Analysis of the Observations. Donna’s lessons followed the pedagogical beliefs she
described in her interview. That is, all three lessons were well organized and embedded
with participatory skills, and the technology used was both appropriate to the task and
easy to use. Her adequate preparation also helped students stay focused and largely avoid
distractions while using digital tools. She consistently addressed multiple modalities, as
she used visual, auditory, and tactile mechanisms to engage her students. During each
lesson, she created an environment where students felt safe to take risks. She offered
praise and encouragement, allowed them to ask questions and collaborate with their
peers, and make mistakes. Donna easily captivated the students in the first few minutes of
her lessons with videos, demonstrations, websites, background music, and even with her
personal energy. In all of the lessons, students assumed the role of digital creators, which
allowed them to develop and use resources to support them in creating a personal
learning connection. As she shared during her interview, Donna wanted students to “be
aware of [digital tools] and to choose the best tools to use in order to create something
that they are passionate about.”
Donna used technology appropriately. For example, during the first part of the
Grade 5 lesson, she chose not to have the computer open while she was introducing the
topic, encouraging the students to focus on what she was saying and minimizing
distraction.
Lessons one and two demonstrated what Garcia (2014) would categorize as
“connected learning”—specifically, learning that is “peer-supported, interest-driven and
academically oriented” (Mirra, 2014, p. 13). Students had the opportunity “to gain more
knowledge and skills at higher levels of intellectual rigor when their learning originates
143
from issues or activities that innately captivate them” (Garcia, 2014, p. 10). In lessons
one and two, Donna incorporated opportunities for students to engage in peer review,
whether by examining each other's videos or by giving feedback on their coding product.
Each task also included problem-solving skills, such as how to get a new audience
excited about an old product or figuring out how to design a spaceship with five shapes.
Donna is a connected educator. She taught her students to communicate with
purpose and collaborate effectively. Finally, she approached her teaching with balance.
School's influence on the integration of digital literacies
Donna asserted that LCIS has a vision for how technology integration and digital
literacies should be used, but that the vision needs to be stated more clearly. She said:
LCIS knows that it wants to have students realize that this technology is here and
we want the students to use technology, to experiment, to see what's out there, to
see what's ahead, just to be at the edge of what's happening, be prepared for the
world that we are in now and the world to come. We do have a vision. However,
it could be a bit clearer for teachers, particularly in terms of literacy and how
computer/digital literacy can be used to enhance learning.
Donna contended that there are three major influences in implementing digital
literacies at LCIS: time, teacher skill set, and increased professional development. The
demands of the IB programme require teachers to cover a great deal of specific content.
As a result, teachers have to make hard decisions and may respond by covering less
content or by teaching fewer skills to students. Further, she maintained that teachers need
to expand their own skill sets. She said, “Sometimes teachers’ skills sets ... [are] a
limitation as well.” She believes that teachers lack the confidence and knowledge to use
144
some of Web 2.0 tools. They see it as “one more thing to do,” rather than something to
implement seamlessly within lessons in ways that can transform their teaching.
While she lauded the administration for providing teachers with access to vast
resources, she emphasized that more needs to be done to ensure teachers know how these
tools can be used. She stated, “The school is doing a good job in providing resources for
teachers, but I think the overall vision of how useful these tools can be could be a bit
clearer.” Where professional development is concerned, she also shared:
While there is some training provided for teachers, I think more training is
needed. We are seeing results of the training that has occurred and there are infinite
resources for the teachers to use, but we still need more targeted training. When asked
what she means by “targeted training,” she described providing teachers with clear
expectations of the outcomes of professional development, in terms of both performance
and practice.
Cross Case Analysis
A cross-case analysis of the data revealed patterns and themes that guided this
research. Those patterns included factors influencing teachers’ implementation of digital
literacies and technology integration; the role of teachers’ pedagogical beliefs; the
school's vision of technology integration; and teachers’ support of professional
development. Outlined below is a brief summary of those patterns in alignment with the
research questions.
145
Attitudes, beliefs or personal experiences with technology
Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and practices shaping implementation of digital
literacies. Survey results indicated that the teachers had an explicit understanding of
technology integration and firmly believed that it is a necessary component of our
educational practices. More than 47% of the teachers used technology daily within their
instructional practice as it relates to digital literacies, and another 39% indicated that they
use technology whenever they feel it is appropriate for their lessons. The case studies and
the observations conducted affirm the survey results. Both the case study participants and
the focus group participants strongly asserted a difference between traditional and digital
literacies. Many of them referred to the need for a balance between the two. However, I
assert that their association of digital literacies is actually specific to the digital tools they
are using for their lesson. There seemed to be many motivations for teachers’ attachment
to this notion of balance. They repeatedly suggested that they are facing new challenges
in teaching students to become readers and writers in a constantly evolving digital
environment. Some teachers saw an opportunity cost when teaching digital literacies, and
they feared that such instruction is in lieu of teaching the traditional foundation that
students require. They suggested that the students are missing a discrete set of skills, such
as decoding, handwriting, holding a book, that traditional literacy provides. Teachers
seem to fear that the digital tools are, in fact, causing this perceived loss of literacy skill.
