Handbook of Research

on Literacy and Digital

Technology Integration in
Teacher Education

Jared Keengwe
University of North Dakota, USA

Grace Onchwari
University of North Dakota, USA

A volume in the Advances in Educational

Marketing, Administration, and Leadership
(AEMAL) Book Series
Published in the United States of America by
IGI Global
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA, USA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com

Copyright © 2020 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Keengwe, Jared, 1973- editor. | Onchwari, Grace, 1972- editor. |
Information Science Reference (Publisher) | IGI Global.
Title: Handbook of research on literacy and digital technology integration
in teacher education / Jared Keengwe and Grace Onchwari, editors.
Description: Hershey, Pennsylvania : Information Science Reference (an
imprint of IGI Global), 2019.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019030931 (print) | LCCN 2019030932 (ebook) | ISBN
9781799814610 (Hardcover) | ISBN 9781799814627 (eBook)
Subjects: LCSH: Teachers--Training of--Research. | Teachers--Training
of--Technological innovations. | Educational technology.
Classification: LCC LB1707 .H35434 2019 (print) | LCC LB1707 (ebook) |
DDC 371.33--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019030931
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019030932

This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Educational Marketing, Administration, and Leadership
(AEMAL) (ISSN: 2326-9022; eISSN: 2326-9030)

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.

 Advances in Educational
Marketing, Administration, and
Leadership (AEMAL) Book
Series
Siran Mukerji
IGNOU, India
Purnendu Tripathi
IGNOU, India
ISSN:2326-9022
EISSN:2326-9030

Mission
With more educational institutions entering into public, higher, and professional education, the educational
environment has grown increasingly competitive. With this increase in competitiveness has come the
need for a greater focus on leadership within the institutions, on administrative handling of educational
matters, and on the marketing of the services offered.
The Advances in Educational Marketing, Administration, & Leadership (AEMAL) Book Series
strives to provide publications that address all these areas and present trending, current research to as-
sist professionals, administrators, and others involved in the education sector in making their decisions.

Coverage

• Marketing Theories within Education IGI Global is currently accepting manuscripts

• Students as Consumers for publication within this series. To submit a pro-
• Governance in P-12 and Higher Education posal for a volume in this series, please contact our
• Educational Management Acquisition Editors at Acquisitions@igi-global.com
• Consumer Behavior or visit: http://www.igi-global.com/publish/.
• Direct marketing of educational programs
• Advertising and Promotion of Academic Programs and
Institutions
• Educational Finance
• Enrollment Management
• Academic Administration

The Advances in Educational Marketing, Administration, and Leadership (AEMAL) Book Series (ISSN 2326-9022) is published by IGI
Global, 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033-1240, USA, www.igi-global.com. This series is composed of titles available for purchase
individually; each title is edited to be contextually exclusive from any other title within the series. For pricing and ordering information please
visit http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-educational-marketing-administration-leadership/73677. Postmaster: Send all address
changes to above address. © © 2020 IGI Global. All rights, including translation in other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this
series may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping,
or information and retrieval systems – without written permission from the publisher, except for non commercial, educational use, including
classroom teaching purposes. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors, but not necessarily of IGI Global.
 Titles in this Series
For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit: https://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-educational-mar-
keting-administration-leadership/73677

Enhancing Teaching and Leadership Initiatives With Teacherpreneurs Emerging Research and Opportunities
Pam Epler (Youngstown State University, USA)
Information Science Reference • © 2020 • 150pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799820741) • US $165.00

Collaborative Strategies for Implementing Equitable Learning Opportunities

Jason Jolicoeur (Washburn University, USA) and Binh Bui (University of Houston, USA)
Information Science Reference • © 2020 • 300pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522593355) • US $185.00

Leveraging Technology to Improve School Safety and Student Wellbeing

Stephanie P. Huffman (Missouri State University, USA) Stacey Loyless (University of Central Arkansas, USA)
Shelly Albritton (University of Central Arkansas, USA) and Charlotte Green (University of Central Arkansas, USA)
Information Science Reference • © 2020 • 329pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799817666) • US $195.00

Addressing Multicultural Needs in School Guidance and Counseling

Simon George Taukeni (University of Namibia, Namibia)
Information Science Reference • © 2020 • 402pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799803195) • US $185.00

Emerging Methods and Paradigms in Scholarship and Education Research

Lorraine Ling (La Trobe University, Australia) and Peter Ling (Swinburne University of Technology, Australia)
Information Science Reference • © 2020 • 330pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799810018) • US $195.00

Cases on Global Leadership in the Contemporary Economy

Ivonne Chirino-Klevans (Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA &
International School of Management, Paris, France)
Business Science Reference • © 2020 • 187pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522580881) • US $195.00

Strategic Leadership in PK-12 Settings

Johnny R. O’Connor (Lamar University, USA)
Information Science Reference • © 2020 • 291pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522592426) • US $175.00

Handbook of Research on Social Inequality and Education

Sherrie Wisdom (Lindenwood University, USA) Lynda Leavitt (Lindenwood University, USA) and Cynthia Bice
(Miami Dade College, USA)
Information Science Reference • © 2019 • 556pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522591085) • US $245.00

701 East Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033, USA

Tel: 717-533-8845 x100 • Fax: 717-533-8661
E-Mail: cust@igi-global.com • www.igi-global.com
Editorial Advisory Board
Joachim Agamba, Idaho State University, USA
Douglas Agyei, University of Cape Coast, Ghana
Lesley Farmer, California State University, Long Beach, USA
Frederick K. Iraki, United States International University Africa, Kenya
Ken Kungu, Clayton State University, USA
Lydia Kyei-Blankson, Illinois State University, USA
Fredrick Nafukho, Texas A&M University, USA
Robert Oboko, University of Nairobi, Kenya
Patient Rambe, Central University of Technology, South Africa
Jerono Rotich, North Carolina A&T State University, USA
Peggy Semingson, The University of Texas at Arlington, USA
Patrick Wachira, Cleveland State University, USA


List of Contributors

Awoyemi, Robert Akinade / Adeyemi Federal College of Education, Nigeria.......................... 321, 321
Benedict, Maycie / Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus, USA.................................... 124
Bippert, Kelli / Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, USA.......................................................... 261
Chadha, Anita / University of Houston-Downtown, USA................................................................. 300
Creely, Edwin / Monash University, Australia.................................................................................. 359
Dunlap, Karen / Texas Woman’s University, USA................................................................................ 1
Edge, Christi U. / Northern Michigan University, USA..................................................................... 188
Elwood, Susan A. / Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, USA..................................................... 261
Ewing, Payten / Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus, USA......................................... 124
Fredrickson, Rebecca / Texas Woman’s University, USA..................................................................... 1
Glass, Wykeshia W. / North Carolina Central University, USA........................................................ 228
Henriksen, Danah / Arizona State University, USA.......................................................................... 359
Hickman, Desiree G. / Jackson State University, USA...................................................................... 228
Hurlbut, Amanda R. / Texas Woman’s University, USA........................................................................ 1
Kaugi, Ephantus Micheni / Kenyatta University, Kenya................................................................... 282
Kellinger, Janna Jackson / University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA.................................... 109, 214
Kiai, Alice Wanjira / The Technical University of Kenya, Kenya...................................................... 334
Laviers, Kennard / Sul Ross State University, USA............................................................................ 93
Li, Lan / Bowling Green State University, USA................................................................................. 245
Limboro, Charity Mukiri / Kenyatta University, Kenya................................................................... 282
Liu, Laura B. / Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus, USA........................................... 124
Liu, Xiongyi / Cleveland State University, USA................................................................................ 245
Maher, Damian / University of Technology Sydney, Australia............................................................ 29
Mbugua, Peter Getyngo / United States International University Africa, Kenya.............................. 334
McMahan, Sarah / Texas Woman’s University, USA............................................................................ 1
Mehta, Rohit / California State University, Fresno, USA................................................................. 359
Myers, Aimee / Texas Woman’s University, USA.................................................................................. 1
Otieno, Daniel / Kenyatta University, Kenya..................................................................................... 142
Penland, Jennifer (Jenny) L. / Shepherd University, USA.................................................................. 93
Pride, Kayla / Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus, USA............................................ 124
Reid, Doug / Thompson Rivers University, Canada.......................................................................... 171
Robertson, Shawn / St. Joseph’s College, USA................................................................................. 156
Sadat, Bashir / Lehigh University, USA.............................................................................................. 78
Vallera, Farah L. / Lehigh University, USA......................................................................................... 78
Van Allen, Jennifer / Lehman College, City University of New York, USA........................................ 47
Wachira, Patrick / Cleveland State University, USA........................................................................ 245
Zygouris-Coe, Vassiliki “Vicky” I. / University of Central Florida, USA.......................................... 47



Table of Contents

Foreword............................................................................................................................................xviii

Preface................................................................................................................................................... xx

Acknowledgment...............................................................................................................................xxiii

Chapter 1
From Start to Finish: A Programmatic Approach to Digital Literacy in Teacher Education.................. 1
Amanda R. Hurlbut, Texas Woman’s University, USA
Sarah McMahan, Texas Woman’s University, USA
Aimee Myers, Texas Woman’s University, USA
Karen Dunlap, Texas Woman’s University, USA
Rebecca Fredrickson, Texas Woman’s University, USA

Chapter 2
Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies.............. 29
Damian Maher, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

Chapter 3
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research and
Comprehension Skills............................................................................................................................ 47
Jennifer Van Allen, Lehman College, City University of New York, USA
Vassiliki “Vicky” I. Zygouris-Coe, University of Central Florida, USA

Chapter 4
Using Design Thinking Practices to Create Technology-Driven Adult Professional Development
Programs................................................................................................................................................ 78
Farah L. Vallera, Lehigh University, USA
Bashir Sadat, Lehigh University, USA

Chapter 5
Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner................................................................ 93
Jennifer (Jenny) L. Penland, Shepherd University, USA
Kennard Laviers, Sul Ross State University, USA


 

Chapter 6
Designing Curricular Games in Teacher Education: Exploring an Evolution of Game-Based
Teaching............................................................................................................................................... 109
Janna Jackson Kellinger, University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA

Chapter 7
How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding......................................... 124
Laura B. Liu, Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus, USA
Kayla Pride, Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus, USA
Payten Ewing, Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus, USA
Maycie Benedict, Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus, USA

Chapter 8
Integrating Digital Literacy in Competency-Based Curriculum......................................................... 142
Daniel Otieno, Kenyatta University, Kenya

Chapter 9
Student Agency: A Creatively-Focused Digital Critical Pedagogy..................................................... 156
Shawn Robertson, St. Joseph’s College, USA

Chapter 10
Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education...................... 171
Doug Reid, Thompson Rivers University, Canada

Chapter 11
Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making and
Technology Integration in Teacher Education..................................................................................... 188
Christi U. Edge, Northern Michigan University, USA

Chapter 12
Coding Across the Curriculum: How to Integrate Coding Into Content Areas................................... 214
Janna Jackson Kellinger, University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA

Chapter 13
Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration....................... 228
Wykeshia W. Glass, North Carolina Central University, USA
Desiree G. Hickman, Jackson State University, USA

Chapter 14
Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education.................................................... 245
Xiongyi Liu, Cleveland State University, USA
Lan Li, Bowling Green State University, USA
Patrick Wachira, Cleveland State University, USA


Chapter 15
Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk: A Standards and Competency Matrix Using ISTE Educator
Standards With Teacher Educator Technology Competencies............................................................ 261
Susan A. Elwood, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, USA
Kelli Bippert, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, USA

Chapter 16
Technology Integration in Teacher Education: Implications for Policy and Curriculum Reform....... 282
Charity Mukiri Limboro, Kenyatta University, Kenya
Ephantus Micheni Kaugi, Kenyatta University, Kenya

Chapter 17
Adding Value: Fostering Student Deliberations Across Modes of Instruction and Institutions.......... 300
Anita Chadha, University of Houston-Downtown, USA

Chapter 18
Perspectives and Implementation of ICT in Teacher Education.......................................................... 321
Robert Akinade Awoyemi, Adeyemi Federal College of Education, Nigeria
Robert Akinade Awoyemi, Adeyemi Federal College of Education, Nigeria

Chapter 19
Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education: Narratives From Composition Writing Classrooms
in Kenya............................................................................................................................................... 334
Alice Wanjira Kiai, The Technical University of Kenya, Kenya
Peter Getyngo Mbugua, United States International University Africa, Kenya

Chapter 20
A Profitable Education: Countering Neoliberalism in 21st Century Skills Discourses....................... 359
Rohit Mehta, California State University, Fresno, USA
Edwin Creely, Monash University, Australia
Danah Henriksen, Arizona State University, USA

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 382

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 431

Index.................................................................................................................................................... 440
Detailed Table of Contents

Foreword............................................................................................................................................xviii

Preface................................................................................................................................................... xx

Acknowledgment...............................................................................................................................xxiii

Chapter 1
From Start to Finish: A Programmatic Approach to Digital Literacy in Teacher Education.................. 1
Amanda R. Hurlbut, Texas Woman’s University, USA
Sarah McMahan, Texas Woman’s University, USA
Aimee Myers, Texas Woman’s University, USA
Karen Dunlap, Texas Woman’s University, USA
Rebecca Fredrickson, Texas Woman’s University, USA

The U.S. Department of Education recently reported that single educational technology courses are not
sufficient experiences to properly prepare preservice teachers for future technology-rich K-12 classrooms.
Rather, continuous exposure to instructional technology is most effective in improving attitudes and
beliefs toward technology and sustaining deep pedagogical practice. It is essential that all attempts to
create digitally literate teachers should originate from within a cohesive program design rather than
through single “drive-by” courses that integrate technology. The purpose of this chapter is to describe
a programmatic approach used to design a comprehensive digital literacy experience for pre-service
teachers (PSTs) using the U.S. DOE’s recommendations. The chapter will discuss various examples,
including specific course assignments the EPP uses to guide PSTs as they learn to become competent
digitally literate educators. Examples of implementation, copies of PST work, and reflective discussions
continued challenges to sustain the design are included.

Chapter 2
Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies.............. 29
Damian Maher, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

The chapter has two main foci. The first focus is on the types of literacy practices needed by young
people to work in a contemporary digital environment. Policies that impact on the development of
digital literacy development are explored. The aspects underpinning digital literacy are examined and a
sociocultural approach explained. Aspects of safety and ethics are focused on. The first half concludes
by discussing digital games and ways these can be used to develop digital literacies in schools. The
second focus is on the digital competencies that pre-service teachers can develop to support teaching




of digital literacies. Different models for developing digital competencies are outlined. The aspect of
critical understanding is then examined. This is followed by exploring digital story telling. Important
considerations for developing digital competencies within and beyond university training are examined.
The chapter then provides some suggestions for further research in this field.

Chapter 3
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research and
Comprehension Skills............................................................................................................................ 47
Jennifer Van Allen, Lehman College, City University of New York, USA
Vassiliki “Vicky” I. Zygouris-Coe, University of Central Florida, USA

Supporting students in acquiring flexible skills for a fast-paced technological world is a challenge. Teachers
need access to high-quality training and resources that shape teachers’ beliefs, improve self-efficacy,
and build pedagogical knowledge surrounding technology integration. This qualitative exploratory case
study explored the implementation and challenges one teacher faced when using small groups to develop
upper elementary grade students’ online research and comprehension skills. Using the challenges the
teacher discovered, including technology issues, instructional challenges, and students’ lack of computer
knowledge, the authors propose several implications for implementing an instructional framework to
teach online research and comprehension skills and provide educative curriculum examples for supporting
teacher education efforts.

Chapter 4
Using Design Thinking Practices to Create Technology-Driven Adult Professional Development
Programs................................................................................................................................................ 78
Farah L. Vallera, Lehigh University, USA
Bashir Sadat, Lehigh University, USA

Instructors are encouraged to train their students to be creative, critical thinkers, and innovative future
leaders; unfortunately, most have not been trained in the same way as they are expected to teach.
Instructors need to learn how to inspire innovation and 21st century skills by practicing and teaching
those skills themselves. One way to do that is by learning the design thinking process, incorporating
it into instruction, and using it to develop students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes/beliefs (KSABs)
in similar ways. Understanding and employing the design thinking process and combining those tools
with relevant and authentic instructional technologies can prepare instructors to develop the skills of
tomorrow’s workforce, innovators, and future leaders. This chapter discusses the importance of training
teachers to use the design thinking process while using the design thinking process to instruct them. Best
practices and examples of such professional development are offered.
 

Chapter 5
Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner................................................................ 93
Jennifer (Jenny) L. Penland, Shepherd University, USA
Kennard Laviers, Sul Ross State University, USA

Of all the technologies emerging today, augmented reality (AR) stands to be one of, if not the, most
transformational in the way we teach our students across the spectrum of age groups and subject matter.
The authors propose “best practices” that allow the educator to use AR as a tool that will not only teach
the processes of a skill but will also encourage students to use AR as a motivational tool that allows them
to discover, explore, and perform work beyond what is capable with this revolutionary device. Finally,
the authors provide and explore the artificial intelligence (AI) processors behind the technologies driving
down cost while driving up the quality of AR and how this new field of computer science is transforming
all facets of society and may end up changing pedagogy more profoundly than anything before it.

Chapter 6
Designing Curricular Games in Teacher Education: Exploring an Evolution of Game-Based
Teaching............................................................................................................................................... 109
Janna Jackson Kellinger, University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA

This chapter explores the use of game-based teaching in teacher education courses. It compares a version
of a course taught in a traditional manner to the game-based version. It then traces the evolution of the
author’s use of game-based teaching and details ways the author overcame various obstacles in subsequent
courses. In doing so, it discusses the affordances and constraints of learning management systems and
concludes that small changes in learning management systems would greatly improve the ability to use
them to create curricular games.

Chapter 7
How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding......................................... 124
Laura B. Liu, Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus, USA
Kayla Pride, Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus, USA
Payten Ewing, Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus, USA
Maycie Benedict, Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus, USA

This study builds on previous research regarding digital texts and learner engagement to provide insights
on the impact of digital and paper texts on first-grade student learning. Three formats of the same STEM
children’s book included (1) a paper version read by the teacher; (2) a digital version read as a class and
facilitated by the teacher; and (3) a digital version read independently by individual students, without
the teacher. Mixed methods analysis involved a pre- and post-reading worksheet assessing student
comprehension and concept retention, followed by teacher interviews. Quantitative and qualitative
findings demonstrated the value of paper texts read with teacher guidance to highlight key concepts and
sustain student focus. Teacher interviews also noted the value of digital texts to engage student interest,
suggesting there is a pedagogical place for paper and digital texts in the classroom. Findings highlight
the complexity of learner engagement and need for thoughtful pedagogies.


Chapter 8
Integrating Digital Literacy in Competency-Based Curriculum......................................................... 142
Daniel Otieno, Kenyatta University, Kenya

This chapter discusses the integration of digital literacy in competency-based curriculum (CBC). In the
introduction, the authors discuss the 21st century skills and their relevance to the competency-based
curriculum. The discussion funnels from global, regional, and local contexts. Theoretical perspectives
in ICT and the CBC are dealt with to provide a background. Multiple approaches of integrating digital
literacy within the curriculum are highlighted later in the chapter. These issues are discussed in the
light of the extant literature on digital literacy and the competency-based curriculum. The discussion
revolves around the trends, controversies of digital literacy in the CBC with possible solutions put forth
towards the end of the chapter. Finally, recommendations and future research directions are made. The
chapter concludes with a summary of the major issues discussed in the chapter and recommendations
for further reading.

Chapter 9
Student Agency: A Creatively-Focused Digital Critical Pedagogy..................................................... 156
Shawn Robertson, St. Joseph’s College, USA

This chapter explores the theoretical ideas educators should explore and understand in relationship to
developing student agency as a pedagogy. It also examines how using it can potentially inspire digital
critical pedagogy. The process by which certified teachers engaged in to become more aware of their
own critical pedagogy and skill to implement student agency is discussed throughout the chapter. Their
perceptions of what student agency is and should be is explored alongside ideas for instituting creative
digital pedagogy and student agency in a practical fashion in a focal point of the chapter.

Chapter 10
Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education...................... 171
Doug Reid, Thompson Rivers University, Canada

As a partnership between a teacher education program and a public school, an introductory course in
education was modernized to reflect the current technological and cultural contexts of the teaching
profession. This was done to ensure the course would still be a transfer credit at other universities in the
region and to ensure undergraduate students would receive a current perspective of teaching in Canada.
The result of this initiative was the development of an undergraduate course infused with modeling
technology used in classrooms today designed upon an indigenous pedagogical model. In theory, this
allowed the students to explore the interaction of technology-enabled learning and indigenous pedagogy.
In practice, this allowed the students to learn in a low-risk environment designed to reflect current realities
and advances in educational practices.
 

Chapter 11
Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making and
Technology Integration in Teacher Education..................................................................................... 188
Christi U. Edge, Northern Michigan University, USA

This chapter describes an investigation into exploring meaning making through multimodal literacy
practices and technology integration for teacher education within the context of an online, secondary
reading course for K-12 teachers. Through the use of a collaborative conference protocol, discourse with
cross-disciplinary critical friends, and visual thinking data analysis strategies, a teacher educator examined
existing multimodal literacy practices and then studied course redesign and technology integration.
Results include recognizing opportunities for diverse learners to access and use prior knowledge in the
construction of new knowledge, reframing the course delivery platform as a multimodal “text,” increasing
opportunity for learners to construct and communicate complex understandings through multimodal
texts and technology-infused assessments, and learners’ curriculum making through transmediation
mediated by technology.

Chapter 12
Coding Across the Curriculum: How to Integrate Coding Into Content Areas................................... 214
Janna Jackson Kellinger, University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA

This chapter explores why teacher educators should teach teachers how to integrate coding across
content areas and how to do so by applying concepts of computational thinking such as using algorithms,
flowcharts, and Boolean logic to all fields. Teaching teachers how to teach coding across the content
areas offers opportunities to diversify people in a field where intimidation, discrimination, and lack of
opportunities has effectively kept the field of programming largely white or Asian and male. In addition,
as our lives become more and more infused with technology, Rushkoff warns that we either learn how to
program or become programmed. This means that not everyone needs to become a computer programmer,
but everyone needs to understand how programming computers works. In other words, coding across
content areas would help prepare all students, not just those pursuing the field of computer science, for
the 21st century.

Chapter 13
Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration....................... 228
Wykeshia W. Glass, North Carolina Central University, USA
Desiree G. Hickman, Jackson State University, USA

This chapter focuses on the suggestions and strategies of technology being utilized in classroom
settings. An emphasis is placed on digital technology and literacy integration. The authors explore the
effectiveness of digital technology and literacy integration and identify external and internal factors
limiting technology integration commonly found within a typical PreK-12th grade classroom setting. In
addition to the authors discussing factors that limit school’s integration, the authors provide solutions and
recommendations suggesting resources throughout the chapter to improve and model digital technology
and literacy integration in the classroom.


Chapter 14
Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education.................................................... 245
Xiongyi Liu, Cleveland State University, USA
Lan Li, Bowling Green State University, USA
Patrick Wachira, Cleveland State University, USA

With the development of technology, web-based peer assessment has been increasingly used as an
alternative, formative assessment strategy with great potential for student learning benefits. The purpose
of this chapter is to synthesize a series of empirical research studies conducted by the authors to examine
factors that can influence the effectiveness of web-based peer assessment with teacher education students.
The findings of these studies are discussed within the larger context of general research in peer assessment.
Implications are provided to better inform researchers and teacher educators about the use of web-based
peer assessment and how it relates to teacher education students’ ability to apply assessment criteria and
their ability to take advantage of peer feedback.

Chapter 15
Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk: A Standards and Competency Matrix Using ISTE Educator
Standards With Teacher Educator Technology Competencies............................................................ 261
Susan A. Elwood, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, USA
Kelli Bippert, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, USA

Faculty integration of the technology standards and competencies remain a concern in higher education,
especially in the movement toward competency-based education and portfolio development. The
“CRABwalk within the Crosswalk” occurs as both ISTE educator standards and TETC competencies
are collaboratively reviewed and worked. This protocol is designed to help align a team’s multiple
standards and competencies within one collaborative assessment tool. It provides a cognitive tool to
facilitate partnership collaboration that can result in greater individual and team growth and development.
This chapter provides a literature review of K-12 teacher education and university faculty perceptions
as a cultural models base to the presented Crosswalk to Rubric Alignment (CRABwalk) protocol.
Professional standard or competency needs are of focus and therefore meet the needs of each educator
group: preservice, inservice, and teacher educator.

Chapter 16
Technology Integration in Teacher Education: Implications for Policy and Curriculum Reform....... 282
Charity Mukiri Limboro, Kenyatta University, Kenya
Ephantus Micheni Kaugi, Kenyatta University, Kenya

This study examined the availability of computers and internet in the classroom or elsewhere at teacher
colleges, teacher preparation and training in technology integration, as well as trainers’ use of technology
in classroom instruction. A survey questionnaire was distributed randomly to 63 teacher trainers from
three public and one private teacher training college in Kenya. The data was analyzed descriptively using
SPSS software. The results indicated that technology integration at the classroom level was too low due
to lack of computers and internet access in the classrooms. Teacher trainers were inadequately trained
in information and communication technology integration and therefore poorly equipped to integrate
technology in the classroom. The study concludes that teacher colleges were not adequately prepared for
ICT integration in teaching and learning. It is recommended that teacher colleges’ ICT infrastructure be
improved and teacher trainers’ capacity on ICT integration be developed for the success of the current
 

curriculum reforms.

Chapter 17
Adding Value: Fostering Student Deliberations Across Modes of Instruction and Institutions.......... 300
Anita Chadha, University of Houston-Downtown, USA

Research finds that fostering reflective deliberation in classes ensures that students reach a high level
of achievement in their courses. This chapter evaluates student peer reflective exchanges across a
four-year institution and a community college and both face-to-face and online modes of instruction
at these differing institutions. Significant evidence reveals that regardless of institution type, students
deliberate with academic reflectivity yet deliberate with greater reflectivity in face-to-face classes across
both institutions. This study concludes that offering deliberative strategies are a viable means to offer
pedagogical content across different modes of instruction and at differing institutions, a concern for
educators and administrators in this digital age.

Chapter 18
Perspectives and Implementation of ICT in Teacher Education.......................................................... 321
Robert Akinade Awoyemi, Adeyemi Federal College of Education, Nigeria
Robert Akinade Awoyemi, Adeyemi Federal College of Education, Nigeria

This chapter evaluates teacher education from a technological point of view in relation to its conventional
perspectives, where teacher education was appraised in conjugation with ICT. The integration of ICT in
teacher education is a means of supporting high quality teaching and learning, involving teacher educators
and teachers, which requires how best to explore the utilization of technologies for meaningful learning
of students. In the course of this discourse, it was ratiocinated that ICT plays a vital role in teacher
education. In the field of teacher education, ICT-based applications and their integration with content
and pedagogy are potential catalysts for meaningful learning of students. Finally, the behaviourist theory,
the experiential learning theory, and the information processing theory were employed respectively to
discuss the theoretical framework of this chapter to assert the pertinence of ICT in teacher education.

Chapter 19
Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education: Narratives From Composition Writing Classrooms
in Kenya............................................................................................................................................... 334
Alice Wanjira Kiai, The Technical University of Kenya, Kenya
Peter Getyngo Mbugua, United States International University Africa, Kenya

This study examines teaching methodologies used by composition instructors in a private university in
Kenya where composition is taught to all undergraduate students. The study adopted a qualitative approach
in the form of narrative inquiry to explore challenging topics in teaching and learning argumentation,
methodological interventions, instructors’ use of technology, and to suggest strategies for addressing
problem areas. Purposive sampling was adopted, resulting in narratives from three experienced course
instructors. Learner-centred approaches were prevalent, especially in addressing challenging topics such
as formulation of claims, supporting arguments with evidence, recognising fallacies and appeals, and
documentation of sources of information.


Chapter 20
A Profitable Education: Countering Neoliberalism in 21st Century Skills Discourses....................... 359
Rohit Mehta, California State University, Fresno, USA
Edwin Creely, Monash University, Australia
Danah Henriksen, Arizona State University, USA

In this chapter, the authors take a multifaceted critical approach to understanding and deconstructing the
term 21st century skills, especially in regard to technology and the role of corporations in the discourses
about education. They also consider a range of cultural and political influences in our exploration of
the social and academic meanings of the term, including its history and politics. The application of the
term in present-day educational contexts is considered as well as possible futures implied through the
term. The goal in this chapter is to counter ideas that might diminish a humanized educational practice.
Specifically, the authors offer a critique of neoliberal discourses in education, particularly the neoliberal
and corporate narrative around 21st century teaching and learning. They raise concerns about what an
undue emphasis on industry-oriented educational systems can mean for the core purposes of education.

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 382

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 431

Index.................................................................................................................................................... 440
xviii

Foreword

Today’s educators recognize that using innovative practices to disrupt ineffective or antiquated practices
is a pathway to improving their future professional practice and that improved practice leads to improved
student learning. Yet, even as our understanding of literacy and digital technology integration has evolved
over the past decade, many educators continue to rely on ineffective learning constructs exclusively.
As such, the central goal of this handbook is to provide options that deter such use even as it provides
readers examples of the emerging practices shaping the field today. Specifically, this handbook offers
a diverse set of research findings and innovative practices all aimed at assisting educators to effectively
apply concepts of literacy and digital technology within their professional practice.
Literacy and digital technology concepts are grounded across disciplines and represent a multi-
faceted set of educators that includes pre-service and in-service educators along with teacher educators
and others interested in the field of teacher preparation. What they and this volume have in common is
an interest in understanding the knowledge, skills, and dispositional beliefs (i.e., the quality and nature
of their practice) of the field, as well as an understanding of the supporting research and ideas related
to the continual improvement of student learning. As such, this volume assists readers to recognize that
how we teach and engage with our learners can be continually refined and developed through various
actions and interactions intended to provide the highest quality learning.
For example, within the framework of transforming the practice of teaching, chapter 6 (Designing Cur-
ricular Games) and Chapter 14 (Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment) provide research supported
insights regarding emerging pedagogies. Likewise, Chapter 5 (Perceptions and New Realities), Chapter
17 (Fostering student deliberations), and Chapter 20 (Countering Neoliberalism) stand out examining
the beliefs associated with effective practice. Of equal importance for readers are the chapters reporting
on lessons learned from practice. In these chapters a number of lessons learned from the integration of
skill-based technologies are shared. These include use of digital research tools (Chapter 3), design think-
ing (Chapter 4), augmented reality (AR) and artificial intelligence (AI) (Chapter 5), coding (Chapter 12),
and digital gamed based learning (Chapter 6). In fact, a quick review of the Table of Contents reveals
that transformation of practice is advocated for across a majority of the handbook’s chapters.
Given the broad nature of the information contained within, the handbook is appropriate for acade-
micians, educators, administrators, educational software and app developers, instructional technology
consultants, researchers, professionals, students, and curriculum and instructional designers. As such, this
volume assists readers to consider where we are as a field even as it provides information about where
we are going as a field. Directions for future research are revealed for careful readers of many chapters.
This handbook is both instructive and timely in nature, offering many ideas related to the application



Foreword

of technology into the field of teacher preparation. In summary, readers will gain valuable insights that
can both inform practice and future scholarship interests.