Teachers at LCIS, however, continue to use these tools. It is possible that, because the
school has invested a significant amount of donated funds into technology acquisition,
the teachers feel pressure to use these tools all the time. They may use the tool because
they feel obligated to do so, not out of any sincere believe in or understanding of the
146
value they add to literacy instruction. They do not understand or believe how these tools
are changing what it means to be literate. The teachers do not see being literate as a
social practice. They have not connected how student literacy skills are shaped by
students’ social contexts, and therefore see traditional and digital literacies as different
and discrete things.
Teachers reported that they require additional support to effectively develop
opportunities targeted at assisting students with online research, collaborating with peers,
managing student engagement with Web 2.0 tools, and critically navigating and
evaluating the vast digital content. Teachers expressed belief that a repertoire of skills are
necessary to support students in actively making sense of the world around them,
especially in terms of creating meaning from their experiences and effectively
communicating in different ways. Teachers suggested that digital literacies go beyond
reading and writing and involve developing critical thinking skills that students must
master in order to effectively implement digital content.
The strategies teachers chose to employ strongly depended on the needs of the
particular student. The LCIS teachers believe that, with proper technology integration,
digital literacies promote engagement and motivation and have the potential to reach all
learners. However, teachers in the focus group, as well as Rachel, Ava and Donna,
asserted that effective classroom management and appropriate control are key to ensuring
the successful use of digital literacies and technology integration within the IB
programme. Specifically, Ava and Donna and members of the secondary focus groups
were concerned with digital distraction, as well as with how much screen time is
appropriate for students. This was less of a concern at in the Early Learning Center (ELC)
147
and Elementary School (ES), where students do not have one-to-one lap-top computers
and spend much less time on the computer.
Digital literacies and technology integration within the IB Programme
Factors influencing the use of technology in the teaching of an IB curriculum.
Some key factors influencing the use of digital literacies and technology integration were
adequate resources, IT support, teachers’ ability to monitor and control the technology,
and strategic professional development. The case studies, interviews, and focus groups
revealed that, while the technological resources at LCIS are adequate, the use of those
resources are based on each teacher’s own technological knowledge, the availability of
support for implementing those resources, and on that teacher’s ability to control specific
students’ use of technology throughout the lesson. With this in mind, the recommendation
of participants in both the focus groups and case studies was that more attention needs to
be given to professional development directed toward these limitations. Specifically, they
suggested that there should be more collaborative opportunities to discuss the
implementation of digital literacies and technology integration. However, teachers are
aware of the challenges involved in making time to collaborate, co-teach, and attend
professional development sessions.
School's influence on the integration of digital literacies
School's vision of encompassing technology integration, and its influence on
implementing digital literacies. The case studies and focus groups revealed a common
perception among teachers: that they have a responsibility to students to incorporate
digital literacies and technology integration within the IB programme. There was also a
148
level of anxiety among teachers linked to the expectation that they be fully able to use all
the technological tools needed to effectively implement digital literacies. The teachers
asserted that school administration needs to begin to examine ways that professional
development can be maximized and spread more systemically throughout the entire staff.
They also suggested that more accessible, targeted professional development would
support teachers in feeling more supported both within and outside the classroom.
Finally, the teachers in both the case studies and focus groups all recognized that the
administration endeavors to provide support and guidance regarding technology
integration and digital literacies.
In conclusion, I believe there also needs to be professional development on the
new theories of literacy. Foundational skills remain important when teaching literacy, but
with the advent of technology, literacy has become so much more. The LCIS participants
believe that traditional literacy offers more than digital literacy. Yet, if we begin to see
literacy as a social practice, we do not require one definition for literacy. Instead we can
begin to acknowledge that different situations require different uses of literacy. This
acceptance will give rise to new ways of thinking about teaching and learning, and, in
turn, foster different goals for programmes such as IB and school policies.
149
Chapter 6
DISSCUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The purpose of this study was to examine how teachers integrate digital literacies
within the IB programmes, and to understand what influences their implementation.
Furthermore, this study was designed to inform my practice as an IB school leader,
specifically with regard to supporting my collaboration with the faculty to co-create a
healthy digital ecology that advances teaching and learning. The research aimed to
answer the following questions:
1. How have teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, or personal experiences with technology
shaped their instructional practices?
2. How have teachers interpreted “technology integration” within the IB
programme, and how has the programme influenced their teaching of digital
literacies practices and technology?
3. What happens when I, as a school administrator, begin to explore how the
school’s vision of technology integration is influencing the implementation of
digital literacies within the IB programme? How does what I learn influence my
work as a school leader?
This chapter is organized into three sections: (1) Discussions—this section
synthesizes the study’s findings, connects the research questions with lessons learned, and
informs the decision-making for advancing technology integration and digital literacies at
LCIS; (2) Implications and Recommendations for Practice—this section offers
150
suggestions for both LCIS and other IB schools leaders regarding teaching practices that
effectively incorporate digital literacies and tools; and (3) Conclusions.