Beverly B. Ray
Idaho State University, USA

xix
xx

Preface

The integration of digital technology continues to inform teacher preparation for 21st century classrooms.
Also, it is critical to understand the different ways that digital technology is used so that appropriate
learning experiences can be designed to support learners’ digital literacy development. To support digi-
tal practices for young learners, Darvin (2018) identified six different uses which include: (a) Identity
representation: e.g., taking selfies, constructing a Facebook profile; (b) Artistic expression: e.g., post-
ing pictures on Instagram, publishing fan fiction stories online; (c) Facilitation of social relations: e.g.,
chatting with friends on Snapchat; (d) Consumption and production of knowledge: e.g., reading news
online, preparing PowerPoint for science class; (e) Exchange of goods and service: e.g., ordering books
on Amazon; (f) Entertainment: e.g., playing Minecraft, watching a movie on Netflix.
When used effectively in teaching and learning, technology enhances student motivation, attitude,
and engagement, and teacher-student and home-school relationships (Zheng, Warshauer, Lin, & Chang,
2016). To this end, there is a pressing need for college faculty not only to prepare current and future
teachers for the demands of 21st century classrooms, but also to address the academic readiness skills
of their students to succeed in their programs. Therefore, the Handbook of Research on Literacy and
Digital Technology Integration in Teacher Education provides peer-reviewed essays and research reports
contributed by an array of scholars and practitioners in the field of literacy education, teacher education,
and instructional technology. The objective of this scholarship is to highlight research-based practices
that address the issues, perspectives, and challenges faced in teacher preparation and teacher education
professional development programs.
Chapter 1 describes a programmatic approach used to design a comprehensive digital literacy ex-
perience for pre-service teachers (PSTs) using the U.S. DOE’s recommendations. Various examples of
course assignments implementation process, copies of PST work, and reflective discussions are shared.
Chapter 2 has two main foci. The first section explains literacy practices needed by young people to
work in a contemporary digital environment, the policies that have impacted the development of digital
literacy development, and the aspects underpinning digital literacy through the sociocultural approach.
The second focus is on the digital competencies that pre-service teachers can develop to support teach-
ing of digital literacies.
Chapter 3 examines how supporting students in acquiring flexible skills for a fast-paced technological
world is a challenge. Challenges such as the need for high-quality training and resources that shape teach-
ers’ beliefs, improve self-efficacy, and build pedagogical knowledge surrounding technology integration
are explored. The study proposes several implications for implementing an instructional framework to
teach online research and comprehension skills and provides educative curriculum examples for sup-
porting teacher education efforts.



Preface

Chapter 4 discusses the importance of training teachers to use the design thinking process, while
using the design thinking process to instruct them. Best practices and examples of such professional
development are offered.
Chapter 5 proposes “best practices” which allows the educator to use the Augmented Reality (AR)
as a tool that will not only teach the processes of a skill but will also encourage students to use AR as
a motivational tool which allows them to discover, explore and perform work beyond what is capable
with this revolutionary device.
Chapter 6 explores the use of game-based teaching in teacher education courses where a comparison
of a course taught in a traditional manner to the game-based version is analyzed. Based on an analysis
of the evolution of the author’s use of game-based teaching and details of ways the author overcame
various obstacles in subsequent courses, a number of affordances and constraints of learning manage-
ment systems are presented.
Chapter 7 explores a study on digital texts and learner engagement and the impact of digital and
paper texts on first-grade student learning. Three formats of the same STEM children’s book - a paper
version read by the teacher, a digital version read as a class and facilitated by the teacher, and a digital
version read independently by individual students, without the teacher are examined. Findings highlight
the complexity of learner engagement and need for thoughtful pedagogies.
Chapter 8 discusses the integration of a digital literacy in a Competency Based Curriculum (CBC)
in one country. Multiple approaches, issues, trends, controversies of integrating digital literacy within
the curriculum are highlighted with recommendations for future research directions at the end.
Chapter 9 explores the theoretical ideas educators should explore and understand in relationship to
developing student agency as a pedagogy. It also examines how using it can potentially inspire digital
critical pedagogy.
Chapter 10 describes how a partnership between a teacher education program and a public school
in an introductory course in education was modernized to reflect the current technological & cultural
contexts of the teaching profession. The results of the initiative leading into the development of an
undergraduate course infused with modeling technology used in classrooms today designed upon an
indigenous pedagogical model are discussed.
Chapter 11 describes an investigation into exploring meaning making through multimodal literacy
practices and technology integration for teacher education within the context of an online, secondary
reading course for K-12 teachers.
Chapter 12 describes how traditionally coding has been viewed as a science as in “computer science”
and loosely associated with the logic behind mathematics as well as the math behind machine language.
The author proposes an even more expansive view of coding that applies even to those areas outside of
traditional core subjects such as gourmet cooking, psychology, and physical education.
Chapter 13 examines the effectiveness of digital technology and literacy integration and identify
external and internal factors limiting technology integration commonly found within a typical PreK-12th
grade classroom setting. Factors that also limit school’s integration and possible solutions and recom-
mendations are suggested.
Chapter 14 synthesizes a series of empirical research studies conducted by the authors to examine
factors that can influence the effectiveness of web-based peer assessment with teacher education students.
The findings of the studies are discussed within the larger context of general research in peer assessment.

xxi
 Preface

Chapter 15 reviews the “CRABwalk within the Crosswalk” as it occurs in both the ISTE Educator
standards and TETC competencies. The chapter provides a literature review of K-12 teacher education
and university faculty perceptions as a cultural model base to the presented Crosswalk to Rubric Align-
ment (CRABwalk) protocol.
Chapter 16 describes a study examining the availability of computers and internet in the classroom
or elsewhere at teacher colleges, teacher preparation and training in technology integration as well as
trainers use of technology in classroom instruction. Recommendations for ways to integrate technology
in the classroom are discussed from the results.
Chapter 17 evaluates student peer reflective exchanges across a four-year institution and a community
college and both face-to-face and online modes of instruction at these differing institutions. Effects on
student’s reflectivity ability on both mediums are presented.
Chapter 18 evaluates teacher education from a technological point of view in relation to its conven-
tional perspectives, where teacher education was appraised in conjugation with ICT. The role ICT plays
in teacher education is discussed.
Chapter 19 examines teaching methodologies used by composition instructors in a private university
in Kenya where composition is taught to all undergraduate students. The study adopted a qualitative
approach in the form of narrative inquiry to explore challenging topics in teaching and learning argu-
mentation, methodological interventions, instructors’ use of technology, and to suggest strategies for
addressing problem areas.
Chapter 20 explores a multifaceted critical approach to understanding and deconstructing the term
21st century skills, especially in regard to technology and the role of corporations in the discourses about
education. A critique of neoliberal discourses in education, particularly the neoliberal and corporate
narrative around 21st century teaching and learning is provided.
Our hope is that each of these scholarly manuscripts will help to address the academic readiness of
pre-service teachers as well as help to advance and inform the work of teacher preparation programs
particularly in transformation of novice teachers to be able to deliver effective literacy rich practices in
21st technology-rich classrooms.
This handbook could benefit school administrators, academic affairs administrators, academic deans,
faculty, directors of teaching and learning centers, curriculum, and instructional designers, and other
researchers or stakeholders interested in literacy enrichment and digital technology integration in teacher
education programs.

Jared Keengwe
University of North Dakota, USA

Grace Onchwari
University of North Dakota, USA

REFERENCES

Darvin, R. (2018). Digital literacy, language learning, and educational policy in British Columbia. In
C. Crandall & M. Bailey (Eds.), Global perspectives on language education policies. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Zheng, B., Warshauer, M., Lin, C., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environ-
ments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1052–1084.
doi:10.3102/0034654316628645

xxii
 xxiii

Acknowledgment

We would like to acknowledge the considerable time and effort put forth by all the chapter contributors.
Thank you for your gracious and timely responses to the reviewers’ comments and for your commitment
to submit high quality revised chapters.

We are very grateful to the Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) team. Your incredibly quick turnaround
time in providing invaluable feedback and detailed review notes on the chapters submitted is greatly
appreciated.

Finally, thanks to the wonderful staff at IGI Global who participated in the overall development and
timely completion of this project. Hopefully, we provided you with an end product that you are proud
to share with our global readers.


 1

Chapter 1
From Start to Finish:
A Programmatic Approach to Digital
Literacy in Teacher Education

Amanda R. Hurlbut
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9838-6025
Texas Woman’s University, USA

Sarah McMahan
Texas Woman’s University, USA

Aimee Myers
Texas Woman’s University, USA

Karen Dunlap
Texas Woman’s University, USA

Rebecca Fredrickson
Texas Woman’s University, USA

ABSTRACT
The U.S. Department of Education recently reported that single educational technology courses are not
sufficient experiences to properly prepare preservice teachers for future technology-rich K-12 class-
rooms. Rather, continuous exposure to instructional technology is most effective in improving attitudes
and beliefs toward technology and sustaining deep pedagogical practice. It is essential that all attempts
to create digitally literate teachers should originate from within a cohesive program design rather than
through single “drive-by” courses that integrate technology. The purpose of this chapter is to describe
a programmatic approach used to design a comprehensive digital literacy experience for pre-service
teachers (PSTs) using the U.S. DOE’s recommendations. The chapter will discuss various examples,
including specific course assignments the EPP uses to guide PSTs as they learn to become competent
digitally literate educators. Examples of implementation, copies of PST work, and reflective discussions
continued challenges to sustain the design are included.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch001

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 
From Start to Finish

INTRODUCTION

In 2016, The United States Department of Education (U.S. DOE) sponsored a policy brief that identified
challenges and offered guidance to teacher preparation programs in an effort to more effectively integrate
technology acquisition and competence within the curriculum of new teacher candidates (DOE, 2016).
Under its Guiding Principle #3, programmatic considerations, the DOE reported single educational tech-
nology courses were not sufficient to properly prepare preservice teachers for the future technology-rich
classrooms that await them (Kopcha, 2012). Furthermore, the report noted that continuous exposure to
instructional technology, rather than single, stand-alone courses, led to improved attitudes and beliefs
toward technology and sustained appropriate pedagogical practice among preservice teachers (Polly,
Mims, Shepherd, & Inan, 2010). Therefore, it is vital that any and all attempts to create digitally literate
teachers should originate from within a cohesive program design rather than reside within single “drive-
by” course attempts to integrate technology. Specifically, the U.S. DOE report stated, that attempts to
integrate digital technology in teacher education should, “...ensure preservice teachers’ experiences with
educational technology are program-deep and program-wide rather than one-off courses separate from
their methods courses” (DOE, 2016, p. 14).
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a description of the programmatic approach used to design
a comprehensive digital literacy experience for preservice teachers using the U.S. DOE’s recommenda-
tions. Additionally, this chapter will discuss example course projects focused on the preparation of future
teachers to meet the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards for Educators
(2016); specifically, as learners, leaders, citizens, collaborators, facilitators, designers, and analysts
in addition to an explanation and integration of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK) framework.

ISTE Standards for Educators

One of the guiding principles of the programmatic comprehensive digital literacy experience for preservice
teachers is to build upon concepts and ideas developed through the International Society for Technol-
ogy in Education Standards for Educators, also known as the ISTE Standards for Educators. The ISTE
Standards for Educators is a roadmap to support teachers in guiding students in becoming empowered
learners through amplified technology. These standards assist educators in collaboration with peers,
finding new depths in their practice, and invites them to rethink conventional approaches to education.
There are seven ISTE Standards for Educators (ISTE, 2016).

1. Learner - Educators continually improve their practice by learning from and with others and ex-
ploring proven and promising practices that leverage technology to improve student learning.
2. Leader - Educators seek out opportunities for leadership to support student empowerment and
success and improve teaching and learning.
3. Citizen - Educators inspire students to positively contribute to and responsibly participate in the
digital world.
4. Collaborator - Educators dedicate time to collaborate with both colleagues and students to improve
practice, discover and share resources and ideas, and solve problems.
5. Designer - Educators design authentic, learner-driven activities and environments that recognize
and accommodate learner variability.

2

From Start to Finish

6. Facilitator - Educators facilitate learning with technology to support student achievement of the
2016 ISTE Standards for Students.
7. Analyst - Educators understand and use data to drive their instruction and support students in
achieving their learning goals.

Throughout this chapter, examples of coursework will be provided that are grounded in pedagogical
theory that is based in these ISTE Standards for Educators.

TPACK Framework

The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge model, otherwise known as TPACK, is a curricular
framework organized around three intersecting knowledge domains: content, pedagogy, and technol-
ogy. By using this framework to help merge expertise from all three domains, teachers create lessons/
curriculum that may effectively engage students through innovative and valid strategies grounded in
teaching with technology. By utilizing the TPACK model, teachers examine what they know, how they
teach, and how technology may be used to impact student achievement and learning. The components
of TPACK are defined below:

Content Knowledge (CK)

This domain focuses on the “what” of teaching; the specific facts, concepts, and theories of a particular
discipline.

Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)

This domain focuses on the “how” of teaching; from learning theories to teaching methods, to instruc-
tional strategies and assessments. This domain revolves around both the art and science of teaching.
Within this space, teacher expertise in the art of instructional differentiation for each student resides.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

This is the intersection of the two previous domains, Content and Pedagogy. Strategies in this area include
those that effectively engage students in learning concepts and skills through differentiated learning
choices and scaffolded content instruction.

Technological Knowledge (TK)

This domain focuses on the selection, usage, and integration of appropriate technological tools with
instruction. Emphasis is on the acquisition of QUALITY content through apps, websites, and games
for learning.

3
 
From Start to Finish

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)

This is the intersection of Technology and Content knowledge and focuses on the use of technology
within the content/concept development resulting in deeper learning than that which might occur without
utilization of technology. Technology gives students opportunities and the means to collect evidence,
make observations, and document results. Interactive software gives students the techniques needed to
showcase data findings.

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)

The intersection of Technology and Pedagogical knowledge focuses on the instructor’s ability to effec-
tively choose and manage technology for students by (a) simplifying student workload and (b) providing
opportunities for collaborative learning with peers.

Educator Preparation Program Context

In the current organization structure at this EPP, teacher education candidates receive content training
from professors whose expertise is that particular subject area. Therefore, required content courses are
primarily taken by candidates in classes outside the College of Education. Furthermore, the teacher edu-
cation program is continually challenged to find ways of bridging content and pedagogy in our courses.
One way to approach the situation is through effective/ authentic technology integration. We accomplish
this goal through several purposeful design elements in the educator preparation program (EPP).
Before pre-service teachers are ever accepted into the program, they must take a digital literacy as-
sessment as an admission requirement. This survey operates as a pre-assessment of sorts to measure
what students know and can apply about digital literacy and technology before entering the program. The
survey is aligned with the ISTE Standards for Educators and is also given the semester of graduation to
measure progress in the program and what the PSTs have learned during their time. As mentioned, the
program is designed to offer digital literacy integration across multiple courses, rather than in a single
shot. Therefore, each course and each course instructor holds ownership in ensuring that students are
digitally competent and can use these skills to integrate in instructional settings with students. An ad-
ditional feature of the program is that we offer a yearly training course in Google 1 educator certification
for interested individuals. Because our surrounding school districts and partnerships do not all adopt the
same program, we have not mandated this as a requirement for graduation in our program. However,
we do offer the Google 1 certification preparation course as a way to continually encourage our PSTs to
become digitally competent teachers using an important nationally recognized hallmark.
The chapter is organized into three different cases or examples the EEP uses to guide pre-service
teachers as they learn to become competent digitally literate educators. The first case study will discuss
tools for assessment in education including common education apps used as formative assessment and
a digital assessment portfolio that candidates in our program complete as evidence of learning in the
appropriate teaching standards. The second case will discuss tools used for instructional design and will
look at how certain tools can be used to enhance collaboration among practitioners. The final case will
discuss tools used to facilitate reflection and growth as part of enhancing field experiences. Examples
of implementation, copies of pre-service teacher (PST) work, and reflective discussions of successes
and challenges in this program will also be included in each vignette or section.

4

From Start to Finish

CASE STUDY #1 - DIGITAL ASSESSMENT TOOLS

Our program utilizes various instructional and technological tools in our teacher education experiences
to provide PSTs exposure to different forms of technology applications that exist for instructional and
assessment purposes. Teacher education faculty not only model these tools as part of engaging classroom
learning experiences, but also integrate these tools into classroom assignments so that PSTs become
designers and facilitators of digital assessment. The following details various examples of tools the
authors use to integrate formative and summative assessment within the program.

Interactive Assessment Applications

EdPuzzle is a tool that allows instructors to create/import or select existing teaching videos and embed
quizzes within the video for students to view. The video editing tool allows instructors to not only crop
and edit videos for length or importance, but it also allows them to embed voice memos as a way to
highlight the most important features. Similar to how a face-to-face teacher might pause a video shown
in class to discuss important elements of the film, this feature allows teachers to provide a similar ex-
perience in an asynchronous environment where students can watch the video on their own time with
teacher input. Additionally, EdPuzzle allows instructors to prevent students from fast forwarding through
the video, tracks video completion, and checks for understanding and mastery of the content by allowing
instructors to embed multiple choice and open-ended quiz items (Blackstock, Edel-Malizia, Bittner, &
Smithwick, 2017). EdPuzzle is best used in our classes that are delivered via a hybrid format in a flipped
instruction model. In this format, students read assigned course material and watch videos having to
do with the course content for the week. EdPuzzle allows the course instructor to control access to the
videos by tracking viewing, tracking completion of the video, and grading the quizzes embedded within
for mastery. In a later face-to-face meeting, students expand upon the concepts more in class.
Nearpod is another interactive web application that allows instructors to create engaging and interac-
tive teaching presentations for students while combining interactive assessment features such as quizzes,
open-ended responses, draw-boards, polls, and collaborative posts that students submit throughout the
presentation (Dong, Kavun, Senteney, & Ott, 2018). These activities provide students with active op-
portunities to engage in the content and learning, but also provide instructors with formative assessment
data that can be used to quickly provide learning feedback. Using the interactive features such as the
multiple-choice quizzes or matching/fill-in-the-blank activities, students can also get real time answers
to their responses on these items. The best part about Nearpod is that it can be used synchronously for
face-to-face class meetings or can be set to the student-paced mode where students can asynchronously
access the material on their own time. This tool provides a means for instructors to not only even ngage
their learners, but to provide multiple opportunities to receive feedback on a learning concept.
Other quizzing tools such as Socrative, Poll Everywhere, Kahoot, and Quizlet can accomplish similar
goals by providing an outlet for instructors to check on learning progress and provide immediate learning
feedback to students. In a differentiated instruction and assessment class, students use their knowledge
of these various tools to then explore further in an assigned lesson plan. Students are allowed to choose
from these tools or can research more on their own and have to design an integrated presentation that
uses technology to differentiate instruction while incorporating tenets of formative assessment within the
application. Thus, students experience the technology early-on in the program and then have opportuni-
ties to apply it later when they are in their more senior level course before student teaching.

5
 
From Start to Finish

The Digital Assessment Portfolio

Portfolio Overview

Google Sites provides an optimal platform for our preservice teachers to create a digital portfolio of their
work related to teaching across their time in our preparation program. Because of the availability and
relatively simply design platform, PSTs create and model a digital portfolio as a summative assessment
of their competencies aligned with national, state, and local standards for teaching. Implications of the
digital portfolio assessment in the classroom for future K-12 are also covered as part of this project.
Junior level PSTs who are just beginning the teacher education program take a differentiated instruction
course that includes how to use technology as a way to accommodate for different learning styles. In
this course, students also begin to complete the first part of an ongoing assessment portfolio in which
they attach various artifacts aligned to The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium
(INTASC) national standards for effective teaching, the State Pedagogy and Professional Responsibili-
ties (PPR) standards for pre-service teachers, and the Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System
(TTESS) standards which are specific to Texas in-service teachers (See Table 1 for the alignment of these
standards). During upcoming revisions of the course, the goal is to have students align their artifacts with
the ISTE standards to demonstrate evidence of technology integration in their pre-service work in the
program. However, this is a current initiative and has not yet been implemented. The digital assessment
portfolio occurs in three parts or phases, with each phase occurring at a different part in the program.

Portfolio Phase 1

Students first create a Google site to house their portfolio. The main tenet in this phase is to create the
Google site complete with a home page that introduces the PST as a potential teaching candidate, a page
with their written teaching portfolio, the candidate’s resume, and a navigation page that houses tabs for
each of the 10 INTASC standards. In each tab, students must replicate the INTASC standard, the aligned
PPR and TTESS state standard, and provide a brief reflection that explains in their own words what
the standard means, including look fors in classroom or reflective teaching practice. In all, the finished
product for phase one of the portfolio is establishing an overall design, organization, and structure for
the assessment portfolio to house the input of future attachments as artifacts of teaching and learning.

Portfolio Phase 2

The next phase of the portfolio project is where students spend the majority of their time. This phase of
the project is so big that it is divided into several different steps that occur during a senior level instruction
and assessment course. Each step allows the PST the opportunity to explore in further depth the purpose
of the project, how to accomplish each step, and how the digital assessment portfolio showcases student
growth across the program. Additionally, a substantial amount of time is spent discussing how digital
assessment portfolios can be used in K-12 classrooms with future students. PSTs get experience in how
to put these together by assembling their own authentic examples. The following details the steps and
guidance used to acclimate PSTs to the project, including guiding questions for each step.

6

From Start to Finish
Table 1. Standards alignment for digital assessment portfolio project
INTASC Standards
Standard #1: Learner Development: The teacher
understands how learners grow and develop, recognizing
that patterns of learning and development vary individually
within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social,
emotional, and physical areas, and designs and implements
developmentally appropriate and challenging learning
experiences.
Standard #2: Learning Differences: The teacher uses
understanding of individual differences and diverse cultures
and communities to ensure inclusive learning environments
that enable each learner to meet high standards.
Standard #3: Learning Environments: The teacher works
with others to create environments that support individual
and collaborative learning, and that encourage positive
social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self
motivation.
Standard #4: Content Knowledge: The teacher understands
the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of
the discipline(s) he or she teaches and creates learning
experiences that make these aspects of the discipline
accessible and meaningful for learners to assure mastery
of the content.
Standard #5: Application of Content: The teacher
understands how to connect concepts and use differing
perspectives to engage learners in critical thinking,
creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to
authentic local and global issues
Standard #6: Assessment: The teacher understands and
uses multiple methods of assessment to engage learners in
their own growth, to monitor learner progress, and to guide
the teacher’s and learner’s decision making.
Standard #7: Planning for Instruction: The teacher plans
instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous
learning goals by drawing upon knowledge of content
areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, and pedagogy,
as well as knowledge of learners and the community
context.
Standard #8: Instructional Strategies: The teacher
understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies
to encourage learners to develop deep understanding of
content areas and their connections, and to build skills to
apply knowledge in meaningful ways.
Standard #9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice:
The teacher engages in ongoing professional learning and
uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her practice,
particularly the effects of his/her choices and actions on
others (learners, families, other professionals, and the
community), and adapts practice to meet the needs of
each learner.
Standard #10: Leadership and Collaboration: The teacher
seeks appropriate leadership roles and opportunities to
take responsibility for student learning, to collaborate with
learners, families, colleagues, other school professionals,
and community members to ensure learner growth, and to
advance the profession.
Sources:
INTASC Standards (2013). Retrieved June 15, 2019 from: https://ccsso.org/resource-library/intasc-model-core-teaching-standards-and-learning-progressions-teachers-10.
PPR Standards (2018). Retrieved June 15, 2019 from: https://tea.texas.gov/texas_educators/preparation_and_continuing_education/approved_educator_standards/.
T-TESS Rubric (2016). Retrieved June 15, 2019 from: https://www.teachfortexas.org/.
PPR Standards
Standard #1: The teacher designs instruction appropriate for all
students that reflects an understanding of relevant content and is
based on continuous and appropriate assessment.
Standard #1: The teacher designs instruction appropriate for all
students that reflects an understanding of relevant content and is
based on continuous and appropriate assessment.
Standard #2: The teacher creates a classroom environment of
respect and rapport that fosters a positive climate for learning,
equity, and excellence.
Various Texas content standards - these are covered by an
additional content test that integrates pedagogy.
Standard #3: The teacher promotes student learning by providing
responsive instruction that makes use of effective communication
techniques, instructional strategies that actively engage students in
the learning process, and timely, high-quality feedback.
Standard #3: The teacher promotes student learning by providing
responsive instruction that makes use of effective communication
techniques, instructional strategies that actively engage students in
the learning process, and timely, high-quality feedback.
Standard #3: The teacher promotes student learning by providing
responsive instruction that makes use of effective communication
techniques, instructional strategies that actively engage students in
the learning process, and timely, high-quality feedback.
Standard #1: The teacher designs instruction appropriate for all
students that reflects an understanding of relevant content and is
based on continuous and appropriate assessment.
Standard #3: The teacher promotes student learning by providing
responsive instruction that makes use of effective communication
techniques, instructional strategies that actively engage students in
the learning process, and timely, high-quality feedback.
Standard 4: The teacher fulfills professional roles and
responsibilities and adheres to legal and ethical requirements of
the profession.
Standard 4: The teacher fulfills professional roles and
responsibilities and adheres to legal and ethical requirements of
the profession.
T-TESS Standards
Planning Dimension 1.3 Knowledge of Students: Through
knowledge of students and proven practices, the teacher ensures
high levels of learning, social-emotional development and
achievement for all students.
Instruction Dimension 2.1 Achieving Expectations: The teacher
supports all learners in their pursuit of high levels of academic
and social-emotional success.
Instruction Dimension 2.4 Differentiation: The teacher
differentiates instruction, aligning methods and techniques to
diverse student needs.
Learning Environment Dimension 3.1 Classroom Environment,
Routines and Procedures: The teacher organizes a safe, accessible
and efficient classroom.
Learning Environment Dimension 3.2 Managing Student
Behavior: The teacher establishes, communicates and maintains
clear expectations for student behavior.
Learning Environment Dimension 3.3 Classroom Culture: The
teacher leads a mutually respectful and collaborative class of
actively engaged learners.
Instruction Dimension 2.2 Content Knowledge and Expertise:
The teacher uses content and pedagogical expertise to design and
execute lessons aligned with state standards, related content and
student needs.
Instruction Dimension 2.2 Content Knowledge and Expertise:
The teacher uses content and pedagogical expertise to design and
execute lessons aligned with state standards, related content and
student needs.
Planning Dimension 1.2 Data and Assessment: The teacher uses
formal and informal methods to measure student progress, then
manages and analyzes student data to inform instruction.
Instruction Dimension 2.5 Monitor and Adjust: The teacher
formally and informally collects, analyzes and uses student
progress data and makes needed lesson adjustments.
Planning Dimension 1.1 Standards and Alignment: The teacher
designs clear, well-organized, sequential lessons that reflect best
practice, align with standards and are appropriate for diverse
learners.
Planning Dimension 1.4 Activities: The teacher plans engaging,
flexible lessons that encourage higher-order thinking, persistence
and achievement.
Planning Dimension 1.4 Activities: The teacher plans engaging,
flexible lessons that encourage higher-order thinking, persistence
and achievement.
Instruction Dimension 2.3 Communication: The teacher clearly
and accurately communicates to support persistence, deeper
learning and effective effort.
Professional Practices and Responsibilities Dimension 4.1
Professional Demeanor and Ethics: The teacher meets district
expectations for attendance, professional appearance, decorum,
procedural, ethical, legal and statutory responsibilities.
Professional Practices and Responsibilities Dimension 4.2 Goal
Setting: The teacher reflects on his/her practice.
Professional Practices and Responsibilities Dimension 4.3
Professional Development: The teacher enhances the professional
community.
Professional Practices and Responsibilities Dimension 4.4 School
Community Involvement: The teacher demonstrates leadership
with students, colleagues, and community members in the school,
district and community through effective communication and
outreach.
7
 
From Start to Finish

Step 1: What is a Digital Portfolio and Why Do I Need One?

An educational portfolio is a comprehensive collection of work that demonstrates growth, learning, and
mastery across a period of time. It is typically considered a summative assessment as it shows learning
at a specific point in time compared to the learning standards set forth. In this case, your educational
portfolio will demonstrate growth and competency as a teacher during the time spent in your educational
courses, experiences, and classes in the educator preparation program.
The portfolio is meant to accomplish two things. First, a digital portfolio serves as proof that a teacher
has all the required prerequisite skills and understanding to be a good teacher. Every student who gradu-
ates from the program has to put together a portfolio according to a set of nationally aligned teaching
standards known as the INTASC standards. These are nationally accepted standards for teaching that
are important for success in this profession. Second, the portfolio is intended to demonstrate growth
as teacher candidates progress through the program. Chances are, most teachers would not possess
enough confidence to step into the classroom and teach a lesson during the very first education course.
But hopefully after this class and especially after student teaching, evidence of a growing skillset and
development will be acquired in addition to a greater confidence to teach. The portfolio helps teachers
and students to see this important progression over time.
Compilation of the portfolio will occur by collecting documentation of learning through previous
and current assignments, activities, lesson plans, and other items that show competency as a teacher.
These are called portfolio artifacts. This is just the first step and will be much enhanced once the teacher
participates in field experiences and student teaching.

Step 2: What Are Portfolio Artifacts?

Artifacts are evidence used to demonstrate understanding of a particular concept, in this case under-
standing of the INTASC teaching standards. Artifacts usually come from coursework or teaching related
activities in the program. Experiences that occur outside of the university classroom may also be used
to support understanding of what it means to teach.
Examples of artifacts include completed tests, papers, lesson plans, video and audio clips, children’s’
work, course assignments and other digital items supporting the INTASC standard. Artifacts can come
from this class, other education classes, or other content courses that have prepared you for your teach-
ing degree/profession.
When your portfolio is ready for the mid-program evaluation at the completion of this course, it
should have at least one artifact supporting each InTASC standard. Every time an artifact is associated
with an InTASC standard, there will need to be an accompanying artifact rationale/justification that
explains the artifact and tells why it meets the standard. There are TWO components to this checkpoint.
First, the candidate will comb through files and activities in previous courses to find potential artifacts
that align with the INTASC standards. Second, the candidate will view exemplars of digital portfolios
in previous courses to find examples of effective design, rationales, and artifacts.

8

From Start to Finish

Step 3: What Should My Mid-Program Portfolio Look Like?

In this final step of the mid-program portfolio compilation, candidates will begin to construct artifact
rationales. A rationale is a precise explanation of the artifact’s connection to the INTASC standard and
makes clear connections to the knowledge, dispositions and performance indicators of the INTASC stan-
dards. In other words, the rationale for the artifact explains why the artifact is evidence of understanding
or mastery of the INTASC standard. Rationales link artifacts to INTASC standards and further explain
the content and context of the artifact in relation to the course, the standard, and classroom practice.
The reader should be able to clearly understand how the chosen artifact illustrates understanding of the
standard as well as the importance of that standard to successful teaching practice. When constructing
your artifact rationale, consider these questions:

1. By doing this artifact, what did I learn? (Either specifically or globally)

2. How does this artifact demonstrate my understanding of the standard? (Make a few points connect-
ing your artifact to the standard; “This artifact demonstrates my competence of INTASC Standard
#__ because it shows my understanding about___ and it shows HOW…”)
3. How will the artifact help you as a teacher and how DID or how WOULD your students benefit
from the artifact?

When the portfolio is ready for evaluation at this phase, it should have at least one artifact and a cor-
responding artifact rationale or justification supporting each InTASC standard. Every time an artifact is
associated with an INTASC principle, a separate rationale must be included.