Each section is organized in alignment with this study’s research questions.
Discussion
The findings in Chapter 4 and 5 revealed six key themes:
1. The LCIS teachers understand that digital literacies practices are critical skills that
students need to acquire in their educational development.
2. The teachers believe that they need to create opportunities for students to learn to
strategically find and evaluate information on the Internet, connect and
collaborate with others, and produce and share original digital content
(Government of Ontario, 2007).
3. The teachers agree with the idea that our students must be prepared to navigate
various social contexts and to communicate effectively in each of them (Cope &
Kalantizis, 2000).
4. The teachers agree that digital literacies and technology integration have the
potential to maximize student learning. Participants provided multiple examples
of their students demonstrating engaged, connected digital literacy collaboration
and production practices when they used various digital tools in in the context of
skillfully planned lessons that connected to the IB curriculum.
5. The teachers cited the following challenges they face when integrating the digital
tools: lack of time, digital distraction, and their own technological competence.
151
6. The teachers suggested that there is a need for more support and collaboration. To
meet this need, the school should provide professional development and
collaborative opportunities that are targeted, on-going, strategic, and inclusive of
effective use of digital literacies.
The experiences shared in the survey, case studies, and focus group revealed that
embedding digital literacies in an IB setting requires a strategic vision, an effective
support system, achievable and defined technological competency, and a clear
understanding of what new literacies are—specifically, an understanding of literacy as a
social practice. This can only be accomplished with strong collaboration across the
school, the faculty, the students, and all key stakeholders.
Attitudes, beliefs or personal experiences with technology
Lumpe and Chambers (2001) provided a background for understanding teachers’
core beliefs, such as which curricular issues are most important to the teacher and what
significance they ascribe to integrating technology. My study built on Lumpe and
Chambers (2001), who found that teachers do believe that technology integration is
essential for students. As evident in my findings, teachers’ personal use of and positive
attitudes and beliefs about technology did result in the use of digital tools, particularly
hardware, such as computers, iPads, and interactive whiteboards, and software, such as
PowerPoint, coding, and typing programs. My observations suggested that teachers were
comfortable using many of the selected tools. In a study conducted on teachers’ perceived
barriers to the implementation of digital tools, BECTA (2004) wrote, “Many teachers
152
who do not consider themselves to be well skilled in using ICT feel anxious about using
it in front of a class of children who perhaps know more than they do” (p. 7). My findings
suggested that teachers do have this anxiety, but they also recognized that that they do not
need to be experts on every tool nor be the sole source of knowledge when implementing
Web 2.0 tools. Teachers also suggested that, in order to more effectively integrate
technology, they need to be open-minded and flexible risk takers.
Teachers noted three main points of contention regarding barriers to using Web
2.0 tools within an IB setting: (1) more time is needed to implement digital literacies; (2)
more support, such as professional development, is needed; (3) students’ digital
distraction must be managed. These findings expand on Earle’s (2002) research, which
suggested that the key barriers to technology integration are “time, support, resources and
training” (pp. 11-12). LCIS teachers agreed that three of these barriers—time, support,
and training—pose challenges at LCIS. However, no teacher felt that the school had
insufficient technology resources. Building on Earle (2002), my study introduced digital
distraction as another key barrier.
Further, my study suggested that technological integration requires teachers to
understand how and when to use digital tools. That is, while the LCIS teachers all
implement some form of technology integration, they believed that more support is
needed to learn how to most effectively integrate digital tools into specific lessons and
specific areas of the IB curriculum. This finding is consistent with observations made by
Hague and Payton (2010) about how teachers often lack not only the confidence but also
the skills to integrate technology effectively. Teachers need support to become reflective
practitioners (Hargreaves, 2005). I assert that teachers’ notion of professional
153
development is less about acquiring more knowledge of the digital tools themselves, but
rather about learning how to seamlessly integrate those tools with traditional practices.
Earle (2002) posited:
Integrating technology is not about technology— it is primarily about content and
effective instructional practices. Technology involves the tools with which we
deliver content and implement practices and better ways. Its focus must be on
curriculum and learning. Integration is defined not by the amount or type of
technology used but how and why it is used (p. 7)
I found that the pedagogical beliefs that teachers profess are not the only ones that
shape their practices. There seemed to be an underlying and perhaps even unconscious
hesitation and anxiety among teachers about fully integrating digital literacies. The data
suggested that the teachers perceived the implementation of digital literacies as “one
more thing to do” on top of all the other teaching obligations they faced as an IB teacher.
Some teachers did not feel competent with technology, and consequently avoided
learning how to integrate it. Others teachers may have felt that technology caused more
problems than it solved. Their stated fears about plagiarism and digital distraction, for
instance, were evidence of this attitude. Teo (2008) supported this notion that negative
attitudes or fears must be addressed if we are to see an increase in the use of digital
literacies and tools.