Step 4: Presentation of the Portfolio

At the end of the instruction and assessment course, students have attached at least one artifact per
INTASC standard that mostly includes informal experiences with students through course field appli-
cation. PSTs then have to give a formal presentation that discusses their compilation of the portfolio,
their growth during the semester and the program, and future goals for teaching. Each course instructor
chooses to organize this component in different ways, especially considering that it takes considerable
time to evaluate and present on the entire portfolio for all PSTs in the program. However, one common
element in all presentations is that PSTs:

• Provide a brief professional introduction that includes professional goals, reasons for becoming a
teacher, etc.
• Share a strong or favorite InTASC standard/artifact and discuss why;
• Share a challenging InTASC standard/artifact and discuss why;
• Reflect upon what was learned so far about the course/the program related to the digital assess-
ment portfolio. Describe your professional goals moving forward.

Some PSTs choose to use a screen recording/presentation feature such as Screencastify or Loom to
digitally record their portfolio presentation so that they have an additional artifact for their assessment
portfolio. The following two figures exemplify just a snapshot of the final product from PSTs (used
with permission):

9
 
From Start to Finish

Figure 1. PST example portfolio philosophy statement

Figure 2. PST example portfolio standards page

10

From Start to Finish

Portfolio Phase 3: The Final Portfolio

While the majority of time spent compiling the portfolio occurs during the mid-program phase, the most
important time for PSTs is often when they update and submit their final portfolio. In this phase, PSTs
mainly collect artifacts as evidence in this step, and is essential because it occurs during the student teach-
ing semester when the more formal teaching experiences have occurred. In this experience, PSTs have
more digital artifacts to include such as recorded videos of themselves teaching, examples of feedback
and graded work given to students, delivered lesson plans vs. written ones, and digital lesson integration
with live students. The expectation at this phase is less formal than at the mid-program phase because
PSTs have already established the compilation and expectations of the portfolio and are just adding to
it. PSTs present their final portfolios in the final meeting with their university liaison supervisor and
their assigned classroom mentor teacher.
The authors believe that the digital assessment portfolio is one of the most important projects that
our PSTs complete in the program. This is due to the fact that the ownership lies within three distinct
program experiences, from entry into the program and setting up the portfolio, to just before graduation,
when students are putting the final touches on it. Each course in the program has a distinct part to play
in the development of this online portfolio. Additionally, many of our PSTs use their digital portfolio as
an interviewing tool when they begin to look for teaching positions upon graduation. Students can easily
publish their Google site, add a unique QR code to their resume, and then can provide the portfolio as
evidence of their teaching ability, including technology integration in instruction.
Through this case study focus of digital technology as assessment integration tools, PSTs gain expe-
rience with ISTE standards as learners, designers, and analysts of technology integration. As learners,
PSTs first experience new technology applications in learning settings where course instructors model
and implement technology to facilitate instruction through formative assessment. They also experience
this in the student role when creating their digital assessment portfolio. PSTs first practice as a learner
before transitioning to their role as a designer and analyst of learning with real and hypothetical students.
In these two roles, PSTs conceptualize and create their own lessons as they implement assessment using
a chosen tool and learn to analyze and interpret the results to impact instruction.

CASE STUDY #2 - TECHNOLOGY AS TEACHING TOOLS

A plethora of digital teaching tools exist to assist instructors in meeting all instructional needs of students.
This section of the chapter will focus on examples of how instructors use digital technology to not only
accommodate and differentiate learning experiences for students but as a way to engage and support
learning in digital environments through online and hybrid course offerings.
One such tool that the authors integrate into courses is VoiceThread. This is an online tool that allows
instructors to create narrations using previously established teaching materials (Vickers & Shea, 2017).
Using an iPad or similar device, the instructor creates or imports visual presentation slides and then
records a narrated teaching lecture while moving through the presentation. The recording is then posted
online using a link that can be imported into a learning management system. Similarly, Screencastify
is a tool that allows instructors to record teaching presentations, but uses a feature that records a screen
image or screen recording on a computer. An option of this feature allows instructors to record their
image as a way to establish presence in the teaching sequence. Instructors model usage of these tools in

11
 
From Start to Finish

Figure 3. Flipgrid example screenshot topic

their classes, but expect students to experiment with and create hypothetical assignments for students
using their choice of tools.

Flipgrid

Another tool that is frequently used in our program is Flipgrid. This tool has gained massive popularity
in Kindergarten through Twelfth grade learning contexts and is slowly catching on in higher education
settings (Greene & Greene, 2018). In teacher education, this is important since our PSTs will be expected
to demonstrate proficiency with the latest engagement strategies using technology. Quite simply, Flipgrids
are social-media inspired video discussion boards. In traditional or online classes, students are often
required to post written questions and/or responses to questions on a digital discussion board or aloud
in a discussion forum. Students often have a minimum posting/sharing requirement and are required to
read and respond to others’ posts. Using Flipgrid, the format of this has changed to accommodate the
ease of new video recording capabilities since nearly all students have a camera on their smartphone.
Using Flipgrid, students access the grid board, view the prompt, and then record a brief oral response
using their camera or smartphone device. The video can be re-recorded and saved as many times as the
student wishes before being posted. Students can then view others’ videos and record their own responses.
Flipgrid provides students with benefits of meaningful discussion centered around content, with the ease,
flexibility, and novelty of using a common device. This tool can provide a means for extending learning
in the classroom by switching to more online forums through blogs and other web-hosting capabilities.
In the following example, the course instructor sets up the online discussion topic about how the school
has changed over time and PSTs post their thoughts regarding this post. Students use their computers
or smartphone to respond to the video post. A new feature of Flipgrid is the ability to transcribe words
to provide open captioning capabilities for learners needing this accommodation. Course instructors
can view the discussion threads in the app, and can record a video or type specific feedback directly to
each student. The following two figures show an example screenshot of what this looks like from the
instructor/student view.

12

From Start to Finish

Figure 4. Flipgrid example screenshot instructor view post

Cloud Applications

Prior to cloud-type applications, students working on a group project traditionally had to save their work
to a hard drive, copy and distribute to group members, edit and revise as necessary, and then scramble
to piece together a finished product using multiple copies of a single project. Or students had to be
physically present to provide equal input. Synchronous cloud technology such as the capabilities of
Google Suite applications have completely changed the way that groups can work on a project by allow-
ing students access to a shared document that can be accessed, edited and viewed by all members at the
same time, and then saved automatically for immediate access. This technology has greatly contributed
to the accessibility and ease of using online platforms for learning. For example Google Docs has been
used to facilitate class lectures and discussions (George, Dreibelbis, & Aumiller, 2013), to promote
student inquiry through group collaboration in an online class (Chu & Kennedy, 2011), to conduct and
complete lab experiments and document in real time (Spaeth & Black, 2012), to map important themes
and analytical processes in a literature course (Kucukalic, 2009), and to implement collaborative writing
processes among students (Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen, 2011). Multimedia tools that allow students
to create and edit presentations are hallmarks of higher education.

Data Chat Project

Data literacy is a required skill with the current enhanced focus on standardized testing in today’s class-
rooms. It is vital that teachers are well equipped to read, analyze, and use data to inform instruction for the
growth of their students (Mandinach, 2012). Research suggests that data literacy can influence teachers’
instructional practices by allowing them to formulate instructional goals, use assessment information to
drive instruction, and provide more specific feedback to students (Gambell & Hunter, 2004; Gearhart &
Osmundson, 2009). However, research evaluating techniques and strategies to best prepare future teach-
ers to become data literate is scarce (Greenburg & Walsh, 2012; Reeves & Honig, 2015). Data literacy
is complex because it is often requires a team mentality and varying degrees of proficiency to evaluate
and adequately analyze for patterns.

13
 
From Start to Finish

The data chat project presented in this section is a collaborative group project that provides PSTs
with authentic data to examine. PSTs begin the project by filling in a Google form that allows them to
choose their first, second, and third choice topic. This is an important step because it shows the PSTs how
to use Google Forms as a survey method and provides them the ability to give input on their particular
interests. It also serves as a way to assign students in strategic groups.
The project occurs over several class periods and occurs in several steps. The first class period is
getting students familiar with the various reports that they will be accessing. Students complete a digital
scavenger hunt in which they must watch assigned videos and answer corresponding questions by filling
out a Google form. This helps the course instructor to know who has prepared for the project by grading
it as a quiz grade. The second step is one of the most important steps because it models for students how
to analyze the various reports. The three reports that students access include a demographic report on
student characteristics, and a blueprint report that looks at the various components of the assessment
such as the standards tested, the frequency of the standards, the number of questions, and the standard
categories. The final report is the actual item analysis report that breaks down each test question with
the correct/incorrect responses and the percentages of students who choose each answer choice. This
helps PSTs to begin to see patterns in particular areas of strength and weakness and to address these
areas in instructional interventions aligned to the standards. For practical and accessibility purposes, the
data used is released data from the Texas State Assessment of Academic Readiness or STAAR (Texas
Education Agency, n.d.) test given to Texas school children during the 2017-2018 academic school year.
These scores are readily available and allow teacher educators to protect student confidentiality while
teaching PSTs about data use in authentic contexts. During this step of instruction, course instructors
use Nearpod as the formative assessment method to ensure that PSTs are analyzing the data correctly
and performing math calculations with accuracy. The whiteboard feature of Nearpod allows students
to submit their calculations in real-time and the instructor can correct misunderstandings immediately.
Once they have performed proficiently in this step, PSTs work collaboratively in their assigned groups
to complete the data analysis worksheet which guides students through the various data analysis func-
tions they must perform. PSTs analyze the data set, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the data,
hypothesize underlying causes for the data results, and create an instructional plan of action based on
the information available. By working in a group environment, the goals of the project are better able to
simulate an authentic data meeting that would occur on a K-12 campus. Because the face-to-face time
frame for students to work on this is limited (due to field observations and other course limitations), PSTs
are encouraged to work on these steps through collaborative work in Google docs and Google slides.
After PSTs finish data analysis and interpretation process, the final phase of the assignment is to
continue peer collaboration by creating an informational data presentation for the rest of the class. The
purpose of this phase of the project is to create a simulated environment for PSTs to practice talking
about student performance data in a professional setting. PSTs share their important data conclusions,
instructional strategies, and assessments and then create a visual presentation to deliver. The expecta-
tion is that the presentation will be oriented towards a collaborative team of instructional professionals
(campus principal, intervention specialist, special educator, etc.). A list of the presentation expectations
are provided below.

14

From Start to Finish

Figure 5. STAAR data chat content slide

Figure 6. STAAR demographic slide

Data Chat Presentation Requirements

• Data group and overall performance.

◦◦ Number of students.
◦◦ Test blueprint.
◦◦ Demographics.
◦◦ Charts and visual displays.
• Data strengths.
◦◦ Reporting categories, standards, test questions.
• Data weaknesses.
◦◦ Reporting categories, standards, test questions.
◦◦ Instructional strategies to remedy weaknesses.
◦◦ Formative assessments.
◦◦ Summative assessments.
• Final overall conclusions.

15
 
From Start to Finish

Figure 7. STAAR challenging question slide

Figure 8. STAAR challenging question instructional strategies slide

Figure 9. STAAR challenging question re-assessment slide

16

From Start to Finish

The following figures demonstrate what a final product would look like in the final Google slide data
presentation given by the PSTs. Figure 5 shows the content, Figure 6 shows an example of the demo-
graphic information that was analyzed, and Figures 7, 8, and 9 show a relevant challenging question,
how it was analyzed, how it will be addressed instructionally, and then how it will be re-assessed.
The wide variety of instructional-based technology tools allows PSTs numerous opportunities to
develop their capabilities as digital collaborators, designers and facilitators, and leaders of learning.
Similar to the assessment tools in the first vignette, PSTs have opportunities to design and facilitate
instruction through lesson planning assignments that incorporate technology integration and later teach
them in field-based settings and the practicum semester. But what is unique about our program is that
PSTs also experience true collaboration through our Google cloud integration assignments. PSTs have
traditionally experienced, “group work,” but this does not always translate to true collaboration. How-
ever, purposefully designed technology integration in the assignments better facilitates collaborative
technology skills through authentic tools, sharing ideas and approaches to problems, and identifying
appropriate technology resources to address the stated problems. Furthermore, PSTs have opportunities
to act as leaders in their ability to create a presentation, communicate a vision using data, and advocating
for equitable access for their students through the data chat project.

CASE STUDY #3 - USING TECHNOLOGY TO ENHANCE FIELD EXPERIENCES

EPPs have long struggled to enhance the quality and quantity of field experiences during teacher prepara-
tion coursework (Zeichner, 2010). This final section details the initiatives and ideas that the EPP explored
in using technology to enhance these experiences. For example, teacher candidates in the program have
opportunities to practice teaching in simulated field environments known as TEACHLive before begin-
ning the clinical student teaching experience. TEACHLive allows the PST to interact with digital avatars
as a way to plan and reflect upon their teaching practice using simulated classroom settings.
The department also utilizes digital recording tools as reflection devices in field settings. Using tools
such as Swivl, PSTs can digitally record themselves teaching, can upload the videos to send to course
instructors and university supervisors, and can continually reflect upon the teaching and learning process.
However, the use of digital recording tools requires extra careful attention and close partnerships with
sponsoring K-12 districts since minor children are involved. Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs)
clear partnership agreements, and our challenges and successes with using such tools in the classroom
will be discussed here. This is an especially important conversation in light of recent conversations sur-
rounding the need for more performance-based assessments of preservice teaching before graduation
from the EPP.

Using TEACHLive to Facilitate Authentic Pedagogical Practices

EPPs continue to refine and implement various meaningful experiences in PST preparation. Research
on the importance of early field experiences has been studied for the past 2 decades (Curtner-Smith,
1996; Godt, Benelli, & Klein, 2000; Zeichner, 2010). Unique approaches to pedagogical practices
coupled with high quality field experiences assist PSTs in developing and implementing high leverage
practices to better meet K-12 students’ needs. While field experiences are imperative to PST develop-
ment, it is important that high quality field experiences are created to better prepare PST for entry and

17
 
From Start to Finish

sustainability in the classroom. Field experiences in school-based settings, along with other forms of
field experiences where PSTs are able to practice skills are beneficial to PST learning. Various means
of field experiences have transpired over the years to include augmented and virtual reality simulations.
Virtual learning environments allow PSTs opportunities to practice skills in a low-stakes environment
(Peterson-Ahmad, Pemberton, & Hovery, 2018).
Virtual reality platforms such as TEACHLive and Mursion allow PSTs opportunities to interact with
digital avatars as a way to plan and reflect upon their teaching practice using simulated classroom set-
tings. Our EPP uses TEACHLive with PSTs in connection with their traditional early field experiences
in K-12 settings. PSTs engage in traditional early field experiences (small group teach, observe, teach
a mini-lesson) before entering the clinical student teaching experience. Additionally, we couple the
traditional early field experience with TEACHLive. This gives PSTs additional opportunities to practice
and refine skills that they need to improve upon.

Establishing Teacher Presence

Early field experiences give students opportunities to practice content and skills learned in coursework
in a practical environment. Field experiences also afford PSTs opportunities to establish their profes-
sional presence as an educator. PSTs often find it challenging to shift from that of a “college student” to
that of an “educator.” This is an important paradigm shift that PSTs must develop before entering into
the classroom. One way we help PSTs establish their teacher presence is through the use of practice
in a virtual environment. Early into admittance into the EPP, foundational courses include experiences
where PSTs can practice interacting with kids. One way our EPP gives students experiences to establish
their teacher presence is through the TEACHLive lab. PSTs in foundations of education classes as well
as learning theory and development encounter a demo in the lab prior to ever teaching a lesson. The
demo includes opportunities for PSTs to introduce themselves and establish a rapport with the students
in the TEACHLive lab. In essence they get to “feel out” the students and see more of their personality
traits. Moreover, they have opportunities to engage with the students with a professional presence. For
example, PSTs introduce themselves as Mr. So and So or Ms. So and So. For many PSTs, this is the first
time they have referred to themselves with a professional title. PSTs are also encouraged to use their
“teacher voice and presence” when talking to the student avatars. This first demo interaction serves as
a powerful experience for PSTs early into their program of study.

Refining Skills

The TEACHLive lab is also used to help PSTs refine and practice specific techniques. In the traditional
(school-based) field experiences our PSTs implement a mini-lesson activity in their field placement where
they teach a mini-lesson in collaboration with their assigned mentor teacher. Following their self-reflection
immediately following their implementation of the mini-lesson, they reflect on things that worked well,
didn’t work well, area of growth etc. In particular, the mentor examines the types of questions asked,
wait-time, active engagement of all learners, redirection as needed, etc. PSTs note reflections such as
not giving enough wait time for students to respond when prompted or they note that they call on certain
students but not the entire class. With this information gleaned from their self-reflection, students come
into the TL lab and teach the same mini-lesson to the avatars where they work on targeted skills such as

18

From Start to Finish

questioning, probing, wait time, redirection, etc. This allows PSTs additional opportunities to practice
specific skills in a low-stakes environment where they can truly reflect and improve on such skills.

Difficult Conversations

Moreover, the TL lab allows PSTs opportunities to practice skills that they would not typically get in a
traditional field experience. For example, PSTs are often nervous and anxious about dealing with dif-
ficult situations involving parents and guardians. During the field experience PSTs have limited (if any)
opportunities to interact with parents, thus making the virtual experience exponentially important in
PST development. Since they have limited opportunities to interact with parents and other stakeholders
(much less difficult conversations), we are able to use the TEACHLive lab to create simulated situations
for parent-teacher conferences.
In the beginning, we situate the PST to facilitate a parent teacher conference where they interact with
parents to discuss their students’ progress. This allows the PST to practice interacting in a positive and
productive way, utilizing learned communication skills. The PST begins the conference talking about
the child’s academic progress. The parents ask questions such as “what can we do at home to help our
children improve in math.” The PST responds with specific technology applications to help build the
students’ knowledge of the specific concept (i.e. fractions, multiplication). The parents also ask the
PST to communicate more via emailed weekly newsletters so the parents can be better informed. The
conference ends on a positive note and then the professor is able to debrief with the PST immediately
following the conference.
Giving PSTs opportunities to practice interacting with parents in a positive manner also builds their
confidence to interact with a parent during a challenging or difficult conversation. A few weeks later
the PST is assigned a case study with a parent sharing his/her concern about the amount of homework
given out for a 3rd grader (or older if the PST is a secondary student). The email communication to the
PST includes direct language that could be interpreted as intimidating or more negative. For example:

I am concerned about the amount of homework given to our son (Mark) during the week. He is only
in 3rd grade, yet has homework of that of a middle school student. I do not have time to sit down and
work with him on his homework 3 nights a week. He is involved in football practice on Tuesdays, piano
lessons on Thursdays, and Wednesday night is church. This leaves me little time to work with him since
we often don’t get home till after 8pm and he is exhausted. I would like to meet with you so we can talk
about how to cut down on the homework. After all, this is 3rd grade and it is crazy to have this much
homework at this level.

Following the email, the PST engages in a parent-teacher conference using the TEACHLive lab. The
PST practices the “Oreo” technique they have learned in class (start with something positive, get to the
issue using facts/not judgements, and close the conversation with something positive). During the con-
ference, the PST practices using positive and productive language to resolve the concern. This is often
the most challenging assignment in the course as it requires PSTs to deal with a challenging parent. It
also requires students to practice preparedness, professionalism, and conflict resolution skills. PSTs who
have participated in the difficult conversation activity shared that “it was the hardest thing we did in the
class. It was terrifying responding on the fly to the parents when they told me I was wrong.” However,

19
 
From Start to Finish

PSTs also share that it is also one of the more meaningful, relevant tasks as they realize these types of
encounters will be faced in their future classrooms.

Culturally Responsive Teaching Project

Preservice teachers in a diversity class utilize Google Forms and a Digital 2.0 tool during their field
experiences as part of the coursework through a Culturally Responsive Teaching Project (CRT Project).
The class is heavily founded on a research-based framework for culturally responsive teaching (Brown-
Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). Through the CRT project, students collect primary data from in-service teach-
ers by creating a survey based upon the CRT framework. The survey, created with Google Forms, asks
teachers which of the five CRT principles is the most important in a classroom today and which is the
most difficult to implement. Once they have collected the survey data, they choose 3 teachers from the
field to interview in order to gather more in-depth data. Students then share their summary and analysis
of collected data using a web 2.0 tool of their choice (examples: Piktochart, Weebly, PowToon, etc.).
After they have shared their data, they must create and implement an activity for the classroom that
supports the principle most emphasized in the data they collected from in-service teachers during their
field experiences.
While the CRT project assists in deepening their knowledge of CRT, the project also supports pre-
service teachers’ digital literacy. It is important that new teachers be more than just be consumers of
digital information; future teachers need to also be creators of digital information (Cherner & Curry,
2017; Kuyatt, Holland & Jones, 2015). The purpose of the CRT project is founded in four key areas.

Learning to Listen to Stakeholder Voices

It is important that we hear from theorists and educational experts. However, it is also imperative that
we listen to the voices of those who are in the field working every day. Students and teachers are our
biggest stakeholders; however, their voices are often overlooked when it comes to educational reform
and policy (Scott & Halkias, 2016). Therefore, students in the diversity course participate in the CRT
project to encourage their engagement with the voices of those significantly impacted by CRT.

Developing Their Inner Researcher

As students in a teacher education program, they are constantly engaging with research, but they are
mostly reading research developed by scholars. Doing secondary research is foundational to their un-
derstanding of various pedagogical concepts; however, it is also important for our students to engage
as a researcher (Cornelissen & Van den Berg, 2014). The CRT project assists with their practice and
knowledge of gathering primary research. In addition, students are required to do field hours in the di-
versity course. The CRT research can be a way of connecting and learning with the teachers and K-12
students at their field experience site.

20

From Start to Finish

Sharpening Their Technology Skills

School administrators expect 21st century teachers to engage with technology and develop content with
technology (Bigham, Hively, & Toole, 2014; Rehmat & Bailey, 2014). To gather their primary research,
students in the diversity course create a digital survey using Google Forms. Google Forms is an invaluable
tool for collaborating digitally and gathering data from students, fellow teachers, or parents. In addition,
Google Forms analyzes the results for researchers and organizes results into beautiful, easy to understand
charts. In addition to Google Forms, students must use a Web 2.0 tool to create a visual representation
of their data summaries, analysis, and application. Again, the purpose for this component is meant to
assist future teachers in becoming creators of digital information, not just consumers.

Becoming a Collaborator

“Group work” is a notoriously torturous phrase for many college students (Shimazoe & Aldrich, 2010).
Nevertheless, the teaching profession has collaborative expectations, and practice being a collaborator
is necessary for preservice teachers (Gardiner & Robinson, 2011). Doing group work and being a col-
laborator are not necessarily the same thing. Through the CRT project, students learn about being a good
collaborator through a collaboration guide provided to them. Collaboration is further supported through
digital tools supported through the learning management system. These digital tools allow the professor to
develop formative assessments of their collaboration and offer feedback early in the project development.
In addition, similar to the expectation of being technologically proficient, many school administrators
want new teachers who know how to collaborate with both content teams and interdisciplinary teams.

Project Procedures

Procedures for the CRT Project begin by utilizing digitally collaborative spaces like Google Docs. PSTs
create a Google Doc where they can begin building the project by referring to the Collaboration Guide for
the first steps. Using the Google Doc, PSTs collaboratively create a Task Sheet that includes the names
of all the group members and their agreed upon responsibilities/roles in the project. Included in the task
sheet is a timeline for all the project steps. The Google Doc is then shared with the professor, who is then
able to offer feedback on the document and make suggestions or ask questions for group consideration.
Next, the group creates a draft of the survey using Google Forms. The survey will assist in gathering
data to explore three research questions. PSTs are also asked to include a brief paragraph at the top of
their Google Form survey that explains the project to the participant teachers. The survey questions are
built around a research-based framework that synthesizes seminal work done around culturally relevant
pedagogy and culturally responsive teaching.
Students are informed that the first two questions need to be through a multiple-choice format in
order to gather quantitative results. The third research question should be a short answer format in order
to gather more in-depth qualitative information. The three research questions are as follows:

21
 
From Start to Finish

Figure 10. Example CRT project using Venngage

Source: https://infograph.venngage.com/ (Individualized link not included to protect student confidentiality).

Research Question 1: Which of the 5 CRT principles is the most important in today’s classrooms?

Research Question 2: Which of the 5 CRT principles is the most challenging to implement?

Research Question 3: What are some classroom strategies for making sure we are responsive to all of
our students?

PSTs send out this survey to as many in-service teachers as possible. PSTS can begin by asking their
field experience teacher and also asking that teacher to send it out to other educators on the PSTs’ behalf.
In addition, PSTs can send it out to any family/friends who are teachers. Since they are working in groups,
PSTs are expected to have a minimum of 10 teachers complete the survey. This means they need to send
out the survey to much more than 10 because many teachers might not be able to complete the survey.
After PSTs collect at least 10 responses from teachers, they choose 3 teachers to interview. The
interview should help PSTs gain a deeper understanding of the survey responses. They are given sug-
gested interview questions, but are allowed to develop additional questions on their own. Some of the
suggested interview questions include:

22

From Start to Finish

Figure 11. The What: Example CRT survey data

• Why do you think most teachers felt the _________ CRT principle was the most important?
• Were you in agreement with the other teachers? Why or why not?
• Why do you think the _______ CRT principle was reported as being the most challenging?
• Which classroom strategy did you share on the survey and how does it allow you to be responsive
to your learners’ needs?
• Can you tell me more about ________?
• Why do you feel this way about ______?
• How have you seen _____ done before?

Once PSTs have completed the survey data collection and interview phase, they create a product
that shares what they learned through the CRT project. First, the group chooses a Web 2.0 tool for the
final product. The digital Web 2.0 tool can be any tool that the group agrees upon. A list of tool ideas
is provided to PSTs, but they are allowed to choose a tool not included in the list if they feel it is better
suited for their group. Figure 10 shows an example student presentation of the final product, including
the presented survey data, that was created using the free infographic maker, Venngage:

23
 
From Start to Finish

Figure 12. The What: Example CRT strategy

Figure 13. So What: Example CRT analysis

PSTs must also include in their final product the following basic content: the “what” (summary),
the “so what” (analysis), the “now what” (application). PST groups are encouraged to add additional
information that they deem relevant and meaningful. Below is the project guideline information that is
provided to PSTs about the summary, analysis, and application components:
What: The “what” is a summary of your data collection. First, summarize the results of the first two
research questions. This can be done in a paragraph, a short sentence, or a chart. Also, choose just one
classroom strategy from the third research question and summarize it for us. Lastly, provide a summary
of the interviews you conducted (ex: what type of teachers, ages taught, years being a teacher, name of
school/district, and some of the major questions you asked, etc.) Be sure to use pseudonyms to protect

24

From Start to Finish

Figure 14. Now What: Example CRT implications

participant confidentiality. Figures 11 and 12 below show an example presentation of, “the what” and
the example strategy that PSTs learned about connected to survey data.
So What: The “so what” is your analysis and interpretation of the research you gathered. This is
where you give us the big idea moment. Ask yourself, why is this information important? You should
offer an analysis of what you learned from the survey and the interviews. Figure 13 shows an example
of the, “so what.”
Now What: The “now what” is your planned application based on what you learned. It can also be
a call to action. Tell us what we should “do” with this information as educators. Tell us what you plan
to do as future educators. Your “now what” can be as micro or macro as you choose. You can focus on
actions needed by individual teachers, a K-12 district, teacher education programs, the state department
of education, our community, etc. Figure 14 shows how this was displayed.
These two examples are strongly aligned with the ISTE standard of educators as digital leaders, design-
ers, and analysts. In the first TEACHLive example, PSTs have one of their first experiences facilitating
authentic experiences such as working with simulated student and parent audiences in a virtual reality
environment. They are leaders as they work to implement their newfound skills in this simulated setting.
In the second example, PSTs collect, analyze and present data using appropriate technology tools that
enhance the purpose of a culturally relevant pedagogical practice.

25
 
From Start to Finish

CONCLUSION

Creating, implementing, and maintaining a program-wide digital literacy program to prepare PSTs to
become digitally literate educators is no doubt a daunting task. It takes much commitment and energy to
continually monitor the quality and quantity of experiences that PSTs receive in technology integration.
We no longer teach in the days when a single program course can take ownership for teaching PSTs
about how to use technology in the classroom. Instead, teacher educators must continually demonstrate,
model, and allow time for exploration in how to integrate technology into nearly every feature of teacher
preparation. From assessment and instruction practices, to high quality field experiences, to classroom
management integration, to culturally relevant teaching pedagogies, PSTs must begin to see how tech-
nology and instruction are inextricably linked and are no longer two separate pedagogies of practice.
We write this chapter, drawing from our own experiences in teaching and in teacher education,
while much of it is drawn from our own failures to see how the two connect. We realize that while our
program excels at providing PSTs with a wealth of experience as learners, facilitators, designers, and
analysts, that educators as citizens is a week area that we have yet to address. Teacher educators have a
“mile wide, inch deep” curriculum to cover with PSTs and often our time with them is limited before
they must take content or methods courses or move into their student teaching experiences. Therefore,
our efforts, while ongoing and work-in-progress, to facilitate a truly integrated technology program
embedded within teaching and learning philosophy and pedagogy are by no means the standard that
other programs must follow. However, we believe that the advice and examples provided in this chapter
serve as a starting point for many programs seeking to achieve the same alignment and continuum in
preparing future generations of teachers.

REFERENCES

Bigham, S. G., Hively, D. E., & Toole, G. H. (2014). Principals’ and cooperating teachers’ expectations
of teacher candidates. Education, 135(2), 211–229.
Blackstock, D., Edel-Malizia, S., Bittner, K., & Smithwick, E. (2017). Investigating interactive video
assessment tools for online and blended learning. In International Conference on e-Learning (pp. 31-
39). Academic Conferences International Limited.
Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Hansen, N. (2011). Collaborative writing with web 2.0 technologies:
Education students’ perspectives. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 73–103.
Brown-Jeffy, S., & Cooper, J. E. (2011). Toward a conceptual framework of culturally relevant pedagogy:
An overview of the conceptual and theoretical literature. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(1), 65–84.
Cherner, T., & Curry, K. (2017). Enhancement or transformation? A case study of preservice teachers’ use
of instructional technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 17(2), 268–290.
Chu, S. K., & Kennedy, D. M. (2011). Using online collaborative tools for groups to co-construct knowl-
edge. Online Information Review, 35(4), 581–597. doi:10.1108/14684521111161945
Cornelissen, F., & van den Berg, E. (2014). Characteristics of the research supervision of postgraduate
teachers’ action research. Educational Studies, 40(3), 237–252. doi:10.1080/03055698.2013.870881

26

From Start to Finish

Curtner-Smith, M. (1996). The impact of an early field experience on preservice physical education teach-
ers’ conceptions of teaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(2), 224–249. doi:10.1123/
jtpe.15.2.224
Dong, Y., Kavun, N., Senteney, M., & Ott, J. (2018). Interactive presentation tools using mobile devices.
In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings for the Society for Information Technology & Teacher
Education International Conference (pp. 743-748). Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement
of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 29, 2018 from https://www.learntechlib.org/
primary/p/182605/
Gardiner, W., & Robinson, K. S. (2011). Peer field placements with preservice teachers: Negotiating the
challenges of professional collaboration. Professional Educator, 35(2), 1–11.
George, D. R., Dreibelbis, T. D., & Aumiller, B. (2013). How we used two social media tools to enhance
aspects of active learning. Medical Teacher, 35(12), 985–988. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2013.818631
PMID:23902318
Godt, P., Benelli, C., & Klein, R. (2000, February). Do preservice teachers given early field experiences
and integrated methods courses do better than students in the traditional teacher education program? A
longitudinal plan to evaluate a universities redesign of its teacher education program). Paper presented
at the annual meeting of American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, IL.
Greene, T., & Greene, J. (2018). Flipgrid: Adding voice and video to online discussions. TechTrends,
62(1), 128–130. doi:10.100711528-017-0241-x
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2013). Standards for Educators. Retrieved
from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices
with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109–1121.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014
Kucukalic, L. (2009). Mapping literature courses with google docs and “The Grid.”. English Language
Notes, 47(1), 115–124. doi:10.1215/00138282-47.1.115
Kuyatt, A., Holland, G., & Jones, D. (2015). An analysis of teacher effectiveness related to technology
implementation in Texas secondary schools. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 8(1), 63–70.
doi:10.19030/cier.v8i1.9091
Peterson-Ahmad, M. B., Pemberton, J., & Hovey, K. A. (2018). Virtual learning environments for teacher
preparation. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 54(4), 165–169. doi:10.1080/00228958.2018.1515544
Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher edu-
cation with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26(4), 863–870. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.024
Rehmat, A. P., & Bailey, J. M. (2014). Technology integration in a science classroom: Preservice teachers’
perceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 744–755. doi:10.100710956-014-9507-7

27
 
From Start to Finish

Scott, J. A., & Halkias, D. (2016). Consensus Processes Fostering Relational Trust Among Stakeholder
Leaders in a Middle School: A Multi-Case Study. International Leadership Journal, 8(3).
Shimazoe, J., & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: Understanding & overcoming resis-
tance to cooperative learning. College Teaching, 58(2), 52–57. doi:10.1080/87567550903418594
Spaeth, A. D., & Black, R. S. (2012). Google Docs as a form of collaborative learning. Journal of Chemi-
cal Education, 89(8), 1078–1079. doi:10.1021/ed200708p
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Advancing Educational Technology in Teacher Preparation:
Policy Brief. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/teacherprep/
Vickers, J. C., & Shae, P. (2017). Future directions for social presence. In A. L. Whiteside, A. G. Dikkers,
& K. Swan (Eds.), Social presence in online learning (pp. 191–206). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences
in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89–99.
doi:10.1177/0022487109347671

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Cloud Base: A digital learning tool where collaborative writing and work occurs in a shared space
that is stored independently of a computer device.
Digital Assessment Portfolio: An online collection of work usually housed in a blog, website, or
other digital web hosting service.
Educator Preparation Program: A program that occurs at a university or accredited institution that
prepares, trains and certifies teachers to teach in K-12 educational contexts.
ISTE Standards: International Society for Technology in Education nationally adopted standards
that verbalize what teacher educators, educators, and educational leaders should be able to do regarding
technology integration in educational contexts.
TeachLive Lab: A virtually simulated learning environment that includes programmable avatar per-
sonalities to help PSTs gain authentic experiences in teaching lessons to groups of students or leading
important stakeholder meetings.

28
 29

Chapter 2
Pre-Service Teachers’
Digital Competencies to
Support School Students’
Digital Literacies
Damian Maher
University of Technology Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT
The chapter has two main foci. The first focus is on the types of literacy practices needed by young people
to work in a contemporary digital environment. Policies that impact on the development of digital literacy
development are explored. The aspects underpinning digital literacy are examined and a sociocultural
approach explained. Aspects of safety and ethics are focused on. The first half concludes by discussing
digital games and ways these can be used to develop digital literacies in schools. The second focus is on
the digital competencies that pre-service teachers can develop to support teaching of digital literacies.
Different models for developing digital competencies are outlined. The aspect of critical understand-
ing is then examined. This is followed by exploring digital story telling. Important considerations for
developing digital competencies within and beyond university training are examined. The chapter then
provides some suggestions for further research in this field.

INTRODUCTION

The use of connected digital devices such as smart phones and computers as well as the online sites as-
sociated with these devices is becoming almost ubiquitous in many developed countries. In the United
States for example, the Pew Research Center reported that 95 per cent of teens aged 13-17 have a smart
phone or access to one with 45 per cent stating they are online on a near constant basis (Anderson &
Jiang, 2018). The types of sites these teens visit include Youtube (85%), Instagram (72%) and Snapchat
(69%) amongst others.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch002

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 
Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

Similarly in Australia, smartphone ownership for people aged between 12-24 years of age is 95 per
cent (Statisca, 2019). Internet use by young Australians aged 15-17 years of age is 99 per cent (ABS,
2016). In households with children under 15, 97 per cent had access to the internet going online an aver-
age of 18 hours each week (excluding school use) with access to an average of seven internet connected
devices per household (ABS, 2016).
The figures indicate that young people are accessing a variety of web sites using their own devices
or devices provided in the home in large numbers. Such a high percentage of use means that the way
young people consume and produce information for both personal and educational uses is changing.
Such a change means that the ways they are supported to develop their digital literacies in schools is
becoming increasingly important.
In examining the concept of digital literacy the first half of this chapter will investigate firstly, the
nature of digital literacy. Policies of different countries in relation to digital practices for young people
in schools are examined. This is followed by an examination of some practices in schools to develop
school students’ digital literacy.
In order for young people to develop digital literacies which they can then build upon in the work-
force, it is important that they are supported and taught accordingly in primary and high schools. The
expertise of teachers is important in supporting this process. The second half of this chapter examines
how digital competencies are being developed for pre-service teachers in universities. Whilst the terms
digital literacy and digital competence are often used interchangeably, in this chapter these terms are
used to denote different areas of education. The term digital literacy/literacies is used to refer to school
education while the term digital competency is used to refer to teacher education.

DIGITAL LITERACY IN SCHOOLS

The definition as to what constitutes digital literacy is a contested area and there is no one set definition.
The terms used to describe this concept has changed over time as authors and researchers have sought to
understand the field. ‘Computer literacy’ was the term used during the 1980s with ‘information literacy’
gaining popularity in the early 1990s (Bawden, 2008). Early use of the term digital literacy was used
throughout the 1990s by a number of authors, who used it to refer to the ability to read and comprehend
information items in the hypertext or multimedia formats which were at that time becoming available
(Bawden, 2001).
As defined by Gilster (1997), the term digital literacy refers to the ability to understand and to use
information from a variety of digital sources and includes the ability to read, write and otherwise deal
with information using technologies. A definition of what constitutes digital literacy also includes
“knowing how to act safely and responsibly online” (Australian Government, cited in NSW Education
Standards Authority, 2017, p. 7). Thus, digital literacy is about mastering ideas, not keystrokes where:
“Not only must you acquire the skill of finding things, you must also acquire the ability to use these
things in your life” (Glistner, pp. 1–2).
The concept of digital literacy is therefore multifaceted. Bawden (2001) set out skills and competen-
cies under the umbrella term ‘digital literacies’ which includes:

30

Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

• knowledge assembly,” building a “reliable information hoard” from diverse sources

• retrieval skills, plus “critical thinking” for making informed judgements about retrieved informa-
tion, with wariness about the validity and completeness of internet sources
• reading and understanding non-sequential and dynamic material
• awareness of the value of traditional tools in conjunction with networked media
• awareness of ‘people networks’ as sources of advice and help
• using filters and agents to manage incoming information
• being comfortable with publishing and communicating information. (p. 20)
In this chapter, the concept of digital literacy is rooted in a social cultural foundation. From this
perspective, rather than thinking of literacy as one unified practice, it is better understood as literacies.
According to Lankshear and Knoble (2008), such an understanding has two important implications. The
first is that reading and writing vary enormously. The second implication is that the different ways of
reading and writing and the way these are culturally situated and learnt are themselves digital literacies.
Accordingly, from a sociocultural perspective, learning is referred to “... as the appropriation and mastery
of communicative (including conceptual) and technical tools that serve as meditational means in social
practices” (Säljö 1996, p. 91). “Meaningful digital literacy education should encompass a broad suite of
skills reflecting young people’s social and cultural engagement in a networked society, their self-expres-
sion, identity formation and participation in an online world” (Connolly & McGuinness, 2018, p 77).
Many school-aged people worldwide who have been labelled Gen Z and Gen Alpha have grown up
in a digital community. The importance of young people learning digital literacies has been fuelled in
part by the rise in use of mobile devices, social networking and the use of the internet more broadly.
In response to digital practices by young people, school jurisdictions have started to develop policies
relating to digital literacy skills. Part of the Europe 2020 strategy is a digital agenda to promote digital
literacy, skills and inclusion. This strategy, as well as supporting individuals, is also designed to benefit
the Union by helping with climate change and the aging population amongst other social and environ-
mental reforms (Europe 2020 Strategy, n.d.).
Countries within the European Union are developing policies to guide practice. Norway, for example
developed a policy in 2006 in relation to digital literacies making it one of the first countries to do so.
Digital skills is one of the five basic skills which also include oral skills, reading, writing and numeracy
as set out in a basic skills framework (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2012). In fo-
cusing on digital skills, the fields set out in the framework include; searching, processing, production,
communication and digital judgement.
Ireland has produced a document called the ICT Skills Action Plan, 2014-2018 (Department of Jobs,
Enterprise and Innovation, n.d.). At the primary and secondary schooling levels, the aim is to promote
STEM career opportunities and career pathways open to students. Some of the strategies providing courses
in digital literacy as well as programming and coding, embedding the key skill of digital technology into
all subjects, and ensuring all teachers receive continuous professional development.
Australia has also undertaken some work in this area. In June 2008, a Joint Ministerial Statement
issued by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA)
and the Ministerial Council for Vocational and Technical Education (MCVTE) stated that: “Australia
will have technology enriched learning environments that enable students to achieve high quality learn-
ing outcomes and productively contribute to our society and economy” (MCEETYA, 2008). In response
to this a national curriculum has been developed which has technologies embedded into it. However,

31
 
Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

it is claimed that Australia is falling behind ... “with other countries including higher level computing
activities in the curriculum at a much younger age than in Australia” (Thompson, 2015).
In moving to examine young people’s digital practices it is important to understand the different
purposes young people use technology for so that appropriate learning experiences can be designed to
support their digital literacy development. Darvin (2018) identified six different uses which include:

1. Identity representation: e.g., taking selfies, constructing a Facebook profile

2. Artistic expression: e.g., posting pictures on Instagram, publishing fan fiction stories online
3. Facilitation of social relations: e.g., chatting with friends on Snapchat
4. Consumption and production of knowledge: e.g., reading news online, preparing PowerPoint for
science class
5. Exchange of goods and service: e.g., ordering books on Amazon
6. Entertainment: e.g., playing Minecraft, watching a movie on Netflix.

Clearly, there are a wide range of uses that young people access online spaces for, both for the pur-
poses of consumption and production of digital content.
One of the issues impeding the development of digital literacies for young people in schools is lack of
full integration into the curriculum, which is resulting in a disconnect between young people’s in-school
and beyond-school experiences. According to Haugue and Payton (2010):

The use of technology [young people] experience in schools often bears little relevance to the ways in
which they are communicating and discovering information outside of school ... Young people’s own
knowledge, ideas and values are not reflected in the education system and school learning can have little
or no bearing on their lives, concerns, interests and perceived or aspirant futures. (p.11)

One recent example of this disconnect between home and school has been banning of the use of mobile
phones in schools in some countries. At the time of writing this chapter, France had banned all mobile
devices (including smart phones, tablets and smart watches) in schools for students under 15 years of
age. Some schools in other countries have also banned the use of mobile devices. In New South Wales,
Australia, for example, a ban was placed on the use of mobile phones in all public primary schools in 2019
(NSW Department of Education, 2019). There is debate in NSW where school principals are suggesting
the use of mobile phones should be incorporated into the curriculum. As one principal stated “children
should be learning digital citizenship to address issues like cyber-bullying rather than banning devices,
which could be used for research or sharing work” (Hunter, 2019). Discussion is needed at both national
and school levels to ensure that the technologies needed to support learning are available in schools to
provide important learning opportunities to develop digital literacies for young people.

Learning How To Be Safe Online

As highlighted earlier, one aspect of digital literacy for young people is have the knowledge as to how to
act safely and ethically online. Companies and individuals target young people through setting up online
sites with the knowledge that they lack some of the cognition skills whilst not necessarily the digital
skills. Young people access to legitimate sites can also end in difficulty, through them not following
procedures or not understanding the implications of their actions. “Young people can get themselves

32

Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

into mental, physical, emotional or financial difficulties if they do not have the skills to safely navigate
in an online world” (Maher, 2013, p. 71). It is therefore important that young people are equipped with
both cognitive and digital skills, which go hand-in-hand.
Some of these skills as outlined by Cassidy, Faucher and Jackson (2013) include empowering students
in terms of technological skills, critical thinking skills, netiquette, e-safety skills, assessment of online
risks, and how to protect themselves, as well as their reputation and privacy online.
Student reception of cyber-safety programs and initiatives is an emerging area of research, in part
because the various cyber-risks are rapidly evolving with technological developments e.g., “concerns
over teen sexting have more recently become associated with their use of the application Snapchat …”
(Adorjan & Ricciardelli, 2019, p. 3). In a study conducted by these authors with participants aged between
13 and 19, it was found that the concentration of cyber-safety messages is being received in junior high
school, with less emphasis by the time students reach senior high school. They argue it appears high
school students are expected to have successfully internalised the directives for online safety received
in earlier grades. This is problematic as the types of experiences younger students have in comparison
to older students are very different and the types of skills needed are also different.
In a study focusing on student opinions regarding cyber safety, the most frequently raised concerns
were that school curricula were deemed outdated, providing too much generic information, and empha-
sizing extreme cases which were unconvincing and not relevant to the students’ daily experiences (Fisk,
2016). However, Fisk (2016) reported that younger students found the programs more relevant than older
students. He stated that high school students are tired of youth internet safety.
School-related learning requires young people to engage online with content and other people both
at school and at home. Given this, it is important that schools provide opportunities for young people
to be able to interact online where they develop the skills and knowledge they need to ensure safety and
well being. The role of authorities in supporting such education is important. One example is the Qatar’s
Ministry of Information and Communications Technology, known as ictQATAR who work alongside
teachers and parents to teach children internet responsibility and safety (Spires, Paul, & Kerkhoff, 2019).
In Australia, the office of the eSafety Commissioner (funded by the Australian Government), provides
resources for use in schools as well as information for parents/carers.

Developing Digital Literacies Through Serious Digital Games

One way that students can develop digital literacies is through the use of serious digital games. A serious
game has been defined as a game in which education (in its various forms) is its primary goal, rather
than entertainment (Breuer & Bente, 2010). Such games provide students with opportunities to learn
from their involvement within a structured experience (Maher, 2019). According to Prensky, (2012),
it is important that teachers find ways to create 21st century citizens, which requires fully integrating
skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, video and programming into teaching. In this respect,
serious games may help teachers in this area (Lorenzi, et al., 2019).
Many young people engage in digital games in their homes. In a Digital Australia report for example
(Brand, Todhunter, & Jarvis, 2017), it was found that 97 per cent of homes with children had video
games. This figure is also similar for teens aged 13 to 17 in the United States where it was found in one
study that 84 per cent of teens say they have or have access to a game console at home, and 90 per cent
say they play computer games (whether on a computer, game console or cellphone) (Anderson & Jiang,
2018). Clearly, a high percentage of young people play digital games. In education, digital games are

33
 
Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

being introduced into the classroom that are aligned with the school curriculum and more easily inte-
grated into instruction (DeCoito & Richardson, 2018). This makes them a useful tool to support learning.
There are a number of benefits for young people through learning with series digital games. Some
of these benefits include increasing learning effectiveness, interest, and motivation (Boyle, Connolly,
& Hainey, 2011). Digital games also provide an engaging and safe environment, where students can try
alternatives and observe the consequences, learning from their own mistakes (Prensky, 2007).
An example of a digital game that has educational benefits is Mindcraft. This game was highly
popular around 2011. According to Dezuanni, Beavis, and O’Mara (2015), it has educational potential.
According to Dezuanni (2018): “Minecraft digital making provides new possibilities for thinking about
media literacy in digital contexts that necessarily complement established media literacy knowledge
and skills” (p. 246).
Whilst there have been concerns addressed about the overexposure of digital games to young people
and the content such as violence, online grooming, gambling addiction etc. (eSafety Commissioner,
n.d.), there are many important skills and bodies of knowledge that young people learn through playing
games as discussed. It is important that these sophisticated skills and knowledge young people develop
at home through digital game playing can be captured so that other students in schools can benefit. It
is important therefore, that teachers have an understanding of the digital games young people play and
how they can develop skills and knowledge that align with curriculum outcomes. Such an understanding
should be part of the curriculum that they undertake as pre-service teachers.

PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ DIGITAL COMPETENCIES

Teachers’ digital competencies are different from the digital competencies for those in other professions
(Guðmundsdóttir, Loftsgarden, & Ottestad, 2014). That is because they are required to model appropriate
use of digital resources and tools through their practice, whilst drawing on theoretical and pedagogical
underpinnings to foster skills/knowledge.
As regard to what constitutes teachers’ digital competencies, Krumsvik (2012) argues that proficiency
in using digital technologies with sound pedagogical and theoretical underpinnings, and being mind-
ful of the implications of such use in schools defines a teacher’s digital competence. Krumsvik (2008)
suggests that teachers’ technological capability also comprise knowledge of socially, culturally ethical
and responsible use of technology.
One of the early digital literacy models is the Media and Information Literacy (MIL) Curriculum
and Competency framework developed by UNESCO in 2011. The aim of the framework is to provide
teacher education systems with “a framework to construct a program for turning out teachers who are
media and information literate” (UNESCO, 2011, p. 19). The framework includes three key interrelated
thematic areas: 1. Knowledge and understanding of media and information for democratic discourses
and social participation, 2. Evaluation of media texts and information sources and 3. Production and
use of media and information
A more recent and tightly focused framework on digital competence is the Digital Competence
Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu) (Redecker, 2017), which has been developed for the European
Union. The six DigCompEdu areas focus on different aspects of educators’ professional activities. Each
area is explained as follows:

34

Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

Area 1: Professional Engagement

Using digital technologies for communication, collaboration and professional development.

Area 2: Digital Resources

Sourcing, creating and sharing digital resources.

Area 3: Teaching and Learning

Managing and orchestrating the use of digital technologies in teaching and learning.

Area 4: Assessment

Using digital technologies and strategies to enhance assessment.

Area 5: Empowering Learners

Using digital technologies to enhance inclusion, personalisation and learners’ active engagement.

Area 6: Facilitating Learners’ Digital Competence

Enabling learners to creatively and responsibly use digital technologies for information, communica-
tion, content creation, wellbeing and problem-solving. (Redbecker, 2017, p.16).
This model is useful as it supports educators at all levels of education, from early childhood to higher
and adult education, including general and vocational education and training, special needs education,
and non-formal learning contexts. Introducing it (and others like it) in pre-service teaching training
courses provides pre-service teachers with an important framework which can be then be adopted and/
or applied in schools.

Dealing With Fake News

In using the Digital Competence Framework, area 6 focuses in part on enabling learners to be able to
responsibly use digital technologies. In accessing a large amount of online material, it can be difficult to
assess the authenticity of such material. It is therefore important that young people in schools be provided
with opportunities to critically evaluate content on the internet. In turn, pre-service teachers should be
provided with opportunities to develop such skills in teacher training courses.
One issue that has gained prominence recently that draws attention to the importance of digital com-
petence is the aspect of ‘fake news’. Whilst the term was popularised by US President Trump the term
fake news has existed since the 1890s, and prior to that, the term was referred to as ‘false news’ (Watson,
2018). One of the significant enablers of fake or false news was the printing press. The advent of the
internet has meant that anyone is now able to publish information that is not subjected to any editorial
or other vetting processes.

35
 
Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

One method that has been taught to pre-service teachers to evaluate websites has been to use a check-
list. The approach has been suggested by prominent United States and Canadian organisations such as
Common Sense Media, the News Literacy Project, Canada’s Media Smarts, and the American Library
Association. However, according to Breakstone, McGrew, Smith, Ortega and Wineburg (2018), this is
not the most useful strategy. Some of the questions in checklists include: who is the intended audience,
when was the information published, who publishes it etc? One of the common checklists is known
as the CRAAP test, where the reader is asked to look at currency, relevance, authority, accuracy and
purpose. Such tests are of limited use as they do not help the reader to understand the authenticity of
the information.
A better strategy according to Breakstone et al. (2018) in observing fact-checkers is to leave the
website under scrutiny and search across the web to see what they could find about the trustworthiness
of the source of information. Websites can include manipulated features such as logos and domain
names, giving them a deceptive official appearance, when in reality, they may not be. Breakstone et al.
proceed to suggest that …”teachers must be provided professional development about how to evaluate
online information. Teachers also need instruction in how to integrate these new digital strategies into
their classrooms and time to plan with colleagues in other subjects and grade levels to ensure integration
across the curriculum” (p. 31). Such training should also be part of pre-service courses so that teachers
start their career with skills that they can build upon.

Digital Story Telling

One particular area of focus in relation to digital and media literacy in teacher education is story telling.
According to Robin (2009):

At its core, digital storytelling allows computer users to become creative storytellers through the tra-
ditional processes of selecting a topic, conducting some research, writing a script, and developing an
interesting story. This material is then combined with various types of multimedia, including computer-
based graphics, recorded audio, computer-generated text, video clips, and music so that it can be played
on a computer, uploaded on a web site, or burned on a DVD. (p. 222)

One focal project in this area was the e-MEL project that was conducted between 2014 and 2017 with
six European organisations including universities (Ranieri & Bruni, 2018). Results of the study, focus-
ing on undergraduate primary school pre-service teachers, found that “digital storytelling as a practice
engages students in learning by doing processes may provide rich opportunities to improve pre-service
teachers’ skills of media analysis and production’ (2019, p. 107). In particular, the program was found
to be effective for the improvement of media skills linked to the analytical process of understanding
images, while there was less progress in the area of media production and media education skills. The
authors suggest that the design and the management of media production activities within university
contexts require more attention.
Not only can engagement in digital storytelling support the development of the practical skills and
knowledge as outlined above, an important outcome of engaging in digital story telling is that it can sup-
port the development of reflective skills. Such skills are important for pre-service teachers as they relate
to the development of practitioners’ self-awareness and critical thinking (Finlay, 2008). According to a
study by Challinor, Marin and Tur (2017), who examined both pre-service teachers and social care workers

36

Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

in UK and Spanish universities, it was found that deeper levels of self-awareness were apparent through
the process of developing digital storytelling skills. The authors concede however, that these skills are
not innate and must be scaffolded through well-crafted pedagogical interventions over a period of time.
Other studies have focused on how areas are combined in pre-service courses, such as mathematics
and digital story telling. In one study with pre-service teachers in the U.S., analysis of data was conducted
using the technology, pedagogy and content knowledge (TPACK) framework model (Walters, Green,
Goldsby, & Parker, 2018). Walters et al. found that the pre-service teachers were able to develop maths
content knowledge and embed technology into their teaching when taught problem-solving teaching
strategies for mathematics that included digital storytelling, which provided a context that connected
mathematics and literature.
In Slovenia, Istenic Starčič, Cotic, Solomonides, and Volk’s (2016) study, focusing on the interrelation
of maths and digital storytelling, also highlighted the importance of pedagogical, technical and content
knowledge competencies as a way of helping to develop PSTs’ multimodal literacy and composition
mathematical problem solving and their ability to teach mathematics. The authors stress the importance
of integrating the use of ICT within the education of pre-service teachers rather than making it adjunct
to this process. However, while learning with technologies is important there are times when learning
about digital technologies can be equally important, but this should always be contextualised around
subject matter and with pedagogical practices in mind.
Another field examined in relation to digital story telling is English as a Second Language (ESL)
teaching. Similar to findings above, the authors of one study noted that: “If teacher education programs
want to prepare ESL student teachers to teach ESL in innovative ways with ICT, then teacher educators
and mentor teachers need to reflect on how they use these digital tools in their own teaching practice”
(Røkenes & Krumsvik, 2016, p. 17). The authors found in relation to ESL that while the pre-service
teachers rated themselves highly in regards to the digital competence, observational and interview data
indicated that they only used elementary and basic digital skills in their teaching practice. The authors
suggest that preparation of ESL student teachers should also involve … “promoting the more complex
dimensions of digital competence including didactic ICT-competence, learning strategies, and digital
Bildung” (Røkenes & Krumsvik, 2016, p. 17).
The notion of Buildung forms part of a digital competency framework developed by Krumsvik (2014)
and relates to the:

awareness of ethical considerations, social implications, and effects that ICT

has on human development, how to deal with these issues, and how to foster

positive moral behaviour and use of ICT by discussing ethical pitfalls and

dilemmas involved with pupils’ increasingly digital lifestyle inside and outside

of school (e.g., cyberbullying, plagiarism, source criticism, illegal downloading,

privacy, online anonymity, escapism) (p. 4).

37
 
Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

Motivation was also found to be an important factor for foreign language pre-service teachers as
reported by Guillén-Gámez, Lugones and Mayorga-Fernández, (2019). In this study, conducted with
134 Primary Education students from the Pontifical University of Salamanca, the authors report that
motivation is the variable that most positively influences pedagogical digital competence development
and that it is important that “foreign language teachers must make use of the tools available to them to
teach languages” (Guillén-Gámez et al., p.13).

Conditions Needed For Successful Learning And

Teaching Within And Beyond The University

It is important that for the training of pre-service teachers that there are a number of conditions to sup-
port this process. The first condition is the competence of the educators training the pre-service teach-
ers. Without this, the skills and knowledge that pre-service teachers develop will be limited. A second
important condition is that pre-service teachers have time to develop and apply their digital competen-
cies in schools and have time to reflect upon their experiences. As pointed out by Ng (2011), trained
teachers begin their profession with a baseline level of knowledge on content and pedagogy, but do not
posses appropriate digital skills because of a lack of dedicated time to develop such competence through
education and training.
Another important aspect in relation to development of digital competencies for pre-service teachers
is self-efficacy. A point made in relation to this is that often students will have low levels of mastery
(Calderhead, 1991) which can affect self-efficacy. Through practise, at both the mastery and self-efficacy
level, levels of mastery will develop. As suggested by Elstad and Christophersen (2017), it can inferred
that mastery and self-efficacy are useful for motivating individuals toward continued improvement.
It is important, therefore, that pre-service teachers have opportunities to develop mastery both at
the university and in schools. Based on their research, Gudmundsdottir and Hatlevik (2018) found that
pre-service teachers report that the quality and contribution of ICT training through their teacher train-
ing education is poor (Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, 2018). The authors report that one of the factors
impacting on self-efficacy was teachers’ development of professional digital competence during initial
teacher education. Providing opportunities in schools can be problematic as not all school classrooms
have technologies and if they do, the teacher may not use them in ways that support the pre-service
teachers’ understanding.
It is pertinent to note that the initial training is part of a teacher’s lifelong learning journey. Pre-service
teachers can only be trained broadly as it is not generally unknown where they will subsequently teach,
much less the nature of a 40-year career span. Ways that in-service teachers will engage with technol-
ogy to support their teaching and learning will be impacted by external factors when they start teaching.
One external factor is the culture of the schools that teachers work in can have a significant impact
on the way they work with digital technologies. For successful integration to occur it is important that a
whole-of-school approach be taken by school executive where there are appropriate means of available
technology and that this be enabled by technical support. The role of the Principal for example, can have
a big impact on the culture of the school and thus the ICT use by teachers (Hadjithoma-Garstka, 2011;
Tezci, 2011). As well as digitally competent leaders, technical help and encouragement are required to
integrate technology successfully into schools (Omwenga, Nyabero, & Okioma. 2016). In line with this
is the importance of on-going opportunities teachers have to further develop their skills and knowledge.
The pedagogical dimension is also important.

38

Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

Many pre-service teachers have grown up in a time of digital technologies and are what Prensky
(2001) call digital natives. This idea has been critiqued by a number of authors. Jones, Ramanau, Cross
and Healing (2010) for example, suggest digital natives are not necessarily able to use digital technolo-
gies in a knowledgeable or critical way. Not only do pre-service teachers need knowledge and skills
to be able to use technologies, they also need pedagogical understandings associated with their edu-
cational use. Universities and other training organisations provide an important starting point to equip
pre-service teachers with the skills and knowledge they will need to incorporate technologies into their
teaching practice. Once they start teaching, on-going support and training opportunities by schools and
educational authorities are essential as well as informal learning opportunities that teachers themselves
initiate. It is important that learning at university lays a strong foundation in digital competency which
in-service teachers can build upon.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

As noted by Ranieri and Bruni, (2018), research on media and digital literacy in the university context
is limited. They believe that a greater orchestration among disciplinary perspectives would derive ben-
efits from the different disciplines studying media and digital literacy and lead to a more systematised
curriculum for teachers’ preparation. The challenge here is influences of cultural, social and political
contexts. Stemming from this, they suggest that … “a better understanding of pedagogical models for
teacher preparation would improve the quality of learning, especially in the context of higher education,
where factors such as the size of the classroom, the rigidity of the organization, the institutional mission,
the need for final examinations and so on, impact highly on the instructional approach” (p.107).
The aspect of policies has been examined in the chapter. Whilst some research has been undertaken
there is a need for further research. Krumsvik (2014), as well as Instefjord and Munthe (2016) point
out the need for further research on how digital competence policies can be integrated into institutions
so that teachers can meet the requirements of today’s digitalised schools. Wastiau et al. (2013) suggest
the need for a solid formalisation in policy of teachers’ professional development activities in relation
to their digital competencies in both schools and universities.
Finally, there is a need to link different levels of the educational systems to build further knowledge on
digital competence in educational contexts (Pettersson, 2018). Future research should therefore elaborate
on how a more comprehensive theorisation of pedagogical aspects of digital competence can be set out
to develop the types of learning at university and how this then informs in-service teachers’ work in the
school sector. In this regard there is very limited research.

CONCLUSION

In this chapter aspects relating to teachers’ digital competencies have been examined. The first half of
the chapter examined practices relating to schools and external factors including policies. It is clear that
young people of school age are developing their own digital literacies at home which can be supported
and further developed in schools.

39
 
Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

The second half of the chapter focused on practices within the tertiary context and beyond. As has
been stated in this chapter, it is important that pre-service teachers have opportunities to develop their
digital competencies in tutorials at university and also whilst on professional experience in schools. It
is also equally important that they be provided with opportunities to continue their development once
they become teachers.
There are a number of areas suggested in this chapter for further research which represent only a
small percentage of what is needed now and into the future. As digital technologies become further
embedded into the day-to-day lives of young people and into education, this will increase the need for
further research. Such research includes, but is not restricted to, aspects relating to practice to ensure
that pre-service teachers are equipped with the digital competencies they need to support the digital
literacy development of young people.