Teachers are required to use digital tools, yet they often used them in simple
ways, such as added tools. For instance, these “added tools” could play a song or a video,
or display pictures on interactive whiteboards, to accompany a more traditional style
154
lesson. However, they rarely used them to design lessons that constructed deep meaning
or connected knowledge. For example, Ava used PowerPoint during all the observed
lessons. Yet even with her technological competence, Ava only used PowerPoint as a
device to supplement her lecture, not as a fundamental learning tool. According to
Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer (1997), the LCIS teachers are in the appropriation
phase. LCIS teachers believe that technology is an essential tool for learning and are
attempting to use it consistently. However, complete and successful integration may be
impossible until teachers’ underlying hesitation and anxiety are conquered.
Teacher Technological Competence
The data suggested that the teachers believed more professional support was
needed. These findings are consistent with those from Fullan and Langworthy (2014),
who concluded that there must be a “learning partnership” between the students and the
teacher. These learning partnerships are built on “principles of equity, transparency,
reciprocal accountability, and mutual benefit” (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014, p. 12).
Teachers become learners alongside the student and thus see learning from the student
perspective (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). Currently, LCIS has a Technology Coordinator
and an Academic Technology Director, both of whom support how technology integration
and digital literacies are implemented within the IB curriculum. Both collaborate with
and support teachers daily. However, there are only two of them and 50 teachers. Out of
necessity, this collaboration is currently limited to one or two planning periods per
teacher per week. As Earle (2002) pointed out, time is indeed a barrier and a challenge to
the effective integration of technology. This limited schedule of individualized support
helps to explain the comments and the recommendation shared by Rachel, the Junior Pre-
155
Kindergarten teacher in the Primary Years Programme (PYP). Rachel suggested that
more direction and support for digital literacies and technology integration are required.
Rachel recommended that each of the three schools have its own technology coordinator.
Rachel, a professed component user of technology, perceived the limited schedule of
support to be insufficient and the available support staff to be inadequate. Teachers who
were more comfortable with technology seemed less adamant about the inadequacy of
current levels of support. My findings in this area are consistent with Earle (2002):
support for teachers is key, especially for teachers with lower levels of skill and comfort
with technology. Teachers who labeled themselves as “proficient” or “advanced”
experienced fewer challenges in implementing digital literacies than those teachers who
labeled themselves as “novice” or “competent.” Teachers’ perceived levels of competence
strongly affect how much support they believe is required. My goal as administrator is to
create a culture within which teachers feel empowered to develop their technology skills,
as well as to recognize that novice users of technology may develop more slowly and
may never be as skilled as the proficient users. The key is that all teachers progress and
move forward.
The study also expanded upon findings from Lumpe and Chambers (2001). They
found that, while teachers believe that technology integration is critical for student
development, their use of technology was dependent upon hardware, software,
professional development, and time constraints. My data suggests that teachers’ level of
competence or confidence also shapes their digital practices. The more confident a
teacher is in her technological abilities, the more likely she is to implement various digital
tools. This was particularly evident during observations of Donna and Anna, when they
156
were teaching students about coding and how to be discerning and critical when viewing
search results. These skills, coupled with the use digital tools and the development of an
understanding of what literacy means, all contribute to the recipe for creating deep
meaning for our students.
Digital Distraction
The notion of digital distraction was the other barrier cited by teachers. This was
primarily a concern for the secondary teachers. Ava and Donna, as well as the participants
in the secondary focus group, shared that students have shorter attention spans and are
easily distracted by digital technologies when lessons are not engaging. A recent Pew
study, How Teens Do Research in the Digital World (Purcell et al., 2012), supports this
belief. Of the teachers surveyed, 87% suggested that “today’s digital technologies are
creating an easily distracted generation with short attention spans” (p. 7), while 86%
suggested that “today’s students are too ‘plugged in’ and need more time away from their
digital technologies” (p. 7). The LCIS teachers asserted that more controls need to be put
in place so that teachers can monitor students’ screen time.
Teachers expressed frustration with how off-task students are during some lessons.
My reflective journaling indicated that this notion was also prevalent among the
parents, as expressed during a few coffee mornings, as well as among the administration,
as expressed during several weekly management meetings. Both parents and members of
the administration team suggested that secondary students’ grades were lower as a direct
result of their digital distraction. While personal laptops do offer today’s students easy
access to a wealth of distraction, the reality is that students have always had problems
157
focusing in class. That is, distraction for students is not a new phenomenon that has come
into being with technology. However, the research is inconclusive as to how best to
proceed. Some researchers (Richtel, 2010; Schwartz, 2013) suggest that schools need to
enforce stricter rules when it comes to the use of digital devices, while others suggest that
the answer lies in more use of digital tools such as social media, blogging, or interactive
whiteboards. While I did not observe any specific digital distraction during my
observations, the research is clear: students are grappling with the constant desire to
multitask, which pulls away their focus. In the article Growing Up Digital, Wired for
Distraction, Richtel (2010) highlighted that, for some teens, this distraction is even more
intense. He described how one student received more than 27,000 texts in one month and
could been seen texting several people at once. He described another student who played
video games for four hours after school. My data suggested that both parents and teachers
believe that digital distraction is an issue that must be addressed.