REFERENCES

Adorjan, M., & Ricciardelli, R. (2019). Student perspectives towards school responses to cyber-risk and
safety: The presumption of the prudent digital citizen. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–13.
Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, Social Media & Technology 2018. Pew Research Center. Re-
trieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2016). 8146.0 Household use of information technology, Australia,
2014–15. Canberra: ABS. Retrieved from www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs @.nsf/mf/8146.0
Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. The Journal of Documenta-
tion, 57(2), 218–259. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000007083
Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knoble (Eds.), Digital
literacies: Concepts, policies and practices. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Boyle, E. A., Connolly, T. M., & Hainey, T. (2011). The role of psychology in understanding the impact
of computer games. Entertainment Computing, 2(2), 69–74. doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2010.12.002
Brand, J., Todhunter, S., & Jervis, J. (2017). DA: 18 Digital Australia Report. Eveleigh, Australia: In-
teractive Games & Entertainment Association.
Breakstone, J., McGrew, S., Smith, M., Ortega, T., & Wineburg, S. (2018). Why we need a new approach
to teaching digital literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(6), 27–32. doi:10.1177/0031721718762419
Breuer, J., & Bente, G. (2010). Why so serious? On the relation of serious games and learning. Journal
for Computer Game Culture, 4, 7–24.
Calderhead, J. (1991). The nature and growth of knowledge in student teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 7(5-6), 531–535. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(91)90047-S
Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among youth: A Comprehensive review
of current international research and its implications and application to policy and practice. School Psy-
chology International, 34(6), 575–612. doi:10.1177/0143034313479697

40

Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

Challinor, J., Marin, V., & Tur, G. (2017). The development of the reflective practitioner through digital
storytelling. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 9(2/3), 186–203. doi:10.1504/
IJTEL.2017.084498
Connolly, N., & McGuinness, C. (2018). Towards digital literacy for the active participation and engage-
ment of young people in a digital world. In M. Magkou, R. Schwalbach, & B. Spruyt (Eds.), Perspectives
on youth: Young people in a digitalised world, 4, 77. Council of Europe.
Darvin, R. (2018). Digital literacy, language learning, and educational policy in British Columbia. In
C. Crandall & M. Bailey (Eds.), Global perspectives on language education policies. New York, NY:
Routledge.
DeCoito, I., & Richardson, T. (2018). Using technology to enhance science literacy, mathematics lit-
eracy, or technology literacy: Focusing on integrated STEM concepts in a digital game. In M. Khosrow-
Pour (Ed.), Information and technology literacy: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp.
1561–1582). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3417-4.ch080
Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. (n.d.). ICT Skills Action Plan, 2014-2018. Retrieved
from https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/ICT-Skills-Action-Plan-2014-2018.pdf
Dezuanni, M. (2018). Minecraft and children’s digital making: Implications for media literacy education.
Learning, Media and Technology, 43(3), 236–249. doi:10.1080/17439884.2018.1472607
Dezuanni, M., Beavis, C., & O’Mara, J. (2015). Redstone is like electricity: Children’s performa-
tive representations in and around Minecraft. E-Learning and Digital Media, 12(2), 147–163.
doi:10.1177/2042753014568176
DigCompEdu. (2017). Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu). Retrieved from
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC107466/pdf_digcomedu_a4_final.pdf
Elstad, E., & Christophersen, K. A. (2017). Perceptions of digital competency among student teach-
ers: Contributing to the development of student teachers’ instructional self-efficacy in technology-rich
classrooms. Education in Science, 7(1), 27. doi:10.3390/educsci7010027
eSafety Commissioner. (n.d.). Safety parents and carers: Tips and advice on helping your child have safe
and enjoyable experiences online. Retrieved from https://www.esafety.gov.au/parents/big-issues/gaming
European Commission. (n.d.). Europe 2020 strategy. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/europe-2020-strategy
Finlay, L. (2008). Reflecting on ‘reflective practice’. PBPL paper 52. Retrieved from https://www.open.
ac.uk/opencetl/sites/www.open.ac.uk.opencetl/files/files/ecms/web-content/Finlay-(2008)-Reflecting-
on-reflective-practice-PBPL-paper-52.pdf
Fisk, N. (2016). Framing internet safety: The governance of youth online. Cambridge, UK: MIT Press.
doi:10.7551/mitpress/10311.001.0001
Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

41
 
Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

Guðmundsdóttir, G. B., Loftsgarden, M., & Ottestad, G. (2014). Nyutdannede lærere: Profesjonsfaglig
digitale kompetanse og erfaringer med IKT i lærerutdanningen. Oslo: Senter for IKT i utdanningen.
Guillén-Gámez, F. D., Lugones, A., & Mayorga-Fernández, M. J. (2019). ICT use by pre-service foreign
languages teachers according to gender, age and motivation. Cogent Education6(1).
Hadjithoma-Garstka, C. (2011). The role of the principal’s leadership style in the implementation of
ICT policy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 311–326.
Hunter, F. (2019, February 25). Principals push back against ‘ridiculous’ blanket ban on phones in
schools. Sydney Morning Herald.
Instefjord, E., & Munthe, E. (2016). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology: An analysis
of the emphasis on digital competence in teacher education curricula. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 39(1), 77–93.
Istenic Starcic, A., Cotic, M., Solomonides, I., & Volk, M. (2016). Engaging preservice primary and
preprimary school teachers in digital storytelling for the teaching and learning of mathematics. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 29–50. doi:10.1111/bjet.12253
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there a
distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), 72.
Knobel, M. (2008). Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
Krumsvik, R. J. (2008). Situated learning and teachers’ digital competence. Education and Information
Technologies, 13(4), 279–290. doi:10.100710639-008-9069-5
Krumsvik, R. J. (2012). The digital school and teacher education in Norway. In R. Schultz-Zander, B.
Eickelmann, H. Mozer, H. Niesyto, & P. Grell (Eds.), Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik 9 [The annual book of
Mediapedagogy 9] (pp. 455–480). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer VS. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-94219-3_20
Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Teacher educators’ digital competence. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 58(3), 269–280.
Lankshear, C., & Knoble, M. (2008). Introduction. In C. Lankshear & M. Knoble (Eds.), Digital litera-
cies: Concepts, policies and practices. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Lorenzi, F., Dumer, L. C., Vernetti, R. F., Pereira, D. S., Reategui, E. B., & Epstein, D. (2019). Serious
games tools to support the literacy process. In A. Krassmann & E. Amaral (Eds.), Handbook of research
on immersive digital games in educational environments (pp. 112–130). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Maher, D. (2013). Cyber safety and young people: From policy to practice. In R. Hanewald (Ed.), Cyber
bullying to cybersafety: Issues and approaches in educational contexts. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science
Publishers.
Maher, D. (2019). Altered Realities: How virtual and augmented realities are supporting learning. In J.
Keengwe (Ed.), Handbook of research on innovative pedagogies and best practices in teacher educa-
tion. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

42

Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA)(2008Mel-

bourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Carlton: Curriculum Corporation.
Ng, W. (2011). Why digital literacy is important for science teaching and learning. Teaching Science:
The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 57(4), 26–32.
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2012). Framework for basic skills. Retrieved from
https://www.udir.no/contentassets/fd2d6bfbf2364e1c98b73e030119bd38/framework_for_basic_skills.pdf
NSW Department of Education, (2019). Review of the non-educational use of mobile devices in NSW
schools. Retrieved from https://education.nsw.gov.au/about-us/strategies-and-reports/media/documents/
mobile-phone-review.pdf
NSW Education Standards Authority. (2017). Digital literacy skills and learning report. Sydney, Aus-
tralia: NSW Education Standards Authority.
Omwenga, E., & Nyabero, C., & Okioma. (2016). Assessing the influence of the PTTC Principal’s
competency in ICT on the teachers’ integration of ICT in teaching Science in PTTCs in Kenya. Journal
of Education and Practice, 6(35), 142–148.
Pettersson, F. (2018). On the issues of digital competence in educational contexts–a review of literature.
Education and Information Technologies, 23(3), 1005–1021.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
Prensky, M. (2007). Digital game based learning. New York, NY: Paragon House.
Prensky, M. (2012). From digital natives to digital wisdom: Hopeful essays for 21st century learning.
London, UK: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483387765
Ranieri, M., & Bruni, I. (2018). Digital and media literacy in teacher education: Preparing undergraduate
teachers through an academic program on digital storytelling. InHandbook of research on media literacy
in higher education environments (pp. 90-111). IGI Global.
Redecker, C (2017). Digital competence framework for educators (DigCompEdu). Brussels: BE: Eu-
ropean Union.
Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom.
Theory into Practice, 47(3), 220–228.
Røkenes, F. M., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2016). Prepared to teach ESL with ICT? A study of digital compe-
tence in Norwegian teacher education. Computers & Education, 97, 1–20.
Säljö, R. (1996). Mental and physical artifacts in cognitive practice. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.),
Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 83–96). Oxford,
UK: Pergamon.
Statista. (2019). Smartphone ownership in Australia as of March 2018, by age. Retrieved from https://
www.statista.com/statistics/730101/australia-smartphone-ownership-by-age/

43
 
Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

Tezci, E. (2011). Turkish primary school teachers’ perceptions of school culture regarding ICT integra-
tion. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 429.
Thompson, S. (2015). Policy insights: Australian students in a digital world. Australian Council for
Educational Research, 3.
UNESCO. (2011). Media and Information Literacy (MIL). Curriculum and Competency framework.
Paris: UNESCO.
Walters, L., Green, M., Goldsby, D., & Parker, D. (2018). Digital storytelling as a problem-solving strat-
egy in mathematics teacher education: How making a math-eo engages excites 21st century students.
International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 2(1), 1–16.
Wastiau, P., Blamire, R., Kearney, C., Quittre, V., Van de Gaer, E., & Monseur, C. (2013). The use of
ICT in education: A survey of schools in Europe. European Journal of Education48(1), 11–27.
Watson, C. A. (2018). Digital Literacy: Detecting fake news in a post-truth era. Continuing Legal
Education Presentation, 8. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1064&context=cle

ADDITIONAL READING

Ata, R., & Yıldırım, K. (2019). Exploring Turkish pre-service teachers’ perceptions and views of digital
literacy. Education in Science, 9(1), 40. doi:10.3390/educsci9010040
Blayone, T. (2018). Reexamining digital-learning readiness in higher education: Positioning digital
competencies as key factors and a profile application as a readiness tool. International Journal on E-
Learning, 17(4), 425–451.
Bordalba, M. M., & Bochaca, J. G. (2019). Digital media for family-school communication? Parents’
and teachers’ beliefs. Computers & Education, 32, 44–62. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.006
Connolly, N., & McGuinness, C. (2018). Towards digital literacy for the active participation and engage-
ment of young people in a digital world. Young people in a digitalised world,4, 77.
Delacruz, S. (2018). Building digital literacy bridges: Connecting cultures and promoting global citizen-
ship in elementary classrooms through school-based virtual field trips. TechTrends, 1–12.
dos Santos, M. S., Peres, C., Schmitt, M. A., & Peres, A. (2019). Digital dame design tutorial for use
in the basic school: A pedagogical proposal. In A. Loureiro Krassmann, E. Marcelo Hoff do Amaral,
F. Becker Nunes, G. Bierhalz, & M. Constantino Zunguze (Eds.), Handbook of research on immersive
digital games in educational environments (pp. 63–88). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-
5225-5790-6.ch003

44

Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

George-Palilonis, J., & Watt, T. (2018, October). Professor Garfield’s 21st century digital literacy project:
Supporting K-5 teachers in their digital literacy instructional efforts. In E-Learn: World Conference on
E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1105-1114). Association
for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Gillen, J., & Kucirkova, N. (2018). Percolating spaces: Creative ways of using digital technologies to
connect young children’s school and home lives. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5),
834–846. doi:10.1111/bjet.12666
Gillett‐Swan, J. K., & Sargeant, J. (2018). Voice inclusive practice, digital literacy and children’s par-
ticipatory rights. Children & Society, 32(1), 38–49. doi:10.1111/chso.12230
Gne, E., & Bahivan, E. (2018). A mixed research-based model for pre-service science teachers’ digital
literacy. Computers & Education, 118(C), 96–106.
Greene, K. (2018). Transferable digital literacy knowledge. The Language and Literacy Spectrum, 28(1), 3.
Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2018). Newly qualified teachers’ professional digital com-
petence: Implications for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 214–231.
doi:10.1080/02619768.2017.1416085
Hobbs, R., & Coiro, J. (2019). Design features of a professional development program in digital literacy.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(4), 401–409. doi:10.1002/jaal.907
Hsu, H. P., Wenting, Z., & Hughes, J. E. (2018). Developing elementary students’ digital literacy through
augmented reality creation: Insights from a longitudinal analysis of questionnaires, interviews, and
projects. Journal of Educational Computing Research.
Kelentrić, M., Helland, K., & Arstorp, A. T. (2018). Professional digital competence framework for teach-
ers. The Norwegian Centre for ICT in education, 2017. Retrieved from https://edudoc.ch/record/131449/
files/pfdk_framework.pdf
Kenna, J. L., Russell, I. I. I., William, B., & Bittman, B. (2018). How secondary social studies teachers
define literacy and implement literacy teaching strategies: A qualitative research study. History Educa-
tion Research Journal, 15(2), 216–232. doi:10.18546/HERJ.15.2.05
Kral, I., & Renganathan, S. (2018). Beyond school: Digital cultural practice as a catalyst for language
and literacy. In G. Wigglesworth, J. Simpson, & J. Vaughan (Eds.), Language practices of indigenous
children and youth (pp. 365–386). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-60120-9_14
Kuzminska, O., Mazorchuk, M., Morze, N., Pavlenko, V., & Prokhorov, A. (2018, May). Study of digital
competence of the students and teachers in Ukraine. In the International Conference on Information and
Communication Technologies in Education, Research, and Industrial Applications (pp. 148-169). Springer.
Langset, I. D., Jacobsen, D. Y., & Haugsbakken, H. (2018). Digital professional development: Towards
a collaborative learning approach for taking higher education into the digitalized age. Nordic Journal
of Digital Literacy, 13(01), 24–39. doi:10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2018-01-03

45
 
Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Competencies to Support School Students’ Digital Literacies

Maher, D. (2018). Supporting pre-service teachers’ understanding and use of mobile devices. In J.
Keengwe (Ed.), Handbook of research on mobile technology, constructivism and meaningful learning.
Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3949-0.ch009
Maher, D. (2019). The use of course management systems in pre-service teacher education. In J. Keengwe
(Ed.), Handbook of research on blended learning pedagogies and professional development in higher
education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5557-5.ch011
McDougall, J., Readman, M., & Wilkinson, P. (2018). The uses of (digital) literacy. Learning, Media
and Technology, 43(3), 263–279. doi:10.1080/17439884.2018.1462206
Mirra, N., Morrell, E., & Filipiak, D. (2018). From digital consumption to digital invention: Toward a
new critical theory and practice of multiliteracies. Theory into Practice, 57(1), 12–19. doi:10.1080/00
405841.2017.1390336
Mnyanda, L., & Mbelani, M. (2018). Are we teaching critical digital literacy? Grade 9 learners’ practices
of digital communication. Reading and Writing, 9(1), 1–9.
Nedungadi, P. P., Menon, R., Gutjahr, G., Erickson, L., & Raman, R. (2018). Towards an inclusive digital
literacy framework for digital India. Education + Training, 60(6), 516–528. doi:10.1108/ET-03-2018-0061
Patmanthara, S., & Hidayat, W. N. (2018). Improving vocational high school students digital literacy
skill through blended learning model. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1028(11), 1–12.
Ranieri, M., Bruni, I., & Kupiainen, R. (2018). Digital and media literacy in teacher education: find-
ings and recommendations from the European Project e-MEL. Italian Journal of Educational Research,
(20), 151-166.
Spiteri, M., & Rundgren, S. N. C. (2018). Literature review on the factors affecting primary teachers’
use of digital technology. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1-14.
Zhao, P., Kynäshlahti, H., & Sintonen, S. (2018). A qualitative analysis of the digital literacy of arts
education teachers in Chinese junior high and high schools. Journal of Librarianship and Information
Science, 50(1), 77–87. doi:10.1177/0961000616658341

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Digital Competency: These refer to the technical skills as well as the pedagogical skills needed. by
teachers to support teaching of digital literacy.
Digital Literacy: Refers to the skills and literacies needed for the average person to be able to learn
and navigate in contemporary society.
Digital Story Telling: Story telling where the use of digital technologies are used to support the
process.
Serious Digital Games: Digital games that support educational outcomes.
STEM: This acronym covers science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The subjects can
be considered separately or collectively.

46
 47

Chapter 3
Preparing Teachers to Integrate
Digital Tools That Support
Students’ Online Research
and Comprehension Skills
Jennifer Van Allen
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2939-8249
Lehman College, City University of New York, USA

Vassiliki “Vicky” I. Zygouris-Coe

University of Central Florida, USA

ABSTRACT
Supporting students in acquiring flexible skills for a fast-paced technological world is a challenge. Teachers
need access to high-quality training and resources that shape teachers’ beliefs, improve self-efficacy,
and build pedagogical knowledge surrounding technology integration. This qualitative exploratory case
study explored the implementation and challenges one teacher faced when using small groups to develop
upper elementary grade students’ online research and comprehension skills. Using the challenges the
teacher discovered, including technology issues, instructional challenges, and students’ lack of computer
knowledge, the authors propose several implications for implementing an instructional framework to
teach online research and comprehension skills and provide educative curriculum examples for sup-
porting teacher education efforts.

INTRODUCTION

I think they are quite knowledgeable about the Internet. Even from that first day, when they went on
the web without prompting and she typed in her website and the other student was typing in Wikipedia
over here, I’m thinking ok I’m not needed here. I can just leave the room! Anyway, it’s really more so
something they do at home.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch003

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

- Fifth Grade Teacher, Bronx, NY

Digital literacy is a hot topic in education today for many reasons. New technologies are continually
shifting conceptualizations of literacy and global communications in the world. Over the last decade,
there have been increased calls by business leaders, policymakers, and leading educational organizations
to meaningfully integrate digital literacies into the school curriculum (International Literacy Associa-
tion [ILA], 2018; International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2017; Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2015; Pew Research Center, 2014; Wagner, 2008).
These calls focus schools on preparing graduates to locate information, critically evaluate and analyze
information, collaborate and connect with others, and produce and share information to achieve personal,
professional, and academic goals (Coiro & Dobler, 2007; OECD, 2015). Yet, schools have a long way to
go to support students in acquiring flexible skills for a fast-paced technological world, particularly with
teaching students skills and strategies for reading and researching online. Students who aren’t adept at
accessing and using information found on the Internet will not have “full access to education, employ-
ment and social opportunities afforded by digital devices” (OECD, 2015, p. 91).
While some studies report classrooms with successful technology integration (Salyer, 2015), others
report missed opportunities for developing and supporting 21st-century literacy skills (McDermott &
Gormley, 2016; Paciga, 2019). Some research even suggests that, when accounting for digital litera-
cies, the reading achievement gap is larger than expected. Leu et al. (2015) reported that economically
advantaged seventh-graders outperformed their economically disadvantaged peers on an online research
assessment, but all performed at low levels, especially when evaluating and communicating information
on the Internet (Leu et al., 2015). Internationally, this problem has been noted as well. In 2015, student
performance on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) indicated that only 8%
of fifteen-year-olds internationally performed as skilled online readers, while 18% performed at low
levels demonstrating basic ability to locate simple information in short digital texts when provided with
explicit instructions for doing so (OECD, 2015). This performance gap exists even as 72% of students
indicate using digital devices at school, with students spending an average of 25 minutes a day using
the Internet at school (OECD, 2015).
Despite this gap in classroom instruction and student performance in 21st-century literacy skills,
teachers perceive instruction in these skills to be important (Hutchison & Reinking, 2011; Van Allen &
Zygouris-Coe, 2019). A survey of literacy teachers conducted by Hutchison and Reinking (2011) found
that these participants rated the importance of integrating technological tools into their instruction higher
than their reported use of these same tools. In addition, when asked to define technology integration,
participants’ responses indicated “they see integration more often as enhancing conventional instructional
goals or using technology for its own sake as opposed to adopting new instructional goals involving new
activities” (Hutchison & Reinking, 2011, p. 323). The quote from a practicing teacher at the beginning
of this manuscript starts to examine some of the possible causes of this complex problem, ranging from
teachers’ perceptions of their students’ skills to teachers’ own lack of knowledge and limited experiences
with technology. For these reasons and many more, it is clear that teachers need more support integrat-
ing instruction in online research and comprehension skills within existing classroom structures and
instructional contexts in order to develop and support students’ digital literacy skills.
In this chapter, we present findings from a qualitative exploratory case study intended to explore the
implementation and challenges one teacher faced when using small groups to develop upper elementary
grade students’ online research and comprehension skills. The results of the study were used to develop
an educative curriculum that utilized an online guided reading framework to support both the students’

48

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

developing online research and comprehension skills and the teachers’ instructional approach. This
book chapter reports the results of the study, describes the resulting educative curriculum materials, and
explores implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation.

BACKGROUND

Significance of the Problem

Eager students arrive in classrooms at the start of each school year ready to learn about the world.
The technological tools provided in their classrooms and schools often motivate these students, who
come with various experiences using technology, to engage in schoolwork. When technology is used
effectively in the classroom, student motivation, attitude, and engagement increase, and teacher-student
and home-school relationships are improved (Zheng, Warshauer, Lin, & Chang, 2016). Transformed
teaching and learning makes use of challenges, creativity, exploration, choice, collaboration, and active
student engagement with instruction in online research integrated and used as a tool for discovering
and expressing ideas (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012). While many
causes and factors contribute to students’ lack of online research and comprehension skills, two of the
greatest challenges are providing access to reliable, up-to-date technology and Internet connectivity and
preparing teachers to integrate these skills into their instruction.

Barriers to Technology Integration

Ertmer et al. (2012) have identified two types of barriers that influence teachers’ use of technology in
classrooms. Fortunately, first-order barriers, those referring to external barriers beyond the teacher’s con-
trol, such as lack of resources, are being overcome in schools today. Significant progress has been made
in ensuring that classrooms are equipped with technology for student and teacher use and that schools
across the United States have access to reliable, high-speed Internet connections (U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Technology, 2017). National initiatives such as the ConnectEd initia-
tive, which strives to provide high-quality Internet access, technology, and professional development on
technology integration to schools and teachers, have been implemented widely (Office of Educational
Technology, n.d.). As a result, in 2015, 71% of children ages 3 to 18 had access to the Internet, with 65%
of those children using the Internet at school (McFarland et al., 2018). However, structural and finan-
cial barriers still remain as schools struggle to provide access to timely technical support when devices
malfunction, find funding to update technology in a rapidly advancing age, and ensure student equity of
access outside of the school environment (Neuman & Gambrell, 2015; U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Technology, 2017).
Second-order barriers, those referring to internal barriers related to the teacher, are noted to be the
most pervasive and challenging to overcome (Ertmer et al., 2012) and are the focus of our work. Factors
such as teachers’ pedagogical knowledge of technology integration (Hutchison, 2012), own self-efficacy
with the Internet (Liu, Ritzhaupt, Dawson, & Barron, 2017; Wu & Wang, 2015) and beliefs and attitudes
about technology (Ertmer et al., 2012; Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & Tondeur, 2014) affect if and how
instruction is transformed in individual classrooms. Recently, Liu et al. (2017) found that teachers who
had higher self-confidence and comfort with technology and used technology more frequently in their

49
 
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

personal lives incorporated more technology into their classroom instruction. Wu and Wang (2015)
examined the Internet self-efficacy of elementary teachers in China and found that those teachers who
indicated that they used elaborate search strategies and evaluative standards of experts when viewing
websites had a greater Internet self-efficacy and were more likely to teach these skills to students. In
addition, Ertmer et al. (2014) note that teachers with more traditional beliefs include technology as a
supporting role in classrooms, such as presenting a lecture with a PowerPoint presentation or using
online games to support drill and practice of skills; while teachers with constructivist beliefs tend to use
technology in more integrated ways that support students as researchers, designers, and problem solvers,
such as facilitating students’ use of blogs to reflect on their learning and encouraging parents and other
students to comment on the blog posts.
Much of the preparation provided to preservice and inservice teachers currently occurs in short, de-
contextualized workshops or classes that focus on introducing and using specific applications, websites,
and other digital tools (Blocher, Armfield, Sujo-Montes, Tucker, & Willis, 2011; Hutchison & Wood-
ward, 2018). Yet, this type of training does little to address second-order barriers, such as impacting the
dispositions of teachers who are intimidated by technology or do not believe that technology use in the
classroom improves student learning. In addition, this type of training does not support teachers in envi-
sioning actual use of these applications and tools in a constructivist learning environment (Tondeur, van
Braak, Ertmer, & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2017). Therefore, it is imperative that teacher education provide
preservice and inservice teachers access to high-quality training and resources that shape their beliefs,
improve their self-efficacy, and build their pedagogical knowledge surrounding technology integration,
and more specifically online research skills.

Supporting Technology Integration

Since the role technology plays in a classroom is predicated on a teacher’s conceptions of effective
teaching and learning, supportive professional development (PD) is essential in schools and teacher
preparation programs. Preservice and inservice teachers need more professional preparation on tech-
nology integration that is timely and provides appropriate background knowledge, on-going support,
multiple exposures to content, time to explore, practice and prepare content, and access to models of
instruction (Hutchison, 2012). Studies show that shifting teacher preparation to emphasize how to apply
these tools to reach instructional goals and support students is much more effective and widely received
by teachers (Blocher et al., 2011; Hutchison & Woodward, 2018). In addition, in order to shift teachers’
existing beliefs and practices, these efforts should be long-term and include mentoring and communi-
ties of practice in supportive school environments that encourage teacher inquiry (Tondeur et al., 2017).
One example of a successful PD effort was the Technology Integration Planning Cycle Model of PD,
which emphasized the “range of possible pedagogical approaches to using technology in the classroom,
as well as in how to plan [literacy] instruction that effectively utilizes digital tools to create meaningful
learning experiences for students” (Hutchison & Woodward, 2018, p. 3). In this sense, the yearlong PD
model focused teachers on creating meaningful learning opportunities for students using the affordances
of technology to collaborate with others and communicate information, rather than solely on how to use
the technological tools. Teacher participation in this comprehensive, situated model included whole-
group PD sessions, a long-range planning session, access to instructional coaches for support, weekly
participation in professional learning communities facilitated by an instructional coach, teaching obser-
vations with reflective feedback, weekly emails with digital tools and lesson plan examples, and access

50

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

to a website that held resources, ideas, and opportunities for social networking. As a result, the teachers
in the study achieved true curricular integration with a better understanding of the role of technology in
instruction, their shifting roles as teachers, and more effective planning and use of technology to support
instructional goals. In addition, the model overcame many second-order barriers, such as low teacher
confidence using technology and negative beliefs about technology integration in schools (Hutchison
& Woodward, 2018).
While a situated approach to supporting technology integration has been found effective, other ap-
proaches are also effective in supporting teacher knowledge and pedagogy through existing curriculum.
Teachers are continually building knowledge as they plan and implement lessons, assess student learning,
collaborate with colleagues, and communicate with parents (Davis & Krajcik, 2005). Therefore, teachers
are constantly developing and integrating their knowledge about content and pedagogy and applying
their knowledge to make professional decisions about how to implement curriculum and curriculum
materials (Davis & Krajcik, 2005). Since teachers’ continuous learning and development of teaching
practices are situated through the enactment of the curriculum materials and teaching resources they are
provided, these materials provide an opportunity to support pedagogy (Davis, Palinscar, Smith, Arias,
& Kademian, 2017). Educative curriculum materials, those designed with the intention of promoting
teacher learning, have been proposed as one way to provide “just in time” support as teachers build
and integrate their knowledge of new and existing content and pedagogical practices (Davis & Krajcik,
2005; Davis et al., 2014).
A central element of educative curriculum materials is a quality base curriculum that includes com-
plete and accurate content and effective pedagogy (Davis & Krajcik, 2005). Then, educative features for
teachers that focus on instructional approaches, rationales, and recommendations for use are embedded
within the base curriculum to support teacher knowledge and teacher learning by connecting theory to
practice. These components are meant to help teachers predict and understand students’ responses to
instruction, support their own learning of disciplinary content and practices, consider how to connect
curriculum units, understand the pedagogical rationales of the developers, and “promote a teacher’s
pedagogical design capacity” (Davis & Krajcik, 2005, p. 5) as they enact and adapt the curriculum to
fit their needs (Davis et al., 2017).
Many studies point to the potential of educative curriculum materials to support teacher learning
(Cervetti, Kulikowich, & Bravo, 2015; Land, Tyminski, & Drake, 2015; Schneider, 2013). A case study
of one teacher’s implementation of a science curriculum with educative curriculum features emphasiz-
ing inquiry-based science techniques indicated that the teacher’s knowledge development of inquiry
practices greatly improved as she interacted with the curriculum materials and students (Schneider,
2013). Another experimental study examined the extent to which educative curriculum features focused
on supporting English Language Learners’ (ELs) needs influenced teachers’ enactment of strategies to
support these learners and improve their achievement (Cervetti et al., 2015). Results indicated that the
treatment group used a wider range of strategies that supported student learning as they modified the
curriculum for ELs than the control group, although no significant differences in student achievement
were noted (Cervetti et al., 2015). Land et al. (2015) explored how educative curriculum materials sup-
ported preservice teachers’ learning of best practices in teaching elementary mathematics. While the
preservice teachers did not immediately recognize the educative potential of these features for their
own learning, the authors concluded that focused close reading and purposeful questions posed by an
instructor may help build prospective teachers’ knowledge of curriculum materials, content knowledge,
and pedagogical approaches simultaneously (Land et al., 2015). Educative curriculum materials provide

51
 
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

a valuable method of supporting teacher learning through timely resources and information that can be
readily implemented in teaching. However, some researchers indicate that without accompanying situ-
ated, guided, and/or differentiated PD, educative curriculum materials alone are not enough (Krajcik &
Delen, 2017; Schuchardt, Tekkumru-Kisa, Shunn, Stein, & Reynolds, 2017).
Given the need to support students’ digital literacy skills in online research and the need to support
teachers’ learning of how to instruct students in these skills, we wondered about the challenges associated
with implementing instruction in online research and comprehension through a widely used framework
in schools today, guided reading. In this study, we examined how one fourth-grade teacher adapted
her guided reading instruction with a group of above-average readers to develop their online research
skills. We used what students and the teacher learned, along with the challenges they experienced with
implementing instruction on online reading and comprehension, to propose educative features that may
support teachers’ knowledge about technology integration, providing specific examples that focus on
developing students’ online research and comprehension skills. In addition, we explore how existing
curriculum structures may be adapted to support technology integration efforts and instruction in online
research and comprehension skills.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Several theoretical frameworks informed this study including New Literacies Theory, particularly
lowercase new literacies theory surrounding online research and comprehension (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro,
Castek, & Henry, 2017), the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model (TPACK; Mishra &
Koehler, 2006), and the guided reading framework (Fountas & Pinnell, 2012). While the guided reading
framework served as our curriculum structure, New Literacies Theory provided the target online research
and reading comprehension skills to be taught and the TPACK model supported our understanding of
the teaching decisions and challenges the teacher and students faced.

New Literacies Theory

As technology continues to develop and more advanced forms emerge, what it means to be literate also
evolves with different forms of skills, knowledge, and dispositions needed to read, write, and commu-
nicate (Leu et al., 2017). The Internet continues to have a profound effect on the ways we communicate
with others and share knowledge in a global society. These effects are felt not only in our personal and
professional lives, but also in policy, including educational policy initiatives such as the Common Core
State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2010) in the United States, and the Digital Technologies in Focus project (Australian Curricu-
lum, n.d.) supporting the implementation of digital technologies in Australia. The dual level theory of
new literacies proposed by Leu et al. (2017) examines multiple perspectives of the continuously chang-
ing definition of literacy ranging from the broad assumptions and common patterns in uppercase new
literacies theory to literacies and patterns found within specific technologies and areas of new literacies
in lowercase new literacies theory. Some of the common assumptions that guided our work from up-
percase new literacies theory were:

52

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

• The Internet and related technologies require additional new literacies to fully access their
potential.
• Critical literacies are central to new literacies.
• New forms of strategic knowledge are required with new literacies.
• Teachers become more important, though their role changes, within new literacy classrooms. (Leu
et al., 2017, p. 5)

The lowercase new literacies of online research and comprehension skills had the largest impact
on our work as it describes how students conduct online research and read in online environments and
defines specific skills needed (Leu et al., 2017). According to Leu et al. (2017), online research involves
a problem-based inquiry process that requires new skills, strategies, dispositions, and social practices.
Online researchers must direct their own reading paths as they construct text and knowledge across a
variety of multimodal sources using traditional reading comprehension strategies, as well as an extended
set of skills and strategies specific to reading on the Internet. Five broad processing practices, each encom-
passing various skills, strategies, and dispositions, are required for online research and comprehension:

1. Identify important problems or questions.

2. Locate information.
3. Evaluate information critically.
4. Synthesize information.
5. Communicate information (Leu et al., 2017, p. 8).

In our study, these skills, strategies, and dispositions were the focus of the teaching and learning that
occurred.

Guided Reading

Many states, districts, and schools require elementary teachers to provide small group, targeted literacy
instruction as part of their curriculum. Guided reading is one such small group instructional context
commonly utilized in diverse classrooms (Iaquinta, 2006). The guided reading framework emphasizes
responsive teaching through explicit teaching and prompting of strategic behaviors good readers employ
to read and understand text (Fountas & Pinnell, 2017). Small groups are typically formed with readers
who are on the same reading level or exhibit similar reading behaviors, which allow the teacher to care-
fully select texts and focus skills for targeted instruction. These skills are based on a system of strategic
actions readers should employ when thinking within the text (e.g., decoding words and identifying im-
portant information), thinking about the text (e.g., making connections and synthesizing information),
and thinking beyond the text (e.g., analyzing the writer’s craft and evaluating ideas). Instruction occurs
in a three-part lesson consisting of before reading, during reading, and after reading portions. Before
reading, the teacher briefly introduces a text to students and invites them to share what they notice about
the text through discussion. During reading, the students read the text and the teacher observes students’
reading behaviors, interacting with students to prompt and support for strategic actions when a challenge
occurs. After reading, the teacher engages the students in a discussion about the text, inviting their own
personal responses, and provides one or two teaching points during which students return to the text for

53
 
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

close reading and skills practice. Teachers may also extend the lesson for word work or writing instruc-
tional opportunities (Fountas & Pinnell, 2017).
Fountas and Pinnell (2012) note that when guided reading is used as part of a comprehensive, bal-
anced literacy curriculum, readers build more effective processing systems over time. However, others
argue that using a supported approach with instructional level texts does not provide students with
enough opportunity to grapple with frustrational level texts and falls short of preparing students to suf-
ficiently meet the rigorous standards proposed in the Common Core State Standards (Shanahan, 2013).
The research base focused solely on guided reading is limited. Yet, the research that does exist suggests
that guided reading is effective in supporting students’ strategic reading actions. For example, research
with ELs have indicated that guided reading improved English print literacy development of adolescents
(Montero, Newmaster, & Ledger, 2014) and the reading comprehension and reading accuracy skills of
Chinese students learning English in Hong Kong (Nayak & Sylva, 2013). In addition, when used as
an intervention with at-risk second-graders compared to typical school instruction, the guided reading
approach resulted in improved word reading skills (Denton, Fletcher, Taylor, Barth, & Vaughn, 2014).
Technology use has also proven to be effective in guided reading instruction. Delacruz (2014) used
an iPad application, Nearpod, to embed interactive activities within a text during guided reading lessons
and found increased student engagement and enhanced teacher monitoring of students’ understanding
throughout the lessons. Salyer (2015) investigated how Internet Reciprocal Teaching and guided read-
ing could be utilized to support an Internet inquiry task implemented with second-grade students in an
after-school program. These results showed that students became more strategic online readers, better
able to able to ask questions, use search engines, read and evaluate search results, preview texts in dif-
ferent modes, predict information in websites, and synthesize information across sources (Salyer, 2015).
Since guided reading is an instructional context that is widely implemented, many teachers are
familiar with the format of a guided reading lesson. However, implementation has been found to vary
widely from isolated skills instruction to critical examinations of text (Fletcher, Greenwood, Grimely,
Parkhill, & Davis, 2012; Ford & Opitz, 2008). Teacher definitions of guided reading and training on
how to implement it clearly influence individual teachers’ use in their classrooms (Ford & Opitz, 2008).
Due to its widespread popularity and emphasis on supporting strategic actions, we wondered how one
teacher might modify her guided reading curriculum to teach and support students’ online research and
reading skills.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model (TPACK)

Incorporating technology into instruction in meaningful ways does not happen by simply equipping
classrooms with computers or other devices. The TPACK model, shown in Figure 1, illustrates the
complexities and forward thinking involved in the successful integration of technology into curricu-
lum and instruction (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). This model examines teacher decisions regarding the
intersection of a teacher’s technological knowledge, content knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge.
Koehler and Mishra (2009) posit that teachers must first consider their content and then merge effective
instructional methods for teaching that content with technology to plan meaningful learning experiences
and make effective teaching decisions. Additionally, teachers must have technological knowledge of
how to work the devices, how to troubleshoot device issues, how to navigate the applications, and other
general knowledge about the devices. As teachers actively design curriculum using content knowledge
and pedagogical knowledge, they must make decisions on how to best incorporate technology into the

54

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

Figure 1. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model (TPACK). (© 2012, tpack.org, Used
with permission.)

curriculum, with an emphasis on when and why to use specific technologies for a particular concept or
teaching approach (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The TPACK model supported our understanding of the
types and breadth of skills needed by a teacher to effectively integrate online research and comprehen-
sion skills into guided reading instruction.

RESEARCH STUDY

This qualitative exploratory case study (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Creswell, 2013) examined the challenges
and successes a fourth-grade teacher and her students experienced as she incorporated instruction of
online research and comprehension skills into her small group guided reading block. Case studies allow
the researcher to conduct an in-depth examination of a real-life case bounded by time and place to bet-
ter understand the experiences of individuals during an event or activity (Creswell, 2013). In this study,
a case study design provided a context to explore how guided reading may be potentially used as an
instructional context for teaching online research and comprehension skills. We wanted to understand
the teacher’s and students’ experiences, including the barriers, challenges, and successes they faced to
better identify specific supports that may need to be provided to teachers as they adapt curriculum, and
instructional contexts, to teach digital literacy skills. Therefore, the teacher’s perspective of the experience
was the main focus of the study. As part of this study, we examined the following research questions:

55
 
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

• How does a teacher adapt small group guided reading instruction to develop students’ online re-
search and comprehension skills?
• What barriers and challenges, if any, do the teacher and students experience with the introduction
of online research and comprehensions skills within the guided reading framework?

Context of the Study

A purposive, convenience sampling (Creswell, 2013) resulted in one participant, a fourth-grade teacher
at a moderately sized Title 1 elementary school located in a large urban school district in the southeastern
United States. A diverse group of approximately 650 students attended the school with 43% Black, 27%
White, 24% Hispanic, and 2% other races. Teachers and students at the school had adequate access to
technology with two computer labs housing 25 desktop computers, two carts with 25 laptops each that
were shared among the intermediate (4th and 5th grade) classrooms, at least five desktop computers in each
classroom, and a SMART board in each classroom. Despite sufficient access, authentic use of technology
was rare with students mostly using the devices to access computer-based instructional programs and
take assessments mandated by the district and school. Although teachers used the SMART board daily
in their literacy instruction, it was mostly used to display PowerPoint presentations, display texts, or as
a whiteboard. Of the state and district required 120-minute daily literacy block, teachers were required
to use at least 60 minutes to target specific students’ needs in guided small group instruction. Teachers
within the school had received training on and utilized Fountas and Pinnell’s (2017) guided reading
framework to guide their instructional routines with these small groups. This school was selected as the
context for the study because teachers were familiar with the guided reading framework and the first
author had a working relationship with the participant as the literacy coach at the school. According to
Creswell (2013), more authentic information can be obtained in case study research when the researcher
has established a relationship with the participants.
Intermediate grade teachers (4th and 5th grade) who provided daily literacy instruction, demonstrated
effectiveness in teaching literacy, as indicated by students’ proficiency and growth on the state standardized
English/Language Arts test, and demonstrated effectiveness in applying the guided reading framework
daily to instruction, as indicated by observational feedback provided by the principal and literacy coach,
were invited to participate in the study. Erin, a white, middle-aged, fourth-grade teacher volunteered
to participate and met the inclusion criteria. Erin was an experienced teacher who had been teaching a
total of seven years in her own classroom after receiving a bachelor’s degree in child development but
had previous experience as a substitute teacher and tutor in an after-school program. Erin considered
herself a proficient user of technology, noting that she was raised with the newest technology and was a
“quick learner” when exposed to new devices and tools, displaying comfort with technology use in both
her personal and professional life. Within her classroom, she had previously led students in conducting
online research and creating PowerPoints, and used applications, such as ZipGrade, to support her work
as a teacher. However, due to school mandates, she had not had an opportunity to implement these proj-
ects with the class she taught during the study. Erin valued 21st-century literacies noting, “everything is
technology bound . . . 21st-century literacies are the skills that our students will need when they gradu-
ate.” Yet, Erin was hesitant to engage students in online inquiries without her direct supervision for fear
they would access sites with inappropriate content. In addition, she noted that she had little experience
explicitly teaching online research and comprehension skills to students.

56

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

Data Sources and Analysis

The study included an analysis of Erin’s lesson plans, daily reflection logs submitted by Erin, and three
interviews. All data collected was self-reported by Erin and describes her own observations and per-
ceptions of her teaching and the students’ learning experiences. Since the purpose of the study was to
understand the teacher’s perception of barriers and challenges associated with the implementation to
inform solutions, the teacher’s perspective was vitally important to this study. The first author, who was
employed at the school as the literacy coach during the study, conducted work with the teacher, including
PD and support in understanding online research and comprehension skills, and collected data, while
the second author, who was not connected to the school or involved with the participant, served as “peer
debriefer” of the analyses (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Through a Google document, the teacher submitted her lesson plans and a daily reflection log in-
tended to provide insight into the teaching decisions Erin made during her lessons. The reflection log
was created by the researchers and asked Erin to briefly note the learning target and teaching approach
for the lesson, with a short rationale. In addition, Erin provided brief reflections on the successes and
challenges that occurred during the lesson. Semi-structured interviews (Creswell, 2013) were conducted
by the first author in Erin’s classroom during her teacher planning time or after the students’ school day
and lasted approximately 15 minutes each. The first interview took place prior to the study implementa-
tion to gather detailed information about Erin’s previous teaching experiences, experiences and comfort
with technology and online research, and her perceptions about new literacies and technology in the
classroom. Two follow-up interviews were conducted after every five to seven lessons, approximately
weekly, to further inquire about Erin’s implementation, including the barriers, challenges, successes, and
roles that both the teacher and students encountered during the lessons. Prior to the interviews, the first
author reviewed Erin’s lesson plans and reflection log submissions to probe for further, more detailed
information about Erin’s perceptions of her teaching and her students’ learning experiences.
Thematic analysis methods were used to analyze all data collected (Creswell, 2013). Each interview
was fully transcribed and the lesson plans and daily reflection logs were compiled into an organized file
by the first author. The first author then read through all of the data, memoing about key information.
Using categorical aggregation methods, the first author examined instances of repeated information from
the data and formed initial codes. Codes were verified through triangulation with the codes generated
in the interviews and reflection logs and color-coded within the entire data set. Once the first author
grouped codes into like categories based upon patterns in the data set, the second author reviewed the
categories as a peer debriefer. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), peer debriefing is a “process of
exposing oneself to a disinterested peer in a manner paralleling an analytic session and for the purpose
of exploring aspects of the inquiry that might otherwise remain only implicit within the inquirer’s mind”
(p. 308). As both authors reviewed the data set and codes considering their relationship to the research
questions, the second author engaged in questioning to help the first author probe and clarify interpreta-
tions of the data and consider biases (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). These discussions resulted in final themes
for describing and interpreting the case (Creswell, 2013). Once the final report was completed, the
participant was provided an opportunity to read and comment on the findings. This member checking
ensured the accuracy of our findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

57
 
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

Implementation

Prior to implementing the study, Erin participated in a one-time hour-long PD session conducted by the
first author that was personalized specifically for her based off of the information collected during the
initial interview. This PD was meant to review and clarify Erin’s understanding of the online research
and comprehension skills she would target in her instruction and provide her with instructional ideas and
resources to support her teaching. During the PD, Erin engaged in an activity in which she conducted
an online search and noted the strategies she used as she searched for information. The first author then
had her compare these strategies to the processing practices identified as necessary for online research
and comprehension by Leu et al. (2017). Next, Erin identified specific learning targets she might use
in instruction using the Teaching Internet and Comprehension Skills to Adolescents (TICA) checklist
(Leu et al., 2008). After discussing research-based instructional strategies for supporting students’ online
research and comprehension skills, including Internet Reciprocal Teaching (Leu et al., 2008) and think
alouds (Coiro, 2011), Erin viewed videos of these strategies in practice. Finally, Erin briefly explored
resources she might find useful in lesson planning, such as Google’s Search Education and Common
Sense Media, which she used to envision a lesson in action with the first author.
During the study, Erin chose to work with her above average reading group, which reflected the school
demographics with two Black students, two Hispanic students, one White student, and one Asian student.
She selected this group because she believed they possessed the necessary reading skills to persist with
the complex text they might encounter on the Internet. She did not feel comfortable implementing these
lessons with her lower level students due to their struggles with reading comprehension or word decoding
skills. Sung, Wu, Chen, & Chang (2015) found that students who struggled with offline reading skills
had great difficulty with online reading tasks, which supported Erin’s decision to work with higher level
students. Over the course of three weeks, Erin was provided with six Lenovo ThinkPad laptops from the
shared computer cart housed in the fourth-grade classrooms. She implemented guided reading lessons
with instruction focused on online research and comprehension skills approximately three or four days
each week during the course of the study.
Erin implemented a total of 10 lessons focused on the inquiry question, “Who has controlled Florida
and how has their control or actions affected others?” Erin selected this inquiry question to build back-
ground knowledge in preparation for an upcoming social studies unit. In choosing the question, she
thought students would learn skills from investigating the first part of the question that would support
their search for information for the more complex second part of the question. Her first two lessons
provided an introduction to the devices, since students had limited experiences with the laptops, and
allowed Erin to assess students’ current search skills when conducting a basic web search. She then
conducted two lessons that helped students deconstruct the questions and generate search terms. The next
three lessons supported students in selecting sources from the search results page and finding specific
information on websites, with the last three lessons emphasizing strategies for evaluating information
across multiple websites.
During the lessons, Erin explained that her role was to provide brief teaching points on specific
online research and reading strategies and then let the students engage in independent online research.
While students were searching for information, Erin described her role as “facilitator of questioning.”
She prompted them to make strategic decisions as online researchers through questioning and supportive
reminders when they were problem-solving challenges. Her guidance and prompting with questions such
as, “What’s your question? What are you looking for? Does this site give you any information? You found

58

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

this, what does it mean? Where do we need to go next?” were necessary to help students stay focused on
their purpose, use the web browser features effectively (e.g. back and forward icons), and manage the
multiple layers of a website successfully. In one reflection, Erin discussed how she prompted a student
to corroborate conflicting information.

One of them read something about Cuba and took it as Cuba controlling Florida. I said, Ok, wait, but
you’ve read and you’ve seen the timeline. Is Cuba on there, on the timeline and on the site? She said no,
it wasn’t. I then asked her how she felt about Cuba controlling Florida. She’s like, I don’t know, it doesn’t
make sense. So I said, ok, well how would we find out if Cuba controlled Florida? She said, well, I’d just
do another search . . . so she opened up another window and searched . . . so she made that connection.

Erin was surprised at the amount of student collaboration that occurred during these lessons. She
noted that the students did the majority of the work and often guided others in the group to a website
that contained valuable information. For example, she often heard students exclaim, “Oh, hey, go to this
website, this one’s got some good information!” In addition, conversation among students often ensued
that was not prompted by her. Erin noted that the students “help others and get the others kind of on the
same page that they’re on,” which was different from her traditional guided reading lessons with these
same students. Overall, Erin observed her students transferring skills learned in previous lessons as they
conducted online research in subsequent lessons. She indicated that as a result of the lessons, these students

learned how to navigate a website. . . learned how text features on websites actually play a role in adding
to what they are reading. . . and know when to search to double check their answers of what they found.

Additionally, Erin explained that her students were very eager to participate in these lessons. She
exclaimed, “They are literally my first students to be at that back table ready to go. So they are thor-
oughly enjoying it!”

CHALLENGES

Although Erin found what she did to be valuable and discovered students collaborating in surprising ways
to research, read, and comprehend digital texts, she also reported several categories of challenges that
arose during the course of the study. These challenges centered around situated technology issues both
she and her students experienced, her students’ lack of computer knowledge, and specific instructional
challenges she faced during the process.

Technology Issues

The greatest challenge throughout the study, in the words of the teacher, was “the computers themselves
and the struggle to keep them working.” Technical issues arose on the first day of the study with two
computers that simply would not turn on and continued throughout the study with computers frequently
shutting down in the middle of the lesson due to low battery life, losing access to the network due to
intermittent connectivity, or not connecting to the Internet at all when students logged in. Erin tried to
troubleshoot many of these issues but was often unable to solve them due to the limited rights she was

59
 
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

granted as a user. Although Erin submitted technology support requests, many of these computer issues
were still not resolved by the end of the study, resulting in students constantly returning to the shared
grade level laptop cart to get a new computer or passing the working laptops back and forth between
teachers. First-order barriers, or those external barriers outside of the teacher’s control such as lack of
access to reliably working devices, have consistently been found to be the most common barriers to
technology integration efforts (Ertmer et al., 2012; Hew & Brush, 2007; Hutchison & Reinking, 2011).
These barriers also include access to technical support personnel, which is directly related to the num-
ber of personnel provided to the school and number of requests received (Carver, 2016; Hew & Brush,
2007). In Erin’s case, a technology support representative was only on campus to troubleshoot and fix
technology issues twice a week.
Despite these challenges, Erin overcame them by pairing students to work on the laptops when she
didn’t have access to more computers. In some ways, Erin noted that this supported student collaboration.
“The students that were sharing were like, go look at this site, this is a good site. Or sometimes they said
let me type this because I can type faster than you. So they helped each other out.” At other times, she
noted that the sharing of computers was a problem because she wanted “them to search on their own and
not with the help of somebody.” When solving technological issues that arise during computer-based
lessons, teachers may not have complete control to troubleshoot problems on their own. Additionally,
some teachers also may not feel as comfortable as Erin while troubleshooting issues. As identified in
the TPACK model (Koehler & Mishra, 2009), teachers’ technological knowledge is an important aspect
of successful lessons with technology and an aspect that should be addressed in teacher preparation for
teaching with technology.

Students’ Lack of Computer Knowledge

Students’ lack of computer knowledge and proficiency with the devices also sometimes became prob-
lematic during lessons. At times, students would encounter a computer that was logged in under a previ-
ous user’s account and Erin noted that students didn’t know how to proceed. “Some of them would just
shut it down so it would take time to log in . . . So them figuring out how to log it out” took time out of
the lesson. Erin repeatedly remarked on the students’ lack of typing proficiency and knowledge of the
keyboard. “Their typing speed . . . They hunt and peck or they know just a couple (of keys) and then
they have to ask where the space bar is or how do I get the question mark.” At the beginning of the les-
sons, Erin taught the students to toggle back and forth between the web browser and a Word document
so that they could take notes. However, she abandoned this after the first week because of students’
typing speed and difficulty shifting between applications. “That took a little bit of time for us . . . using
a Word document to toggle between the web browser and a Word document . . . then we went to paper
and pencil and they kept a notepad of what they found.” Supporting students’ proficiency with basic
computer tasks, such as logging off a previous user, is a necessary prerequisite to ensure that valuable
instructional time dedicated to online research and comprehension skills is not reduced by these chal-
lenges (Leu et al., 2008).

60

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

Instructional Challenges

Another category of challenges that occurred during Erin’s implementation were instructional challenges
that included what to do with distracted students and how to plan her instruction in ways that also sup-
ported students’ online reading and comprehension skills. Although the devices were highly engaging
for students, some features of the devices also proved to be a distraction for them.

Sometimes they would get off task with all of the new features, so instead of using the keyboard to type,
they would pull the keyboard up on the screen and that would take them longer . . . They are new with
it and having fun.

Erin learned that she needed to provide them time to explore features outside of the lessons and set
defined rules for using the devices during lessons.
Students also became distracted and easily sidetracked by hyperlinks during lessons. Erin described
her response to one occasion in which two students were engaging with information unrelated to the topic.

Two students continued to click and click and click to learn about things and then were totally not on any-
thing that had to with it. So I was like let’s stay focused. This is how we can get in trouble with hyperlinks.

Staying focused on a topic during online research became a teaching point and prompting focus dur-
ing many of the lessons. These types of distractions have been noted extensively in the literature as a
challenge and point of instruction for students (Coiro, & Dobler, 2007).
Finally, Erin expressed concerns about the amount of time these lessons took. Previous research
has indicated that planning for and implementing lessons with technology takes more planning and
implementation time (Hutchison & Reinking, 2011; Pittman & Gaines, 2015). Initially, Erin planned to
teach all five processing practices to students during the study but was only able to address identifying
a problem, locating information, and evaluating information. She noted, “It takes the students a long
time to read and take notes and then search for what they didn’t understand . . . so I plan for a lot and
get through only a bit of it.”

Adaptions to the Guided Reading Framework

As Erin implemented these lessons, she found that she needed to adapt her implementation of the guided
reading framework in several ways (see Table 1). Traditionally, when using the guided reading framework,
the teacher is the key decision-maker in selecting texts for the group to read (Fountas & Pinnell, 2017).
However, since the students created their own reading pathways as they conducted the online inquiry
(Coiro & Dobler, 2007), Erin did not select specific texts for students to read. Instead, she generated the
questions that would guide the students’ inquiry. She described her process for selecting the question.

To come up with a question to search, I thought of a subject that would be most easy to search for, where
they could find answers . . . I asked the social studies teachers what unit they were getting into . . . I looked
at the big idea and some of the essential questions that were going to be covered and just kind of picked
one out that was a little more challenging for them to answer since they were able to go on the Internet.

61
 
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

Table 1. Adaptations Erin made during lessons

Traditional Guided Reading Adaptations

• Erin selected a topic for the online inquiry
• Teacher selects text
Before Reading • Erin provided explicit instruction on targeted
• Teacher provides a brief text introduction
teaching points
• Students read the text • Students self-selected text and collaborated on the
During Reading • Teacher prompts and supports students’ strategic inquiry
actions • Erin prompted students’ strategic actions
• Students discussed their findings
• Teacher and students discuss the text • Erin facilitated the students’ discussion through
After Reading • Teacher provides explicit instruction on targeted questioning
teaching points • Erin identified important research strategies students
learned during the lesson

Erin strategically and meaningfully used these lessons as an opportunity to build students’ prior
knowledge for an upcoming unit they would be studying and ultimately gave students much more con-
trol of the texts they would engage with during the guided reading lessons. Erin explained that because
“they are my higher group” she felt more comfortable allowing them to navigate their own reading path.
After students complete the reading of the teacher-selected text and engage in discussion about the
text, teachers typically provide explicit instruction in one or two targeted teaching points to extend the
students’ strategic actions in a traditional guided reading lesson (Fountas & Pinnell, 2017). However,
in these lessons, Erin found herself providing strategic teaching points at the beginning of the lesson
before the students started interacting with their self-selected texts. For example, when supporting the
students in selecting related websites from a search engine results page, Erin said she started the lesson
by talking “about which was a good one to go to and that’s when we talked about the different endings
(URL’s) and reading the little phrases (snippets).” After these initial teaching points at the beginning of
the lesson, she noted that

they (the students) would get right into it and start discussing things and helping each other. And then I
just, I would just pop in to get them to give me more and to get them to think in a different way, to guide
them . . . Allowing them to tell me what they are doing and then using what they are telling me to guide
them even further or to probe them a little more.

Erin also noticed that the discussion, which typically occurs after reading, occurred throughout the
lesson. Traditionally, students engage in the reading independently with the teacher checking in to support
the students’ reading during a guided reading lesson (Fountas & Pinnell, 2017). However, Erin allowed
students to support each other as they conducted their online research, which resulted in increased engage-
ment and student ownership over their learning and the learning of others. “They are talking a lot more
about what they’ve learned . . . Someone will say oh I found this and then someone else will correct them
. . . no, it actually says this and this is what it means.” After students engaged with the texts, Erin noted
that she brought the group back together to come to a consensus on their findings from their research
that day through questioning, such as “Why do you think that? Do you think that’s true?” Occasionally,
Erin explicitly identified an important point she wanted students to remember at the end of the lesson.
For example, during one lesson when two students got lost in hyperlinks and lost their research focus,

62

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

she asked them to share their experience and ended the group by reminding students that they needed
to always keep their question in mind. In these ways, the lessons became more student-centered, with
the students supporting each other’s learning and the teacher prompting students to engage in strategic
actions. For instance, when Erin noticed students going astray in their research, she questioned the stu-
dents and, at the end of the lessons, pointed out their findings, thinking, and research “fix-up” strategies.

METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS

Given that this study utilized a case study design, these results are limited by the small sample size and
bounded system in which it was conducted (Creswell, 2013). The scope of this study was limited to a
self-rated technologically proficient teacher in a diverse, Title 1 school, limiting generalization to other
populations and needs of both students and teachers. In addition, the participant purposefully received
limited PD in order to understand how one teacher would go about implementing online research and
comprehension skills within an instructional context that existed in her classroom. This limited PD al-
lowed us to better understand the authentic challenges she faced with little support. However, with more
training and guidance, her implementation may have varied if she had a clearer understanding of the
skills she was teaching and evidence-based instructional approaches for teaching these skills. In addition,
the length of the study did not provide the teacher enough time to address all of the processing practices
recommended by Leu et al. (2017), leading to limited findings for supporting teachers as they teach the
strategies not addressed in this study. Observational data was not collected in this study because the intent
was to examine the teachers’ perceptions of these lessons. Therefore, we are unable to provide explicit
details of the lesson implementation and are limited to the specific examples reported by the participant.
Finally, the position of researchers in this study is also a limitation. During the study, the first author
served as the literacy coach at the school. The first author developed and implemented the PD provided
to the participant and collected all data. The collaborative relationship between the first author and par-
ticipant provided a unique understanding of the results because of the first author’s insider knowledge
of the school and school culture (Herr & Anderson, 2015). However, this close relationship also intro-
duced the potential for bias and power relations that may have affected the results of the study (Herr &
Anderson, 2015). Procedures for minimizing these mitigating factors were incorporated into the data
analysis methods, including the role of author two who served as peer debriefer and member checking
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHER PREPARATION

The results of this study point to implications for preparing teachers to integrate technology, and more
specifically online research and comprehension skills, into their instruction. Educative curriculum ma-
terials are one important tool for changing teachers’ existing beliefs and knowledge as they make critical
instructional decisions right at the point of planning and instruction, so just in time (Davis & Krajcik,
2005). Davis et al. (2014) defined educative features as “texts and graphics that can be incorporated
into curriculum materials with the intention of supporting teacher learning” (p. 25). Educative features
may be designed and embedded within curriculum to support technology integration. These educative
features should help teachers determine what students need to know, anticipate students’ responses

63
 
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

to instruction, and differentiate the curriculum based on students’ needs, as well as support teachers’
content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge (Davis & Krajcik, 2005; Koehler & Mishra, 2009).

Designing Educative Features for Technology Integration

Using the challenges that the teacher and students in this study faced, several types of educative features,
specifically supporting technology integration and online research and comprehension skills, may be
designed and incorporated into curriculum materials as pop out boxes (see Figure 2). Examples may
include teaching tips, background knowledge, misconception alerts, and troubleshooting tips. Teaching
tips may be developed to provide just in time advice and content knowledge to teachers as they plan for
instruction or make in the moment instructional decisions based on student responses while teaching
lessons. For example, the teaching tip provided in Figure 2 guides teachers to determine how many and
which web browsers they may introduce to students as they teach online research and comprehension
skills. Background knowledge boxes may be developed to provide support for developing teachers’
content knowledge of technology, the Internet, online research and comprehension skills, and even gen-
eral reading skills and strategies. For example, background knowledge boxes may build technological
knowledge by providing information on specific error codes students may come across during lessons
or explaining the purposes of specific features of a search results page. The background knowledge box
example provided in Figure 2 provides teachers with common keyboard shortcuts they can introduce to
students to help increase productivity. Misconception alerts should be used to develop teachers pedagogi-
cal content knowledge by helping teachers anticipate student responses that may occur during specific
instructional activities or when delivering specific content. For example, when teaching students to gen-
erate keywords from questions, students may be taught to first determine the broad topic of the question
and then identify the specific focus of the question within that topic (Dobler & Eagleton, 2015). In this
instruction, students may easily confuse the topic and the focus of a question. The misconception alert
example provided in Figure 2 would help teachers identify this possible confusion early on in a lesson
when embedded within the curriculum. Finally, troubleshooting tips provide teachers with technological
knowledge on how to solve basic technical issues that may occur during specific lessons.
Other features may be included directly within the curriculum materials and specific lessons. Examples
of these within lesson elements in a guided reading curriculum meant to develop students’ online research
and comprehension skills may include think alouds and suggested prompts to support students’ skills
and strategies. Think alouds are used by teachers to express and model their thoughts while performing
a task (Kymes, 2005). Through research, Coiro (2011) identified that think alouds show students how
to “anticipate challenging online reading situations and carefully think about ways to extend their use of
printed text comprehension strategies to Internet reading contexts” (p. 114). Since some teachers may
not feel comfortable verbalizing their thinking about online research strategies due to low self-efficacy
or skills as an Internet user, think alouds embedded within the curriculum would serve as a guide that
could be used or modified by the teacher. An example of a think aloud that models how to evaluate
information on a website for reliability by examining the author follows.

64

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

Figure 2. Educative feature examples

In my research on understanding how melting glaciers affect the climate, I came across this website
(Display website http://extremeicesurvey.org/). It looks like a pretty good website because it has lots of
information about the earth and glaciers, so it could give me some valuable information. However, I
know that I always need to check out the author of online information to see if the author is credible and
make sure it’s reliable information. On the homepage, I see a logo that looks like it’s by the organization
Extreme Ice Survey. I’ve never heard of them so I’m going to look for their “About Page.” Usually, I can
find that link at the bottom of the page or in the website menu. (Find the “About Page” link and click
on it.) Here it is! As I look through the information listed, I see that it says the project is a collabora-
tion between artists, scientists, and engineers. Interesting. It gives me the name of the president of the
organization and a link to a college website with more information about him. Since he is a scientist and
the organization is made up of a lot of experts on climate change, I think they have the knowledge and
expertise to ensure this information is accurate. So, let me see what I can learn!