Digital literacies and technology integration within the IB Programme
Participating teachers expressed the belief that the ubiquity and accessibility of
the Internet and digital tools within LCIS are rapidly changing students’ educational
experiences. Furthermore, the participants clearly articulated that new pedagogies and
technology usage for learning are needed for our students to become effective learners
and future content producers. Cope and Kalantzis (2000) suggested that the new
pedagogies created by digital literacies are creating a “profound shift” (p.172). That is,
literacy has become multimodal. Texts are accompanied by images; screens are replacing
the leaves of a book; and new modes of communication, such as Twitter and Facebook,
are exploding. These new modes of communication have implications such as digital
158
distraction that needed to be understood before they can be addressed (Kress, 2010).
These new literacies demand that our teachers create engaging instructional practices that
incorporate digital media into their classroom when possible.
Findings indicate that the implementation of digital literacies allowed for both
individualization—instruction that is paced to the learning needs of different learners—
and differentiation—instruction that is tailored to the learning preferences of different
learners. An example of this was the typing program the Grade Two students used during
Heidi’s observation. Students were able to work at their own pace, not beholden to a
single class pace, and to focus on their own areas of weakness. Digital literacies also
allow for personalization. It supports instruction that is not only tailored to students’
learning needs and preferences, but also to their specific interests (“Office of Educational
Technology,” n.d.). One observed example of personalization was when Ava allowed the
students to design a presentation about the style of tourism of their choice, which
encouraged students to consider and select their topic based on their own interests. By
creating such opportunities for our students to be creators, innovators, communicators,
and collaborators, teachers have the ability to reach all learners in their classroom.
The participants expressed that challenges exist in trying to achieve these goals.
In the secondary school, teachers shared that our students lack research and fluency skills
for locating, organizing, analyzing, and evaluating information from a variety of sources,
especially from Internet sources. They further admitted that more needs to be done to
improve students’ skills so that they are able to define problems, plan and conduct
research, identify solutions, and make appropriate decisions using digital tools and
resources. As a result, teachers strongly asserted that what is lacking are many traditional
159
literacy skills, by which they meant, acquiring a set of cognitive skills such as spelling,
reading, decoding, and writing. More specifically, the LCIS teachers believe that many of
our students are not equipped with the critical skills of literacy—such as the ability to
analyze, infer, synthesize, write with coherence and authenticity, and to use textual
information and insights as the basis for informed decisions and creative thought. In
order for students to develop their critical thinking, they must read about subject areas.
The teachers expressed the belief that, because our students have access to the Google
search engine and various apps, they have become reliant on the apps to do the work for
them. The students are neither reading closely nor thinking deeply; as a result, some are
graduating without specific skills that teachers believe are critical to student future
success. The participants shared that they have seen increased instances of plagiarism, an
absence of critically evaluating sources, lacking content knowledge, or failing to
memorize key facts. Ava described an example of such behavior: a student wanted to use
an unpublished dissertation as a reference in her paper. The student supported her use of
the source by simply claiming, “It was on Google and it was a dissertation after all.” The
student used no other critical faculties or any reasonable evaluative criteria for declaring
it an appropriate source. “Google” and “dissertation” were as far as she went.
My reflective journal highlighted that the management staff had similar concerns.
During a parent academy, which is our school’s term for a professional development
session for parents, several parents expressed concern with the amount of time students
spend on their computers. Parents wanted to understand how much the students really
need their computers for homework and classwork. This concern led to an intense
discussion during our management meeting about whether one-to-one laptop schools
160
were effective. After a lengthy debate, the team concluded that it was the use of the
hardware, not the hardware itself that poses the problem. The team decided to establish a
committee for the systematic implementation of research skills throughout the Primary
Years Programme (PYP) and the Middle Years Programme (MYP). While each
programme does have a culminating research project that students need to complete in
Grades 6, 10, and 12, the concern is that not enough of the process was being taught
ahead of these grades. Currently, LCIS does not have any technological standards to
guide teaching and practice. The school has begun to adopt technology standards
suggested by the use of Government of Ontario Ministry of Education (2008) as a
guideline for moving forward. Specifically, teachers need to understand how and where
students learn tasks, including the following:
1. Access, select, gather, critically evaluate, create, and communicate information.
2. Use the information obtained to solve problems, make decisions, build knowledge,
create personal meaning, and enrich their lives.
3. Communicate their findings for different audiences, using a variety of formats and
technologies.
4. Use information and research with understanding, responsibility, and imagination
(Government of Ontario, 2009).