Guided reading provides a highly supportive context for students because teachers are able to provide
immediate feedback as they observe student actions. However, this immediate feedback requires teach-
ers to make fast-paced instructional decisions on the amount and type of support to provide; often this
feedback involves complex teaching decisions, especially for new teachers, those who are inexperienced
teaching online research and comprehension skills, or those who are uncomfortable with technology use
during lessons. Fountas and Pinnell (2017) have recommended the use of three types of prompting that
offer differing levels of support to readers: model, guide, or reinforce. Prompts such as those provided
in Table 2, would aid teachers in making these quick decisions and help them develop a repertoire of
prompting responses specific to online research and comprehension skills.

65
 
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

Table 2. Suggested prompt examples

Model Guide Reinforce

• As you read the question, think about
• Paraphrase your question first to see what
the topic. Now think about the focus of the • You did a great job of determining
words are used in both questions. You could
question. the topic and focus of the question as
paraphrase this question like this . . .
• Does the answer provided confirm your keywords.
• In your question, the topic of the question
keywords as the topic and focus of the • Good work. In your identified keywords,
is . . .
question? I see the topic of the question . . . and the
• In your question, the focus of the question
• Remember, you should only have a focus of the question . . .
is . . .
couple of keywords.

Considerations for Designing and Using Educative Curriculum Materials

These are just a few examples of specific educative features that may be considered by curriculum de-
signers and PD efforts to support teacher knowledge and teacher learning as they integrate technology
and online research and comprehension skills into their instruction. There are certainly other types of
features that may be considered, such as narratives of classroom practice with screenshots and/or videos
to model instructional decision-making and lesson implementation. As another example, because class-
room routines, procedures, and expectations are an important component of any classroom integrating
technology into instruction, features that provide support in recommending specific routines, procedures,
and classroom technology usage expectations for the curriculum and offer guidelines for establishing
them in the classroom may be helpful for teachers.
While these educative curriculum materials provide just in time support to teachers during lesson
planning and implementation, they are not effective alone. Studies show that teachers’ use of educative
supports found in educative curriculum materials can vary greatly (Bismack, Arias, Davis, & Paliscar,
2014; Drake, Land, & Tyminski, 2014). To maximize impact, inservice teachers should be engaged in
embedded professional learning experiences and support in using these materials productively. These
professional learning experiences surrounding technology integration and online research and compre-
hension skills should include use of supportive resources, models of instruction, and ongoing coaching.
For example, educative curriculum materials may be embedded within situated examples of extended
PD such as the Technology Integration Planning Cycle Model of PD implemented by Hutchison and
Woodward (2018). During planning sessions embedded within this model, coaches can support teachers
in identifying and using important features of curriculum materials and educative curriculum materials.
Given the importance of developing all students’ 21st-century skills, such as online research and
comprehension skills, teacher preparation courses should embed ways to incorporate technology into
instruction in authentic ways throughout their preparation coursework. Drake et al. (2014) proposed
the incorporation of educative curriculum materials into teacher preparation programs to increase pro-
spective teacher’s knowledge of curriculum materials, content knowledge, and pedagogical approaches
simultaneously. These authors propose five principles when embedding educative curriculum materials
into teacher education coursework. First, preservice teachers should understand that curriculum materi-
als contain educative features and, second, learn to identify and read these features with a learning lens
using tools provided by instructors to support engagement with the educative features. Third, instructors
must scaffold preservice teachers’ use of these tools through specific prompts and structured engage-
ment activities. Fourth, preservice teachers must “examine multiple lessons and units in order to identify

66

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

and understand the development of content over time” (Drake et al., 2014, p. 159). Finally, instructors
should help preservice teachers compare and contrast various educative curriculum materials to help
them make decisions for selecting various resources for particular circumstances (Drake et al., 2014).
Using educative curriculum materials as instructional material in coursework is one way to prepare
preservice teachers to, in turn, prepare K-12 students for the digital literacy and learning demands of the
21st-century. However, no matter the method used, preservice teacher preparation requires meaningful
integration of technology across programs, learning contexts, and experiences. By providing a model in
these courses, preservice teachers will consider when and how to use certain technologies in instruction
and also have memorable experiences from which to draw.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Results from this study demonstrated how a teacher was able to easily adapt an instructional framework
used in her classroom daily to support her students’ online research and comprehension skills. Based
on adaptations she made, we propose a framework for online guided reading. In addition, further im-
plications from this research indicate that other popular instructional approaches may also be modified
and adapted by teachers to support their students’ digital literacy skills and embed technology into their
instruction in meaningful ways.

The Online Guided Reading Framework

The guided reading framework is a supportive instructional context in which a teacher monitors and directs
a group of students to engage in strategic actions when they approach a text (Fountas & Pinnell, 2017);
however, the guided reading framework was designed with traditional printed texts in mind. Given the
adaptations that Erin made within her instruction and our research findings, we redesigned Fountas and
Pinnell’s conceptualization of the framework to account for instruction on online research and reading
skills (see Figure 3). This redesigned framework uses the same structure familiar to today’s teachers,
including before reading, during reading, and after reading portions of the lesson, but modifies the
implementation of components within these portions (Van Allen & Zygouris-Coe, 2019). For example,
in the before reading section, instead of providing an introduction to the text, the teacher introduces a
topic or reviews previous strategies used by students. As another example, instead of providing teaching
points at the end of the lesson, the teacher provides explicit teaching of a strategy before reading through
a think aloud, which was a key adaptation Erin made to her instruction. Coiro (2011) condones the use of
teacher think alouds to model explicit strategies, provide students with academic language, and promote
metacognitive thinking about strategy use that improves comprehension of the text.
During reading, teachers and students move flexibly between the elements of reading, discussing,
and teacher prompting. In ways, this is similar to the traditional framework because the teacher is still
providing differentiated support to students. However, the discussion is extended into this section and
not solely reserved for after reading because the collaboration among students in Erin’s lesson provided
more opportunities for strategy use. In addition, Coiro, Sekeres, Castek, and Guzniczack (2014) con-
ducted a study that examined the effects of upper elementary students’ social interactions on strategy use
during an online inquiry task and discovered that student discussions centered on inferring, integrating,

67
 
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

Figure 3. The online guided reading framework. (© 2019, Journal of Literacy & Technology. Used with
permission.)

evaluating, and interpreting information and the strategies they used for these processes resulted in much
more productive work and increased student learning.
After reading, discussion continues with a reflective focus on the processes and strategies students
used during the lesson. Reflection aids online readers in communicating their thoughts and findings to
others, a key component of online research and comprehension recommended by Coiro (2011). There-
fore, students should discuss the strategies they used throughout the lesson and conclude with one to
three points to remember and take away from the lesson. The shifts made in the online guided reading
framework are designed to allow teachers to guide and support students’ navigation skills and strategic
actions as they locate, analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information from a variety of Internet sources
in response to a question or problem. For a more in-depth discussion and example of the online guided
reading framework, see Van Allen and Zygouris-Coe (2019).

Adapting Instructional Approaches for Technology Integration

New developing technologies and the multiple literacies that accompany use of these technologies are
disrupting much of our lives, including education (Neuman & Gambrell, 2015). To prepare our students
with the new literacies of the 21st century, teachers must transform their instruction to include collabora-
tive, participatory, and meaningful learning experiences that will, to the fullest extent possible, mirror
students’ future world and experiences with digital literacy (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009).
However, with the ever-changing mandates and policies often redefining what is required of teachers, it
is unlikely that this transformation will happen overnight. In addition, Stolle (2008) notes, “Teachers are
limited in their ability to envision beyond what they already know and do” (p. 315). Therefore, Erin’s
transformation of her guided reading instruction to support students’ digital literacy skills is important
and timely.
Providing teachers with the opportunity to explore ways to modify and adapt existing instructional
contexts is a step in the right direction for transforming instruction. Leu et al. (2008) adapted the reciprocal
teaching approach first proposed by Palinscar and Brown (1984), to design Internet reciprocal teaching

68

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

in which the teacher and students use online texts to engage in explicit discussions of the online reading
strategies questioning, locating, critically evaluating, synthesizing, and communicating. Inquiry-based
instruction is another instructional approach that would pair well with instruction in online research and
comprehension skills. Utilizing whole-group mini-lessons or independent reading conferences, a teacher
could help students develop strategies for online research and reading with teacher-directed instruction,
student collaboration through collaborative learning strategies, and student self-reflection. Perhaps a
teacher could reconceptualize the writer’s workshop (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001) into a researcher’s
workshop with a bit of creativity and reimagining. The possibilities are endless when we allow and en-
courage teachers to experiment with existing instructional contexts in new ways large and small as they
support students’ digital literacy skills.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Little research currently exists on the effectiveness of educative curricula that can be used in existing
instructional small group structures to develop students’ online research and reading skills and related
digital literacies. Our study showed that because technology integration in the existing curricula is often
viewed as disruptive and non-aligned with the standard curricula, the familiarity of existing instructional
routines and structures might have strong potential for developing 21st-century skill sets for students.
Research needs to continue to explore ways to shift existing instructional structures to support these
skills. Formative and summative assessments of online research and comprehension skills are greatly
needed if work in this area is to continue. Since school culture greatly influences teaching practices,
a culture of risk-taking, emphasis on inquiry, or focus on student and teacher collaboration, should be
examined to determine their effect on technology integration practices. Furthermore, researchers may
inquire into and explore the types of supports that are most supportive to teachers as they transform
their teaching with technology.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that new, ubiquitous, developing technologies will continue to shift the way we access informa-
tion and communicate with others. Instruction in these skills must begin early so students can practice
and refine these skills as they enter discipline-specific classes in secondary and post-secondary educa-
tion. Yet, teachers often find themselves unprepared to teach these skills. Understanding the perspectives
and challenges that teachers face when they implement instruction in online research and reading skills,
as examined in this study, provides a pathway for supporting others in this endeavor. Those focused on
teacher education may use these findings to develop PD and educative curriculum materials that support
preservice and inservice teachers in meaningful technology integration. Additionally, like we proposed
with the Online Guided Reading Framework, all educators must be encouraged to explore and adapt
existing curriculum and instructional approaches with new ways to prepare students to locate, analyze,
evaluate, and synthesize information from multiple online sources. We are not calling for add-on solu-
tions to existing PD and curriculum; instead, we are calling for redesigned and reimagined solutions to
better meet the shifting roles of teachers and students in technology integration efforts.

69
 
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

REFERENCES

Australian Curriculum. (n.d.). Digital technologies in focus. Retrieved from https://www.australiancur-

riculum.edu.au/resources/digital-technologies-in-focus/
Baxter, P. E., & Jack, S. M. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementa-
tion for novice researchers. Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–549.
Bismack, A. S., Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A., & Palinscar, A. S. (2014). Connecting curriculum materi-
als and teachers: Elementary science teachers’ enactment of a reform-based curricular unit. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 25(4), 489–512. doi:10.100710972-013-9372-x
Blocher, J. M., Armfield, S. W., Sujo-Montes, L., Tucker, G., & Willis, E. (2011). Contextually based
professional development. Computers in Schools, 28(2), 158–169. doi:10.1080/07380569.2011.577398
Carver, L. B. (2016). Teacher perception of barriers and benefits in K-12 technology usage. The Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1), 110–116.
Cervetti, G. N., Kulikowich, J. M., & Bravo, M. A. (2015). The effects of educative curriculum materi-
als on teachers’ use of instructional strategies for English language learners in science and on student
learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 86–98. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.10.005
Coiro, J. (2011). Talking about reading as thinking: Modeling the hidden complexities of online reading
comprehension. Theory into Practice, 50(2), 107–115. doi:10.1080/00405841.2011.558435
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-
grade skills reading to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly,
42(2), 214–257. doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2
Coiro, J., Sekeres, D., Castek, J., & Guzniczack, L. (2014). Comparing the quality of third, fourth, and
fifth graders’ social interactions and cognitive strategy use during structured online inquiry. Journal of
Education, 194(2), 1–15. doi:10.1177/002205741419400202
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five traditions (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher
learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X034003003
Davis, E. A., Palinscar, A. S., Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Marulis, L. M., & Iwashyna, S. K. (2014).
Designing educative curriculum materials: A theoretically and empirically driven process. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 24–52. doi:10.17763/haer.84.1.g48488u230616264
Davis, E. A., Palinscar, A. S., Smith, P. S., Arias, A. M., & Kademian, S. M. (2017). Educative cur-
riculum materials: Uptake, impact, and implications for research and design. Educational Researcher,
46(6), 293–304. doi:10.3102/0013189X17727502

70

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

Delacruz, S. (2014). Using Nearpod in elementary guided reading groups. TechTrends, 58(5), 63–70.
doi:10.100711528-014-0787-9
Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Taylor, W. P., Barth, W. E., & Vaughn, S. (2014). An experimental
evaluation of guided reading interventions for primary-grade students at-risk for reading difficulties.
Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(3), 268–293. doi:10.1080/19345747.2014.90601
0 PMID:26779296
Dobler, E., & Eagleton, M. B. (2015). Reading the web: Strategies for Internet inquiry (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Drake, C., Land, T. J., & Tyminski, A. M. (2014). Using educative curriculum materials to sup-
port the development of prospective teachers’ knowledge. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 154–162.
doi:10.3102/0013189X14528039
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs
and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., & Tondeur, J. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs and uses of technology
to support 21st century teaching and learning. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook
of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 403–418). New York, NY: Routledge.
Fletcher, J. F., Greenwood, J., Grimely, M., Parkhill, F., & Davis, N. (2012). What is happening when
teachers of 11-13 year old students take guided reading: A New Zealand snapshot. Educational Review,
64(4), 425–449. doi:10.1080/00131911.2011.625112
Fletcher, R., & Portalupi, J. (2001). Writing workshop: The essential guide. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ford, M. P., & Optiz, M. F. (2008). A national survey of guided reading practices: What we can learn from
primary teachers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(4), 309–331. doi:10.1080/19388070802332895
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2012). Guided reading: The romance and the reality. The Reading
Teacher, 66(4), 268-284. doi: 10.1002TRTR.01123
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2017). Guided reading: Responsive teaching across the grades (2nd
ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital
age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4),
246–259. doi:10.3102/0013189X09336671
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowl-
edge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development,
55(3), 223–252. doi:10.100711423-006-9022-5

71
 
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

Hutchison, A. (2012). Literacy teachers’ perceptions of professional development that increases integra-
tion of technology into literacy instruction. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(1), 37–56. doi:1
0.1080/1475939X.2012.659894
Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and communi-
cation technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States. Reading Research
Quarterly, 46(4), 312–333. doi:10.1002/RRQ.002
Hutchison, A. C., & Woodward, L. (2018). Examining the Technology Integration Planning Cycle Model
of Professional Development to support teachers’ instructional practices. Teachers College Record,
120(10), 1–44.
Iaquinta, A. (2006). Guided reading: A research-based response to the challenges of early reading in-
struction. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(6), 413–418. doi:10.100710643-006-0074-2
International Literacy Association. (2018). Improving digital practices for literacy, learning, and justice:
More than just tools. Retrieved from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-
stand/ila-improving-digital-practices-literacy-learning-justice.pdf
International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). ISTE standards for students: A practical
guide for learning with technology. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/resources/product?ID=4073
&ChildProduct=4074
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contempo-
rary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Retrieved from https://www.citejournal.
org/volume-9/issue-1-09/general/what-is-technological-pedagogicalcontent-knowledge
Krajcik, J., & Delen, I. (2017). The benefits and limitations of educative curriculum materials. Journal
of Science Teacher Education, 28(1), 1–10. doi:10.1080/1046560X.2017.1279470
Kymes, A. (2005). Teaching online comprehension strategies using think-alouds. Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 48(6), 482–500. doi:10.1598/JAAL.48.6.4
Land, T. J., Tyminski, A. M., & Drake, C. (2015). Examining pre-service elementary mathematics
teachers’ reading of educative curriculum materials. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 16–26.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.05.009
Leu, D. J., Coiro, J., Castek, J., Hartman, D. K., Henry, L. A., & Reinking, D. (2008). Research on in-
struction and assessment in the new literacies of online reading comprehension. In C. C. Block, S. Parris,
& P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 321–346). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new litera-
cies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research
Quarterly, 50(1), 37–59. doi:10.1002/rrq.85
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2017). New literacies: A dual-level theory
of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Education, 197(2), 1–18.
doi:10.1177/002205741719700202

72

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalisitc inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2017). Explaining technology integration in
K-12 classrooms: A multilevel path analysis model. Educational Technology Research and Development,
McDermott, P., & Gormley, K. A. (2015). Teacher’s use of technology in elementary reading lessons.
Reading Psychology, 37, 121–146. doi:10.1080/02702711.2015.1009592
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Wang, K., Rathbun, A., . . . Ossolinski, M. (2018).
The condition of education 2018 (Report No. NCES 2018-144). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2018/2018144.pdf
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Montero, M. K., Newmaster, S., & Ledger, S. (2014). Exploring early reading instructional strategies to
advance the print literacy development of adolescent SLIFE. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
58(1), 59–69. doi:10.1002/jaal.318
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010).
Common Core State Standards for English language arts/literacy. Washington, DC: National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
Nayak, G., & Sylva, K. (2013). The effects of a guided reading intervention on reading comprehension: A
study on young Chinese learners of English in Hong Kong. Language Learning Journal, 41(1), 85–103.
doi:10.1080/09571736.2011.625214
Neuman, S. B., & Gambrell, L. B. (2015). Disruptive innovations in reading research and practice.
Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 7–12. doi:10.1002/rrq.93
Office of Educational Technology. (n.d.). ConnectED. Retrieved May 6, 2019, from https://tech.ed.gov/
connected/
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Students, computers, and learning:
Making the connection. Retrieved from doi:10.1787/9789264239555-en
Paciga, K. (2019). Emergently digital in grade two: Another case of “3.6 minutes per day?”. Journal of
Literacy & Technology, 20(1), 119–149.
Palinscar, A., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring
activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. doi:10.12071532690xci0102_1
Pew Research Center. (2014). Digital life in 2025. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/03/
PIP_Report_Future_of_the_Internet_Predictions_031114.pdf
Pittman, T., & Gaines, T. (2015). Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth grade classrooms
in a Florida school district. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(4), 539–554.
doi:10.100711423-015-9391-8
Salyer, D. (2015). Reading the web: Internet guided reading with young children. The Reading Teacher,
69(1), 35–39. doi:10.1002/trtr.1380

73
 
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

Schneider, R. M. (2013). Opportunities for teacher learning during enactment of inquiry science cur-
riculum materials: Exploring the potential for teacher educative materials. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 24(2), 323–346. doi:10.100710972-012-9309-9
Schuchardt, A. M., Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Schunn, C. D., Stein, M. K., & Reynolds, B. (2017). How much
professional development is needed with educative curriculum materials? It depends on the intended
student learning outcomes. Science Education, 101(6), 1015–1033. doi:10.1002ce.21302
Shanahan, T. (2013). Letting the text take center stage: How the Common Core State Standards will
transform English Language Arts instruction. American Educator, 37(3), 4–11.
Stolle, E. (2008). Teachers, literacy, & technology: Tensions, complexities, conceptualizations & prac-
tice. In Y. Kim, V. Risko, D. Compton, D. Dickinson, M. Hundley, R. Jimenez, K. Leander & D. Wells-
Rowe (Eds.), 57th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 56–69). Oak Creek, WI: National
Reading Conference.
Sung, Y. T., Wu, M. D., Chen, C. K., & Chang, K. E. (2015). Examining the online reading behavior
and performance of fifth-graders: Evidence from eye-movement data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–15.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00665 PMID:26074837
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship
between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualita-
tive evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575. doi:10.100711423-
016-9481-2
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Reimagining the role of
technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update. Retrieved from https://tech.
ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf
Wagner, T. (2008). Rigor redefined. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 20–25.
Wu, Y. T., & Wang, L. J. (2015). The exploration of elementary school teachers’ Internet self-efficacy
and information commitments: A study in Taiwan. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(1),
211–222.
Zheng, B., Warshauer, M., Lin, C., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environ-
ments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1052–1084.
doi:10.3102/0034654316628645

74

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

ADDITIONAL READING

Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. Y. (2010). Determining and describing reading strategies: Internet and traditional
forms of reading. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction
(pp. 201–225). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Davis, E. A., & Palinscar, A. S. (2016). Interacting with a suite of educa-
tive features: Elementary science teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 53(3), 422–429. doi:10.1002/tea.21250
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—might be—the role of curriculum
materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8, 14.
Blanchard, M. R., LePrevost, C. E., Tolin, A. D., & Gutierrez, K. S. (2016). Investigating technology-
enhanced professional development in rural, high-poverty middle schools. Educational Researcher,
45(3), 207–222. doi:10.3102/0013189X16644602
Cho, B. Y., & Afflerbach, P. (2015). Reading on the Internet: Realizing and constructing potential texts.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(6), 504–517. doi:10.1002/jaal.387
Christ, T., Arya, P., & Liu, Y. (2019). Technology integration in literacy lessons: Challenges and Suc-
cesses. Literacy Research and Instruction, 58(1), 49–66. doi:10.1080/19388071.2018.1554732
Coiro, J. (2012). Understanding dispositions toward reading on the Internet. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 55(7), 645–648. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00077
Colwell, J., Hunt-Barron, S., & Reinking, D. (2013). Obstacles to developing digital literacy on
the Internet in middle school science instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(3), 295–324.
doi:10.1177/1086296X13493273
Dobler, E., & Eagleton, M. B. (2015). Reading the web: Strategies for Internet inquiry. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Dwyer, B. (2016). Engaging all students in Internet research and inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 69(4),
383–389. doi:10.1002/trtr.1435
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confi-
dence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers: Grades 3-6. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (n.d.). Research base for guided reading as an instructional approach.
Retrieved from http://emea.scholastic.com/sites/default/files/GR_Research_Paper_2010_3.pdf
Harrison, C. (2018). Critical Internet literacy: What is it, and how should we teach it? Journal of Ado-
lescent & Adult Literacy, 61(4), 461–464. doi:10.1002/jaal.713

75
 
Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

Herring, M. C., Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of technology pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK) for educators (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315771328
Hutchison, A. (2012). Literacy teachers’ perceptions of professional development that increases integra-
tion of technology into literacy instruction. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(1), 37–56. doi:1
0.1080/1475939X.2012.659894
Kingsley, T., & Tancock, S. (2014). Internet inquiry: Fundamental competencies for online comprehen-
sion. The Reading Teacher, 67(5), 389–399. doi:10.1002/trtr.1223
Leu, D. J., & Maykel, C. (2016). Thinking in new ways and in new times about reading. Literacy Research
and Instruction, 55(2), 122–127. doi:10.1080/19388071.2016.1135388
Loper, S., McNeill, K. L., & González-Howard, M. (2017). Multimedia educative curriculum materials
(MECMs): Teachers’ choices in using MECMs designed to support scientific argumentation. Journal
of Science Teacher Education, 28(1), 36–56. doi:10.1080/1046560X.2016.1277600
McKnight, K., O’Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching
in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 48(3), 194–211. doi:10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856
Neuman, S. B., Pinkham, A., & Kaefer, T. (2015). Supporting vocabulary teaching and learning in
Prekindergarten: The role of educative curriculum materials. Early Education and Development, 26(7),
988–1011. doi:10.1080/10409289.2015.1004517
Noh, J., & Webb, M. (2015). Teacher learning of subject matter knowledge through an educative cur-
riculum. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(4), 292–305. doi:10.1080/00220671.2014.886176
O’Byrne, W. I., & McVerry, J. G. (2009). Measuring the dispositions of online reading comprehension:
A preliminary validation study. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 58, 362-375.
Phillips, E. (2013). A case study of questioning for reading comprehension during guided reading. In-
ternational Journal of Primary. Elementary and Early Years Education, 41(1), 110–120. doi:10.1080/
03004279.2012.710106
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing
pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence.
Computers & Education, 59(1), 139–144. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009
Voogt, J., & McKenney, S. (2017). TPACK in teacher education: Are we preparing teachers to use
technology for early literacy? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(1), 69–83. doi:10.1080/14759
39X.2016.1174730
Wall, H. (2014). When guided reading isn’t working: Strategies for effective instruction. Journal of
Language and Literacy Education, 10(2), 134–141.
White, A. (2016). Using digital think-alouds to build comprehension of online informational texts. The
Reading Teacher, 69(4), 421–425. doi:10.1002/trtr.1438

76

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Digital Tools That Support Students’ Online Research

Young, C. (2019). Increased frequency and planning: A more effective approach to guided reading in
Grade 2. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(1), 121–130. doi:10.1080/00220671.2018.1451814
Zoch, M., Myers, J., & Belcher, J. (2016). Teachers’ engagement with new literacies: Support for
implementing technology in the English/language arts classroom. Contemporary Issues in Technology
& Teacher Education, 17(1), 25–52.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Content Knowledge: Teacher knowledge of their discipline or subject matter, including facts, con-
cepts, theories, and principles.
Digital Literacy: The ability to use information and communication technologies to locate, evaluate,
create, and communicate information.
Educative Curriculum Materials: Curriculum materials designed with embedded and pop out
features that support teacher learning.
Guided Reading: A supportive instructional context in which a teacher monitors and directs a group
of students to engage in strategic actions when they approach a text.
Internet Reciprocal Teaching: An instructional approach designed for teaching online research and
comprehension skills, which was modified from the reciprocal teaching model.
Lowercase New Literacies Theory: Ideas, beliefs, and understandings about aspects of specific areas
of Uppercase New Literacies theory, such as online research and comprehension skills, multimodality, etc.
Online Research and Comprehension Skills: Skills required for conducting online research and
understanding multimodal online texts, which include identifying a problem or question, locating,
analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information, and effectively communicating findings to others.
Pedagogical Knowledge: Teacher knowledge of effective teaching and learning environments for
students, such as instructional approaches and techniques.
Technology Integration: The use of technology to enhance and support the educational environment,
teacher instruction, and student learning.
Technological Knowledge: Teacher knowledge of, and ability to use, various technologies, techno-
logical tools, and associated resources effectively in their instruction.
Think Alouds: A teaching and learning strategy in which either the teacher or student verbalizes
their internal thought processes out loud as they engage in an activity, such as reading.
Uppercase New Literacies Theory: The overarching ideas, beliefs, and understandings about how
the Internet is changing our understanding of literacy and literacy teaching and learning.

77
78

Chapter 4
Using Design Thinking
Practices to Create Technology-
Driven Adult Professional
Development Programs
Farah L. Vallera
Lehigh University, USA

Bashir Sadat
Lehigh University, USA

ABSTRACT
Instructors are encouraged to train their students to be creative, critical thinkers, and innovative fu-
ture leaders; unfortunately, most have not been trained in the same way as they are expected to teach.
Instructors need to learn how to inspire innovation and 21st century skills by practicing and teaching
those skills themselves. One way to do that is by learning the design thinking process, incorporating
it into instruction, and using it to develop students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes/beliefs (KSABs)
in similar ways. Understanding and employing the design thinking process and combining those tools
with relevant and authentic instructional technologies can prepare instructors to develop the skills of
tomorrow’s workforce, innovators, and future leaders. This chapter discusses the importance of training
teachers to use the design thinking process while using the design thinking process to instruct them. Best
practices and examples of such professional development are offered.

INTRODUCTION

As a teacher educator of instructional technology and learning design, I encourage my students to look
forward - to look beyond today’s skills, tools, and technologies - and prepare their students for the future.
I often begin my courses by asking my students, “What will the world look like in 5 years? In 10? In
20? And what knowledge, skills, and attitudes/beliefs (KSABs) will our students need to be successful

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch004

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Using Design Thinking Practices to Create Technology-Driven Adult Professional Development Programs

when navigating and working in that world?” Now, I cannot take credit for these questions; I first started
exploring them after reading Trilling and Fadel’s (2009) book describing the future of 21st century skills.
And truthfully speaking, it has been incredibly hard for us all to contemplate the answers. Regardless, I
still encourage my students to consider these questions in preparation for an unpredictable future when
designing their lessons and teaching their students.
We do not know what tools and technologies the future will bring us, and we cannot properly predict
the skills that we (and our students) will need to use them. We do know, however, that we are not get-
ting less technology, we will not become less globally connected, and the pace of technological change,
innovation, and integration is more rapid than it ever has been before (Lemoine, Seneca, & Richardson,
2019; McLeod & Graber, 2019; Rosefsky Saavedra & Opfer, 2012). Similarly, technological integration
no longer includes simply the consumption of tools that boost productivity and improve our lives. We are
now able to interact more deeply and feed information back to their developers. The street has become
two-way and consumers are “no longer passive receivers” and users, but stakeholding participants in
the planning and design of future technologies and innovations (Leboff, 2014, pg. 101). All of this is
important when considering the design of learning and teaching for the future. It appears that encour-
aging the development of 21st century skills can help prepare students for such innovation, interaction,
and change (Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
I am frequently asked by teachers how to better prepare their students for this unpredictable future
filled with change. While I am all too excited to encourage innovation in the curriculum and in class-
rooms, primarily with regards to technological integration, there are several issues with the way that
educators often approach the subject. All too often, folks believe that technology is a “magic bullet”
(Van Dusen, 1998) - the key to getting students motivated in their learning and that any technological
integration will help prepare students for the future. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Technology
is indeed an important motivator; the novelty of technology-based activities and lessons can capture
students’ attention and engage them in their learning (Keller, 2010; National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2018). However, if the technology overshadows the learning, is
too challenging or complicated to use, or is not interesting or is overly repetitive to them, the students
will become distracted by it and learning will not occur (Bayaktar, 2001; NASEM, 2018; Selwyn, 2016;
Vallera, 2019). Similarly, simply integrating technology into existing lessons or activities will not improve
21st century skills, make students technologically competent, or encourage mastery of the subject-matter
content (Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaoglu, 2016; Inan & Lowther, 2010; NASEM, 2018). Integration
must be performed thoughtfully, with purpose, and with the intention of both motivating and instructing
the audience (NASEM, 2018).
The U.S. educational system is not prepared for what students will need to know in the future, and
students need more engaging opportunities for deeper learning (Blackley & Sheffield, 2015; McLeod
& Shareski, 2018; Rosefsky Saavedra & Opfer, 2012). Our current “business-as-usual” approach using
didactic instruction that includes content delivery through textbooks, lectures, and standardized test-
ing does not encourage deep learning and 21st century skills development (Benade, 2017; Blackley &
Sheffield, 2015; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Lemoine et al., 2019). Because of the
advancements in technology and the availability of information (McLeod & Shareski, 2018), students can
find the answers to most questions in their pockets at any time of day or night (Prensky, 2012; Tapscott,
2009). Many students turn to Google, YouTube, and other online resources to gather information or gain
skills, and educators must teach students how to evaluate the sources of information for accuracy, cred-
ibility, and legitimacy (McLeod & Shareski, 2018; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). Instruction must include an

79
 
Using Design Thinking Practices to Create Technology-Driven Adult Professional Development Programs

integrated mix of content knowledge, skills and practices, and the development of appropriate attitudes/
beliefs (Baartman & Bruijn, 2011; Scheer et al., 2012) to train students for the future. Unfortunately,
many teachers have not been trained in the ways they must now educate their students, and it is causing
them difficulty in their preparation (Lemoine et al., 2019; Muir-Herzig, 2004; NASEM, 2018; Rosefsky
Saavedra & Opfer, 2012).
Teachers must participate in teacher education and professional development programs where 21st
century skills are embedded, in order to better understand how to embed them in their own classrooms
and lessons (Blackley & Sheffield, 2015; Lemoine et al., 2019; Rosefsky Saavedra & Opfer, 2012). They
must practice using relevant tools and technologies to inspire their students to gain 21st century skills,
as well as prepare them to use or create similar tools in the future (Inan & Lowther, 2010; Instefjord &
Munthe, 2017). Because of the uncertainty of the future, it is important for teacher educators to prepare
our teachers for that rapid change in order to equip their students with relevant KSABs to be successful.
Rather than focusing all of our energy on didactic instruction, standardized testing, and using the “cool-
est” tool or technology available today, we need to look at what might be coming next. In order to do
that, utilizing the design thinking process to train teachers to build future-focused learning can encourage
the development of meaningfully integrated lessons and learning environments.