Don Leu, co-director of New Literacies Research Lab, conducted a research project with
27 seventh graders that demonstrated what can occur when these skills are not addressed
and we simply let students “Google it” (Leu, Forzani, Rhoads, Maykel, Kennedy, &
161
Timbrell, 2014). The students in the study were asked to evaluate for credibility an
Internet site about the arboreal octopus. Their teacher had previously demonstrated an
analytic model for such evaluation. The website included facts such as the creature’s diet
and mating rituals. Twenty-six of the students cited the website as a reliable source of
information. The arboreal octopus obviously does not exist, but the students firmly
believed it did, based solely on the perceived credibility of the website. Leu concluded
that students required more help learning to read online material and evaluate online
sources (Leu, Forzani, Rhoads, Maykel, Kennedy, & Timbrell, 2014).
The LCIS participants clearly vary in their views of what literacy is. Notions of
literacy have evolved over the years from a traditional conceptualization of the
development of cognitive skills to the more recent idea that literacy skills and practices
are shaped by social contexts of which they are a part. The LCIS participants’ beliefs
about literacy align with more traditional views. Therefore, they conclude that traditional
literacy sources, such as print books, most effectively encourage skills such as reading for
comprehension. They reject neither technology nor progress. However, it would seem
that they do prefer to supplement technology with traditional forms of literacy.
School's influence on the integration of digital literacies
Part of the study was to examine my practices as a leader, so that I can make
informed and thoughtful improvements regarding digital literacies practice within our IB
setting. I drew on the literature from Dana (2009) to engage in this administrator
practitioner research. Dana (2009) cautioned that assessing the results of administrator
practitioner research can be difficult. She also offered some quality indicators for one to
162
consider while engaged in the inquiry process. I made use of her recommendation
regarding principal research, specifically about learning to focus on what I have learned
as the principal and researcher. My findings and reflective journaling point to three
critical vehicles that are needed if LCIS is to advance digital literacies and technology
integration within an IB setting:
1. Changing the culture of teaching and learning. The administration needs to
create more opportunities for increasing technological competency, collaboration,
and inquiry among teachers.
2. Instructional Leadership. As the principal, I need to ensure that I position
myself as a learner; that I develop and share knowledge about teaching and
learning; that I engage in critical dialogue with different members of the school
community; and that I regularly examine and re-examine student and staff
experiences.
3. Increase professional development opportunities. Through our professional
learning communities, teachers and administrators need to acquire the intellectual
and social resources to improve pedagogy, integrate technology, and create
generative school and classroom environments.
Changing the culture of teaching and learning
The LCIS teachers supported the notion that technological devices and digital
literacies have changed how students read, create, and interpret texts (Swenson, Rozema,
Young, McGrail, & Whitin, 2005). This study’s qualitative data indicated that teachers
understood how technology could support student learning and believed that technology
163
was a required pedagogical skill for educators. If LCIS is to change teaching and learning
as it relates to digital literacies and technology integration, then we must acknowledge
that digital literacies are not about technological skills but, instead, that that literacy is a
social practice. We must also acknowledge how students solve problems, think critically,
communicate, collaborate, and create is contingent upon their social contexts. Teachers
require support to integrate digital tools reflectively and strategically, in order to deepen
students’ learning processes. However, the findings also revealed that the tools
themselves do present challenges to many teachers, particularly those who consider
themselves less technologically competent.
The teachers also identified different definitions of what it means to be
technologically competent. The research on technological competence does not provide a
specific definition of such competence for teachers. What has been developed are
standards, guidelines, and frameworks, as well as broad statements lacking specific
criteria against which teachers can be assessed and lacking specific actions that can be
taken. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) created standards
that specify a desired performance profile for technology-literate teachers, but it provided
no assessment criteria for teacher level of literacy. The International Baccalaureate
Organization (IBO) in 2014 published the document Teaching and Learning With
Technology, whose main goal is “to support school leaders, educators and specialists as
they engage in policy-making, strategic thinking and curriculum design, and as they meet
pedagogical challenges resulting from emerging technologies” (International
Baccalaureate Organization [IBO], 2014, p. 1). While this document includes the latest
research findings and is a step in the right direction, it includes neither strategies for
164
implementation nor best practices. The IBO itself fails to sufficiently support how to
advance and increase the use of digital literacies within the IB programme.
Teachers need to understand what is expected of them. A clear definition of digital
literacies, coupled with appropriate standards and frameworks, will not only help
teachers, but also administrators. I suggest that the IBO should define what it means to be
technologically competent. I would argue that that lack of a clear definition of what it
means to be technologically competent handicaps teachers and administrators from fully
implementing digital literacies. There are many potential options for creating these vital
definitions. One option could be partnering with organizations such as Certificate of
Educational Technology and Information Literacy (COETAIL). COETAIL is a
professional development program for international educators around the world. The
program is designed to give teachers multiple opportunities to learn and reflect on their
teaching practices as they go through the course. As many of the participants in
COETAIL’s courses have graduated from IB schools, the program may be sufficiently
familiar with IB practices and procedures to become a useful partner in the creation of
criteria and instruments for assessing technological literacy.
Professional Development Support Faculty and Student Development
While the participants repeatedly cited their opportunities to engage with one
another on the topic of digital literacies, study findings have shown that teachers do not
perceive those opportunities as sufficient. It is possible that administrators have
insufficiently addressed concerns regarding the implementation of digital literacies that
the LCIS teachers face daily in their classrooms. The findings also indicated that the
165
teachers feel that the demands of the IB programme outweigh the need for increased
digital literacies. In certain instances, teachers may not see the specific value that
instructional technologies provide for their particular content area. Alternatively, perhaps
the types of software that the administration recommends as most helpful in instruction
are not always the types of applications teachers know how—or want—to use. Our new
portal system is a good example of an enforced digital tool that is of little interest to
teachers despite its ultimate value. That is, the school administration often focuses on
using technology to complete needed administrative tasks, such as taking attendance and
posting homework assignments. Less often, the school focuses on integrating technology
into instruction with the goal of constructing deep meaning for students.
As a school, we can try to address this issue with more collaboration among the
IB coordinators and the teachers. However, the IB coordinators have significant
administrative responsibilities, which reduces the contact time between coordinators and
teachers. For the upcoming school year, LCIS is adding two IB coordinators to further
assist teachers in understanding how to balance the IB requirements with the increased
desire for improved digital literacies and seamless technology integration within their
units.
Finally, the school administration will need to address how we approach
professional development. Our professional development is targeted too narrowly and is
too focused on how to use various software tools, rather than focusing on the bigger
picture of how these tools can support learning targets for classes or subject areas.
Hanover Research (2014) examines best practices for implementing successful
professional development for technology use. While LCIS has some of these practices in
166
places—such as instructional technology coaches, learning communities,
learningcentered approaches, and both continuous and convenient access to relevant
teaching resources—there is still much work to be done. I suggest that the current LCIS
professional training does not adequately support teachers in understanding the
pedagogical practices for using technology. Most research suggests (Dana, 2009; Spires
& Barlett, 2012) that school administration needs to fully believe that teacher
development is an essential component of successfully integrating digital literacies and
technology. I assert that the LCIS administration is not short on belief in professional
learning—we currently invest more than $3,000 per teacher annually on professional
development. However, we do not have a clear plan. More collaboration is needed
between teachers and the administration. Administrators need to create an environment
where teachers feel empowered to make continuously reflective decisions regarding the
implementation of digital tools and literacies. Other steps include defining technological
competence, at least by LCIS standards; ensuring teachers’ clear understanding of the
relevant literacy research and conceptualization of digital literacies and pedagogical
practices as intersecting social practices; and increasing collaboration among all
stakeholders. Knobel and Kalman (2016) expounded on this idea: “Understanding that
teaching is a social practice comprises sets of beliefs, ways of doing things, ways of using
resources, configurations of physical spaces and ways of speaking (to students, to
colleagues, to parents to administrators, etc.)” (p.4).
Instructional Leadership
The study findings suggest that teachers appreciate when the administration
provides more time and opportunities to discuss and demonstrate how to use digital
167
technologies within the classroom. Heidi, Ava, and Rachel also indicted that they value
when their direct supervisors model, support, and encourage their use of digital literacies.
LCIS has not devoted much focus on how we integrate digital literacies in the
“preferred pedagogies of the IB...constructivist, inquiry-based, and authenticallyassessed”
(International Baccalaureate Organization, 2014, p. 20). My reflective journal highlighted
that there needed to be more time for discussion and collaboration between teachers,
grade levels, and even across the school. While time for collaborative planning is built
into the current schedule, it is not sufficient. LCIS has the experts in place, and each of
them hold a key to the puzzle. However, there needs to be time for the librarian,
technology coordinator, IB coordinators, and teachers to sit together and reflect on
teaching practices.
This study’s reflective journaling also suggested that individuals are wearing too
many “hats” in the school. For example, the librarian is not only responsible for keeping
the library in order and for providing research classes for students in Grades 3-12, but she
also runs the books fairs and book week, accompanies the Grade 11 students on an
international research visit, supports the Extended Essay class for Grade 11, and serves
an extended essay supervisor for two students. Where is the time for developing the
research curriculum with the other stakeholders?
I assert that we need to take a step back and ask a fundamental question: What do
we want our students to learn? Like so many other schools, LCIS started with the
premise that “we were behind.” LCIS recognized that it did not have adequate digital
tools and began to ramp up its investment in technological tools. Discussions centered
168
around what devices we needed, instead of how those devices would enhance student
learning. That discussion has continued throughout the past eight years, moving from
what type of hardware we need to what latest app we need. The participants agreed that
LCIS did not lack resources. I posit that decisions about what type of apps and devices
we need should be driven by what teachers are teaching and what students are learning.
Chez Vivian (2015), an educational consultant, summarized it best after her attendance at
an IB session entitled Thinking More Deeply about the Role of Technology in the IB
Programmes: "The integration of technology should always drive the implementation of
technology and not the other way around” (Vivian, 2015).
Reflecting on my journal entries, it was evident that some key habits of mind need
to be put in place:
First, there needs to be a clear focus on student learning outcomes and on what
hardware and software best support those outcomes. This approach needs to be
accomplished collaboratively with both the teachers and staff to ensure that teachers are
clear on their roles and responsibilities.
Second, more needs to be done to build digital citizenship among students. One
recommendation suggested by our Academic Technology Director is for LCIS to become
certified as a Common Sense Digital Citizenship School. Making digital citizenship a part
of our vision and plan, and holding more parent academies on how parents can partner
with the schools in this endeavor, coupled with the completion of the Common Sense
Digital certification, is a good beginning.
169
Third, I need to foster a culture of collaboration. The launch of our Professional
Learning communities is a start. However, I need to protect teachers’ time. Meetings and
training sessions need to be effectively organized, must encourage more sharing and
collaboration, and must stay focused on teaching and learning. We are a small institution,
and it is easy to divert attention to the many needs of the school: new construction,
expanding the PE and Music program, and fundraising needs. An entry I made in my
reflective journal following three meetings with teachers across the school indicated that
they enjoyed sharing their accomplishments and challenges and wanted to have more
discussions about improving teaching and learning at our school. To do this, I need to be
more visible and to stay focused on what is important—advancing teaching and learning.
Finally, as a principal and practitioner, I need to demonstrate that I am a
connected learner in the realm of technology, and that I myself am using the tools that I
promote. Teachers need to see me modeling use of technology. There are many possible
opportunities that I can use to accomplish this. For example, earlier this semester, I took
advantage of the international initiative, “An Hour of Code,” to learn coding with
fifthgrade students.
Implications: Practice, Research, and Policy
The study findings revealed that the LCIS teachers use digital technology in their
daily lives and practices. They have strong pedagogical beliefs regarding the integration
of digital literacies within the IB. They understand the importance of digital tools and
how those tools affect student learning. However, they need more discussion on what
170
digital literacy really means. Findings were consistent with the literature regarding the
importance of professional development for teachers.
Moving forward, the administration has built in three professional development
days during the next school year. As an IB school, we need to target professional
development in strategic fashion. We need to select a few specific training goals for the
year and concentrate on those specific goals. Ad-hoc training must be minimized. As a
consequence, the school will have fewer training goals per year, but those goals will be
met in more systematic and, presumably, more effective fashion.
Digital transformation in an IB setting requires that students to be taught how to
be competent and principled digital citizens. Clear policies and practices need to be
embedded within the IB school culture, such as by becoming a Common Sense digital
citizen school. That program would address important issues of cyberbullying, digital
distraction, and inappropriate online behavior that create classroom management issues.
Students would become equipped with skills for how to think critically, behave safely,
and participate responsibly in the digital arena.
Finally, the data generated from this study should serve as a catalyst for more
conversations between the school and the IBO about defining teacher technological
competence and developing clear guidelines for teachers in IB settings. While the IB has
recently created two frameworks—Integration vs. Implementation, which explores the
thinking that separates the concepts related to technology from the things we use
technology for, and Agency, Information, and Design (AID), a framework that
operationalizes technology literacy in the IB programmes—these frameworks serve more
171
as a “lens” for viewing the curriculum during lesson, unit, and school planning
(International Baccalaureate Organization, n.d.) rather than a document that provides
definitions, detail, and clarity.
As we are about to enter the third decade of the 21st century, we cannot deny that
today’s students are born into a digital culture. As educators, we have a responsibility to
provide our students with the opportunities to understand and profit from this
environment. The findings of this study inform my recommendations on how to help
teachers change their digital pedagogical practices in ways that can transform student
learning.
CONCLUSIONS
Technological tools have re-configured the possibilities for communication and
literacy practices. These changes have altered the way teachers must consider literacy
practices within the classroom. This study was conducted to examine how digital
literacies practices were being implemented within an IB setting. The goal of the study
was to inform my practice as a leader and to determine how to create a healthy digital
ecology within an International Baccalaureate programme. The survey, focus groups, and
the case studies that made up this study offered insight into teachers’ beliefs and
challenges when implementing digital literacies and technology integration within an IB
setting.
The overall data has revealed that teachers believe that digital literacies are a
critical element to student success, and that the “profound shift” that Cope and Kalantzis,
(2009) discussed is well underway. However, this shift has created new challenges for
172
teachers when trying to teach this new pedagogy, including digital distraction, teacher
competence, and students’ ability to effectively evaluate digital content. The data also
suggested that teachers at LCIS have multiple understandings of digital literacies,
particularly with regard to the IB curriculum. Teachers can better prepare students for the
digital future if they have a better understanding of what is involved in digital literacy as
it relates to the IB continuum. More research regarding how digital literacies are being
implemented needs to be conducted between IB schools and the IBO.
As a leader, I have explored how I contribute to the implementation of digital
literacies practices and the integration of technology within LCIS. Professional
development for this digital era must be current, relevant, and ongoing. Teachers, staff,
and administrators must all work together if LCIS is to realize this “profound shift”
(Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 172).
173