BACKGROUND

A Move to 21st Century Skills and Learning

The world is changing rapidly. Traditional, teacher-centered practices are no longer meeting the needs
of our 21st century students (Blackley & Sheffield, 2015; Lemoine et al., 2019; Rosefsky Saavedra &
Opfer, 2012) and new practices are being encouraged. Twenty-first century skills describe a wide array
of practices and competencies geared toward preparing individuals for work and careers in the changing
landscape of our technology-driven, yet unpredictable, future (Scheer et al., 2012; Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
The most frequently cited skills include creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, and communication,
or the 4Cs. This list, however, is not exhaustive. According to Trilling and Fadel (2009), students need
additional skills to be prepared for a changing workforce and future driven by technological innovation.
Digital literacy skills including information, media, and information and communication technologies
(ICTs) literacies must be taught to students to become “info-savvy, media-fluent, tech-tuned” individuals
(Trilling & Fadel, 2009, pg. 61). Additionally, when entering the workplace, students must be “work-
ready” and equipped with skills designed to adjust to the changing social and work-based landscape. Flex-
ibility and adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and multicultural competencies, productivity
and accountability, and leadership and responsibility will all be necessary in the workplace (Trilling &
Fadel, 2009). In order for teachers to successfully instruct these skills, they must encourage their practice
authentically across learning environments (Rosefsky Saavedra & Opfer, 2012).
Unfortunately, many educators have experienced didactic instruction involving lectures, textbooks,
and standardized assessments throughout their own educations and may not be prepared to teach their
students in different ways (Benade, 2017; Garet et al., 2001; Lemoine et al., 2019). Similarly, they may
not be as accustomed to learning with technology and the internet - or searching for information - in
the same ways as their students. They may not have experienced career changes or have had to adapt
to rapidly changing workplaces and job descriptions. Or they may not have had to work in diverse or

80

Using Design Thinking Practices to Create Technology-Driven Adult Professional Development Programs

globally connected environments. These differences in teachers’ experiences may serve as barriers to
21st century instruction and skills development.

Barriers to Integration of 21st Century Skills, Tools, and Technology

There are several barriers to the adoption, scalability, and sustained reform related to new undertakings
that must be overcome in order for initiatives to be successful. Such barriers involve the costs associ-
ated with materials and technologies needed to create and maintain initiatives, the teachers’ roles in the
implementation and reform process, and the availability of additional resources, training, and experiences
(Inan & Lowther, 2010; Instefjord & Munthe, 2017; Muir-Herzig, 2004). One of the largest barriers to
the implementation of technology-driven integration and initiatives is cost, or access (Edelson, 2001;
Inan & Lowther, 2010; Instefjord & Munthe, 2017; Muir-Herzig, 2004). Technology costs often keep
underfunded districts from incorporating new tools and technologies into their curricula. Even including
more technology in the classroom can be an obstacle when school budgets do not allow for the purchase
of such tools or the manual support for their implementation and administration (Blumenfeld, Fishman,
Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway, 2000; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Muir-Herzig, 2004).
Teachers often have concerns about their roles in new initiatives and methods of teaching, particularly
when incorporating technology. They may fear that they are unprepared due to limited time or training
or that they are giving up too much of their “control” to students’ own decision making in the classroom
(Chang & Wang, 2009; Danielson, 2007; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Lemoine et al., 2019; Muir-Herzig,
2004). However, teachers are the key to sustained reform and such barriers must be removed in order
for initiatives to be successful (Lemoine et al., 2019). According to Blumenfeld and colleagues (2000),
“Educators’ beliefs, understandings of the reform, and expertise in carrying it out will influence their
reaction to change” (p. 151). Providing teachers with proper professional development, built-in scaf-
folding, and additional supports can increase teacher confidence and lessen the amount of time needed
to implement more 21st century skills development and technology integration.

Barriers to Successful Learning with 21st Century

Skills, Tools, and Technology

Barriers to successful 21st century learning with technology differ from the barriers blocking technology’s
integration into learning environments and opportunities. These barriers are often far harder to predict,
identify, or overcome. They include using technology that is: 1) too difficult for students to learn, 2) not
interesting to the students, or 3) too novel or distracting. Additionally, 4) when access to technology is
not equal, 5) when access is not equitable, and 6) when simply swapping one tool for another, learning
may not occur. These issues relate not only to students’ learning with the tool or technology, but also to
corresponding 21st century skills.
While implementing the newest applications and software demonstrate the instructor’s willingness to
explore technology, some technologies are too difficult to use in the classroom (Selwyn, 2016). These
difficulties may involve the students’ age levels, skill levels, or even their fine motor skills or they may be
based solely on the tool’s complexity. Some students may develop critical thinking and problem solving
skills to navigate those tools, but many may not be prepared or successful. Similarly, many tools may not
interest the students or improve their learning. For instance, I had a group of undergraduate students in a
course on American minority relations create interactive timelines to demonstrate the plights of certain

81
 
Using Design Thinking Practices to Create Technology-Driven Adult Professional Development Programs

groups of individuals in the U.S. They used a tool that was complicated and did not interest them. Fol-
lowing the activity the students mentioned that creating the timeline did not improve their learning about
the groups and they were not motivated by the tool itself. Additionally, their digital and media literacy
skills throughout the investigation and activity were not improved because of the issues with the tool.
Using tools that are “too cool” or novel with student audiences can also impede learning. While edu-
cators are often encouraged to create and include novel experiences in learning environments to motivate
students (Keller, 1983), overusing them can lose their effectiveness (Bayaktar, 2001; NASEM, 2018;
Vallera, 2019). For example, a group of fourth grade students received a set of iPads to walk through
an integrated STEM and agriculture project-based learning curriculum and its corresponding eBook.
This group of students had not had iPads in their classrooms before and simply having the technology
resulted in interactive videos playing all at once, navigation outside of the eBook to other applications,
and an overwhelming number of selfies. Students’ learning was impeded because the technology was too
engaging, and project-based, 21st century skills involving collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking
were hindered because of the technology’s novelty.
Issues of equality and equity also impact 21st century learning with technology. When students do
not have equal access to devices, bandwidth, or similar learning opportunities with tools and technology
as their peers, their learning may suffer. According to a recent Pew Research Center Study (Anderson &
Kumar, 2019), a large portion of lower-income Americans still do not own smartphones, tablets, or have
broadband internet services in their homes. Sending students home with activities that involve such tools
or services will not encourage their learning. Furthermore, equity still plays a huge role in access. In some
“bring your own device” (BYOD) programs, students’ economic status is displayed by the devices they
bring. Some may have the newest technologies, while others have outdated “hand-me-downs.” Twenty-
first century skills development related to social and cross-cultural competence may be impeded when
diversity and differences related to socio-economic status and social class impact learning opportunities.
Finally, there has been a big push for teachers and teacher educators to follow technology integration
models and frameworks, such as SAMR and TPACK; however, these models do not necessarily contribute
to the transformation of learning and often do not get further than augmenting projects with new tools
or technologies (Cherner & Curry, 2017; Hamilton et al., 2016). Simply swapping out written work for
digital tools does not impact learning and digital literacy skills will not likely be improved.

PREPARING OUR TEACHERS

Educators must learn how to instruct their students for the future. However, to overcome the barriers to
the implementation of 21st century skills and technological integration, teacher educators must do several
things. Teacher educators must prepare teachers to be 21st century learners, technological integrators,
and flexible and adaptable leaders prepared for future-focused educational change (Blackley & Sheffield,
2015; Lemoine et al., 2019). They must encourage future teachers to develop learning environments
where 21st century skills development and technological integration are seamless, thoughtfully planned,
and designed with the audience in mind. Additionally, they must instruct teachers in ways that meet their
needs as adult learners. These are challenging goals to meet when teachers and teacher educators may
not have been instructed in similar fashions, and when professional development does not replicate the
learning their students must undertake.

82

Using Design Thinking Practices to Create Technology-Driven Adult Professional Development Programs

Professional Development Programs

According to Guskey (2002), “Professional development programs are systematic efforts to bring about
change in the classroom practices of teachers, in their attitudes and beliefs, and in the learning outcomes
of students” (pg. 381). Professional development programs can take many shapes, but there is no agreed
upon list of administration practices. Some definitions include in-service workshops, conferences, and
seminars, while others include informal and social learning that takes place among colleagues in hall-
ways and lunchrooms (Desimone, 2009). Whatever the case, most studies of professional development
aim to identify the links between the “design of professional development, teachers’ learning during
professional development activities, and subsequent changes in classroom practice” (Penuel, Fishman,
Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007, pg. 923).
Thoughtfully designed professional development programs should instruct teachers as though they
were their learners (Borko, 2004; Penuel et al., 2007), include professional learning communities (Borko,
2004), and engage teachers intrinsically (Guskey, 2002). They can also encourage the development of
21st century skills if they are embedded into the programs meaningfully. Garet and colleagues (2001)
found that “sustained and intensive professional development is more likely to have an impact...than is
shorter professional development….[and] that professional development that focuses on academic subject
matter (content), gives teachers opportunities for ‘hands-on’ work (active learning), and is integrated into
the daily life of the school (coherence), is more likely to produce enhanced knowledge and skills” (pg.
935). Additionally, recognizing and acknowledging the needs of adult learners in professional develop-
ment programs can improve their overall effectiveness.

Adult Learning, or Andragogical, Practices

Adults learn differently than younger students (Blackley & Sheffield, 2015; Knowles, 1980; Merriam,
2001). It was not until the late 1960s that educators started paying attention to those differences and de-
signing learning in accordance with their more “mature” audiences’ needs (Blackley & Sheffield, 2015).
Adult learners want to take an active role in their learning, evaluation, and feedback processes and prefer
to plan their pathways throughout their courses of study (Vallera & Lewis, 2019). They are considered
far more self-directed, motivated, and ready to learn than their younger counterparts (Knowles, 1980).
Additionally, adults hope to apply their learning immediately and want to incorporate their personal
experiences into their learning processes (Knowles, 1980).
Taking these assumptions into consideration when designing learning can help create environments
that are motivating and relevant to adult learners (Blackley & Sheffield, 2015; Knowles, Holton, &
Swanson, 2015). As with technology and 21st century skills, not all teacher educators, teacher trainers,
or professional development instructors may have been trained to teach adult learners. This is inherently
problematic if their instruction is more teacher-centered or geared more toward younger learners’ needs.
Additionally, it is irresponsible practice for designers and teacher educators to assume they know what is
best for adult students without first asking them. They may end up setting learners up for failure, creating
demotivating learning environments, or instructing things they do not care about or already know. Us-
ing a human-centered approach to the design of instruction can help develop welcoming environments
and thoughtfully planned instruction for adults. Design thinking practices can provide a framework for
meeting the needs of adult learners and designing effective programs.

83
 
Using Design Thinking Practices to Create Technology-Driven Adult Professional Development Programs

The Design Thinking Process

Design thinking is a human-centered approach to identifying and solving large-scale problems through
an iterative process involving prototyping and testing potential solutions. It is commonly used by en-
trepreneurs, corporations, and software or technology developers to create and innovate new solutions
to tools, technologies, softwares, processes, and learning based on the needs of their particular audi-
ences (Brown, 2009). However, it belongs in education as well. Like technology, design thinking is not
a “magic bullet” to successful learning and developing integrated environments that engage students
and support their learning. It does, however, encourage both the teacher and the student to identify and
investigate problems identified by the learner rather than problems that have been predefined by whoever
is in charge - usually the teacher, administrator, or the standardized assessment instrument. The main
goal of design thinking is to wrestle with complex problems in an effort to find and test new solutions.
There are several models of the design thinking process; however, all include some form of under-
standing the audience (empathy), defining the problem to solve (define), generating potential solutions
(ideate), building models that represent those solutions (prototype), and testing those designs (test).
Design thinking begins with humans, which “increases the likelihood of developing a breakthrough
idea and finding a receptive market” (Brown, 2009, pg. 230) and limits repeating mistakes by taking
the “business-as-usual” approach to innovation. It is focused on the process of finding innovative and
creative solutions to problems rather than addressing an individual problem. Design thinking allows us
to test potential solutions creatively and systematically to find multiple possible outcomes. And at every
stage of the design process, the target audiences’ needs are taken into consideration.

Design Thinking for Learning

The design thinking process fits nicely into curricular redesign and instruction. Integrating design think-
ing into the curriculum can encourage students to deal “with complex real-life problems by analysing
and evaluating them in order to act solution-oriented and responsible” (Scheer et al., 2012, pg. 11).
These opportunities teach valuable 21st century skills and tie together KSABs by encouraging students’
motivations and exploration into holistic, authentic activities (Scheer et al., 2012). It can also serve as a
method of personalizing instruction geared toward individuals’ specific needs and desires. Design think-
ing encourages educators to build learning in a learner-centered, empathetic manner. First, learning what
the audience needs and wants, then coming up with a working problem statement, before brainstorming
numerous options for learning to create more authentic experiences. Prototyping, testing, and iterating
materials and products prior to implementation makes for more engaging student experiences.
Incorporating design thinking strategies into professional development and the development of ma-
terials can improve students’ success by encouraging the development of integrated KSABs and 21st
century skills. Design thinking can be used in classes and in the development of instructional materials
that support student learning, engagement, and performance. Design thinking is a tool that can be used
1) to design adult instruction, 2) by those adults in the classrooms, and 3) by students to prepare for 21st
century jobs and skills. Still, teachers need to practice the process themselves in order to effectively
teach it to their students.

84

Using Design Thinking Practices to Create Technology-Driven Adult Professional Development Programs

Professional Development and Design Thinking for Adult Learners

Incorporating the design thinking process into professional development programs surrounding technol-
ogy integration can impact learning in a positive way. If teachers and instructors are not confident in
their technological competencies, using the design thinking process to instruct them and design their
instruction may help. Design thinking creates in the users the feeling of “getting stuck” and allows for
them to explore ways of getting “unstuck”, along with the feelings that come with those experiences
(Gardner, 2017). Since problems in the real world can rarely be solved by individuals alone, design
thinking encourages the practice of collaboration to search for solutions from multiple perspectives,
skills, disciplines, experiences, and background knowledge. Similarly, failure is a challenging part of the
learning process, but it is an essential part of life for flexible, adaptable leaders. Design thinking allows
for and encourages failure in order to iterate and make projects and products better. Teaching individuals
that failure is acceptable will make for more thoughtful designs and bravery when they are searching
for solutions to challenging problems. Having adults experience these challenges in their own trainings
can help support them when they are instructing their own students.
Designing professional development and adult education programs that teach 21st century skills and
the design thinking process can help instructors put a thoughtful and effective iterative learning process
that “fosters metacognitive skills and competencies” (Scheer et al., 2012, pg. 14) into practice in their
classrooms. Taking adult learners’ needs into consideration when designing professional development
programs is essential in order to appeal to their self-direction, intrinsic motivation, readiness to learn,
and their desire to immediately apply their learning and use their real-life experiences (Knowles, 1980).
Utilizing the design thinking process to determine what adult learners’ needs are in relation to the topic
and KSABs they will learn will make the professional development more meaningful, motivating, and
authentic, as it asks: “Does it meet the needs of its target population? Does it create meaning as well as
value? Does it inspire a new behavior that will be forever with it?” (Brown, 2009, pg. 230).

CREATION OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS

Design Thinking for Development

Using design thinking, we have been able to learn more about the needs of our adult learners and design
professional development programs to address those needs. While we primarily develop professional
development programming geared toward instructional technology and learning design, we embed 21st
century skills and design thinking processes into the programs to encourage our teachers to learn like
their learners. We create a community of learners before the programming (in the empathy phase),
during the programming (in collaborative activities), and after the programming (in the form of shared
websites, collaborative documents, and follow-up connections and conversations). We also use design
thinking methods to identify learning strategies, topics, and tools that will motivate our learners to at-
tend our programming.
Prior to the development of any program, we talk to teachers. In a teacher education program, we
have ample opportunities to discuss trends, pressures, and interests both formally and informally. In the
empathy phase of any project, we try to discover the needs of our audience by asking them to describe
current classroom struggles, things they want to learn more about, and things that will motivate them

85
 
Using Design Thinking Practices to Create Technology-Driven Adult Professional Development Programs

to learn. We also need to incorporate their feelings, interests, and concerns as adult learners. From their
themes, needs, and insights that emerge (either from interviews, focus groups, or empathy mapping),
we develop a problem statement defining their specific professional development needs. In the ideation
phase, we brainstorm many different ideas - foregoing the “low hanging fruit” - and funnel the best one
to the prototyping phase. It is here where we try to incorporate additional 21st century skills that align
to technological integration. Then, we will make the first prototype of the program or materials. In the
design thinking process, it is important to test the prototype quickly and make any necessary changes
before the full program is developed. This gives us the time to iterate and repeat the process again and
again if the program falls flat or does not interest the audience. The result of all the steps will bring us
a product that will hopefully meet the needs of our targeted audience.
The next section offers some examples of professional development workshops, teacher trainings,
and adult learning materials. Their designs and implementation outcomes are discussed, along with best
practices in integrating the design thinking process into the design of instruction, during the presentation
of instruction, and as a tool for teachers to incorporate into their own courses.

Video Design Workshops

Instructors and educators are aware that their students learn from video. Video is an accessible, search-
able, and convenient tool for learning. Faculty and staff members regularly request training on how to
develop more instructional video for their learners. Using the design thinking process, several individu-
als indicated what they wanted to know and be able to do with video in their courses and professional
development trainings. From this information, we found that many did not know what they did not know.
This made for an incredible learning opportunity. Rather than simply disseminating a professional de-
velopment workshop on video editing (one of the initial requests received), we were able to create and
test three separate workshops designed to meet the needs discovered in the empathy and define phases
of the design thinking process. Those workshops included: 1) the basics of best practices in instructional
video design, 2) how to stage, light, and capture quality video and audio, and 3) how to edit video using
the appropriate tools for the user’s skill level. Participants could attend all three workshops or just the
one or two they needed.
Additionally, each workshop was designed to have teachers walk through the design thinking process
themselves to learn how to build their videos. They had to identify their audiences’ needs and generate
a problem statement, rather than identifying what they, themselves, believed the problem was. From
there, they had to ideate several possible solutions by storyboarding and scripting possible videos and
storylines. They learned how to make videos, develop 21st century skills, and employ the design thinking
process to solve relevant and authentic problems. From the pilot test of the workshops, ten individuals
participated in all three. Six more participated in two of them, and roughly 12 other individuals came
to one of the three workshops. The participants connected following the workshops and several have
partnered to work on video projects collaboratively.

86

Using Design Thinking Practices to Create Technology-Driven Adult Professional Development Programs

Building Makerspaces for Learning

Makerspaces are currently a hot topic in K-12 education and students requested training. Many wanted
to know how and what to teach in such a space, but most did not have makerspaces available for their
use. After several discussions with our target audience, we learned that teachers first needed to know
how to build or secure a makerspace in their school or classroom. They could not teach if they did not
have a space. We ideated several possible ways to instruct “how to build a makerspace,” while still
incorporating 21st century skills and integrating relevant technologies. Would we take students to see
spaces? Would we follow an outline as to how to define an appropriate space? Would we encourage
their learning while participating in a space as students? We prototyped an eight-day intensive course
that incorporated these things and transformed our classroom space into a fully operational makerspace.
We visited three makerspaces in the area and students had to complete tasks, challenges, and activities
designed to have them experience their learning as their learners would. The course was a success and
now runs every summer with more relevant visits and restructured activities. Again, participants used
the design thinking process themselves to design challenges their students would do in the space they
would eventually create.
A second course is being developed and tested to instruct students how to teach in those spaces.
Several teachers have spaces in place but have never received training as to how to tie learning into
the constructivist practice of innovating in such places. Participants will again use the design thinking
process to understand what their audiences would like to do in the space. From there, they will continue
to create learning opportunities and an environment that meets the needs of their audience members.

Artificial Intelligence for Adult Literacy

In another project under development, the design thinking process was utilized to identify a solution to
meet the needs of adult English language learners navigating unfamiliar reading materials. An artificial
intelligence (AI) enabled eBook reader is being created to assist adult learners in identifying how difficult
the book they are about to read will be based on their current understanding of the English language.
The tool will keep track of the previous readings and make assumptions based on previous vocabulary
understandability to predict the readability of the new book or text. The goal of this project is to help
learners choose readings based on their current level of reading comprehension. Adult English language
learners may struggle with finding supports suited to their needs. The design thinking process has al-
lowed us to identify the learners’ needs and problems and identify a possible solution to test in the future.
The software will help adults learn by collecting data about their current repository of words and
by choosing future readings that are appropriate for their current reading level. The program will help
students learn the definitions of words before beginning the new reading. The AI enabled application
can be used by individuals and their instructors to keep track of their learning over time. Data will be
comprised of the practice of reading - time spent on each page, how often readers click on certain words,
and how often readers navigate backwards in the text. The data that are collected from this process will
be valuable, which will help instructors, policymakers, and other educational stakeholders to make
thoughtful, informed data-driven decisions about additional interventions and learning opportunities.

87
 
Using Design Thinking Practices to Create Technology-Driven Adult Professional Development Programs

One of the flaws of the current education system is that instruction is rarely personalized and is pre-
sented in a teacher-centered manner to many students simultaneously. All students are expected to learn
everything presented; but since learners have different needs, this model cannot satisfy all of those needs
at once. With the help of applications such as this one, students’ specific needs are identified, interven-
tions are provided, and 21st century skills can be developed using integrated technological solutions.
Using AI, we will have the opportunity to provide more personalized and individualized learning
experiences to adult learners. AI enabled systems will learn about the students, provide them with guid-
ance at their own pace, and meet their needs as learners. Unfortunately, personalized learning is still
not prevalent in modern education systems and adult education programs because educators are busy
doing the labor works of teaching, administration, and housekeeping for the students. With the help of
“smart systems,” we can reduce this burden on instructors, which will give them the time to connect
with students on a more personal level, something adult learners value greatly.

Reflection and Iteration

While these projects are all quite different, the design thinking process has provided several benefits in
their development. The main benefit of using the design thinking process in the construction of profes-
sional development programs is the opportunity to reflect and iterate. Since adult learners greatly value
being involved in their learning, offering their personal experiences, and applying their knowledge im-
mediately, they are very receptive to reflecting on the programs and offering suggestions for iteration.
The most common suggestions from adult learners in professional development trainings include:

• Provide feedback immediately following learning activities

• Offer active learning, hands-on tasks and challenges to engage audiences
• The trainer should ALSO participate as the learner to further model desired behaviors
• Encourage 21st century skills, such as collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical
thinking
• Be prepared to differentiate instruction (particularly with technology integration) for varying skill
and knowledge levels

CONCLUSION

The future of educational change is upon us. Students are inundated with technology, and the answers
to all their questions are available instantaneously in their pockets (Prensky, 2012; Tapscott, 2009).
Students have expectations that we (as educators) should allow them to use those tools. Teachers have
expectations as to how those devices should be used by students, and administrators have expectations
about both of those things. Some schools/districts/colleges are still reluctant to let students use their
personal devices (smartphones in particular) to help them solve problems because they are still seen as
a distraction, while others are placing expectations on educators to integrate more technology into the
classroom and learning process to prepare students for the future.

88

Using Design Thinking Practices to Create Technology-Driven Adult Professional Development Programs

Those integrations are often being done haphazardly or primarily as a substitution for other processes
(creating a word document over pencil and paper or a slideshow presentation over a poster). It is important
to integrate technology in thoughtful and meaningful ways to support 21st century skill development,
learning, and instruction (McLeod & Graber, 2019; McLeod & Shareski, 2018; Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
We must also keep in mind that emerging technologies are not the “magic bullets” for effective learning
and teaching. It is essential to look at the impact of technology integration thoughtfully, lead with the
learning and not the tool or technology, and consider technology as a support mechanism to learning
and not simply the answer.
We need to prepare our teachers to both use and explore the coming tools and technologies, and
also to not rely on them completely, as others are in the pipeline. But, how do we prepare them for the
tools and the changes? Teachers must prepare for more technological integration and 21st century skills
development by participating in professional development that incorporates the things their students
should be learning. They need to make sure their learning materials are designed thoughtfully and
integrate 21st century skills, technology, and subject-matter content so students can make a transfer of
knowledge, skills, and appropriate attitudes and beliefs across learning environments. To do so we need
to make learning relevant to real-life and personalized to meet our adult learners’ needs. Both teachers
and students must become adaptable, flexible, and amenable to failure. The design thinking process is
an important part of the meaningful integration of instructional technology and 21st century skills into
learning, while taking adult learners’ needs into consideration in the professional development process.
Teachers must embrace 21st century learning to prepare their students for success in the future. Rather
than focusing on the current trends in tools and technology, teachers and teacher educators should be
shaping the people who will be making products. Only then can we consider transforming the learning
space for future generations and prepare our students for careers that do not yet exist.

REFERENCES

Anderson, M., & Kumar, M. (2019). Digital divide persists even as lower-income Americans make gains
in tech adoption. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/07/
digital-divide-persists-even-as-lower-income-americans-make-gains-in-tech-adoption/
Baartman, L., & Bruijn, E. (2011). Integrating knowledge, skills and attitudes: Conceptualising learning
processes toward vocational competence. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 125–134. doi:10.1016/j.
edurev.2011.03.001
Bayaktar, S. (2001). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in science
education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 173–188. doi:10.1080/15391523.
2001.10782344
Benade, L. (2017). Is the classroom obsolete in the twenty-first century? Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 49(8), 796–807. doi:10.1080/00131857.2016.1269631
Blackley, S., & Sheffield, R. (2015). Digital andragogy: A richer blend of initial teacher education in
the 21st century. Issues in Educational Research, 25(4), 397–414.

89
 
Using Design Thinking Practices to Create Technology-Driven Adult Professional Development Programs

Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in
systematic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational
Psychologist, 35(3), 149–164. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3503_2
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational
Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. doi:10.3102/0013189X033008003
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires in-
novation. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Chang, C., & Wang, H. (2009). Issues of inquiry learning in digital learning environments. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 40(1), 169–173. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00850.x
Cherner, T., & Curry, K. (2017). Enhancement or transformation? A case study of preservice teachers’ use
of instructional technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 17(2), 268–290.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better con-
ceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140
Edelson, D. (2001). Learning-for-Use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<355::AID-
TEA1010>3.0.CO;2-M
Gardner, L. (2017, April). Can design thinking redesign higher ed? The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from http://universityinnovationfellows.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Can-Design-Thinking-
Redesign-Higher-Ed_-The-Chronicle-of-Higher-Education.pdf
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional develop-
ment effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal,
38(4), 915–945. doi:10.3102/00028312038004915
Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3/4), 381–391.
doi:10.1080/135406002100000512
Hamilton, E., Rosenberg, J., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification
Redefinition (SAMR) Model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441.
doi:10.100711528-016-0091-y
Inan, F., & Lowther, D. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154. doi:10.100711423-009-9132-y
Instefjord, E., & Munthe, E. (2017). Educating digitally competent teachers: A study of integration
of professional digital competence in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 37–45.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.016
Keller, J. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS Model approach. New
York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3

90

Using Design Thinking Practices to Create Technology-Driven Adult Professional Development Programs

Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Cambridge Books.
Knowles, M., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. (2015). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult edu-
cation and human resource development (8th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Leboff, G. (2014). Stickier marketing: How to win customers in a digital age (2nd ed.). London: Kogan
Page Limited.
Lemoine, P., Seneca, S., & Richardson, M. (2019). Resilience for faculty development in global higher
education. In A. Elçi, L. Beith, & A. Elçi (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Faculty Development for Digital
Teaching and Learning (pp. 481–504). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8476-6.ch024
McLeod, S., & Graber, J. (2019). Harnessing technology for deeper learning. Bloomington, IN: Solu-
tion Tree Press.
McLeod, S., & Shareski, D. (2018). Different schools for a different world. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree Press.
Merriam, S. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Direc-
tions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 3–14. doi:10.1002/ace.3
Muir-Herzig, R. (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers & Education, 42(2),
111–131. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00067-8
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners,
contexts, and cultures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. (2007). What makes professional development
effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal,
44(4), 921–958. doi:10.3102/0002831207308221
Prensky, M. (2012). From digital natives to digital wisdom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Rosefsky Saavedra, A., & Opfer, V. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching.
Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8–13. doi:10.1177/003172171209400203
Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design
thinking in education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(3).
Selwyn, N. (2016). Digital downsides: Exploring university students’ negative engagements with digital
technology. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(8), 1006–1021. doi:10.1080/13562517.2016.1213229
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the Net Generation is changing your world. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA:
John Wiley & Sons.

91
 
Using Design Thinking Practices to Create Technology-Driven Adult Professional Development Programs

Vallera, F. (2019). Durkheim said what? Creating talking textbooks with augmented reality and project-
based activities. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(3), 290–310. doi:10.1080/15391
523.2019.1617809
Vallera, F., & Lewis, M. (2019). Andragogical design considerations for online multicultural education.
In J. Keengwe & K. Kungu (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Cross-Cultural Online Learning in Higher
Education (pp. 364–383). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8286-1.ch018
Van Dusen, G. (1998). Technology: Higher education’s magic bullet. The NEA Higher Education Journal.
Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/abf4/b41084f39f15d6d13ffdb84322a902ed3228.pdf

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Andragogy: A theory involving the methods, practices, and study of instructing adult learners, where
it is assumed that adults learn differently than children.
Artificial Intelligence: Simulated human intelligence generated by computer systems that learn,
correct, and predict based on advanced mathematical algorithms.
Design Thinking: A human-centered approach to identifying and solving a large-scale problem
through an iterative process involving prototyping and testing potential solutions.
Makerspace: A place and a mindset where individuals connect and collaborate to innovate new ideas
by sharing tools, technologies, and expertise.
Professional Learning Communities: Groups of teachers, administrators, and staff members that
meet regularly to share ideas and expertise to improve teaching performance and learning achievement.

92
 93

Chapter 5
Perceptions and New Realities
for the 21st Century Learner
Jennifer (Jenny) L. Penland
Shepherd University, USA

Kennard Laviers
Sul Ross State University, USA

ABSTRACT
Of all the technologies emerging today, augmented reality (AR) stands to be one of, if not the, most trans-
formational in the way we teach our students across the spectrum of age groups and subject matter. The
authors propose “best practices” that allow the educator to use AR as a tool that will not only teach the
processes of a skill but will also encourage students to use AR as a motivational tool that allows them to
discover, explore, and perform work beyond what is capable with this revolutionary device. Finally, the
authors provide and explore the artificial intelligence (AI) processors behind the technologies driving
down cost while driving up the quality of AR and how this new field of computer science is transform-
ing all facets of society and may end up changing pedagogy more profoundly than anything before it.

INTRODUCTION

Mixed Reality (MR) the cousin to Virtual Reality (VR), is starting to gain a foothold in today’s tech-
nological ecosystem. In (Penland, Laviers, Bassham and Nnochiri 2018), the use of Virtual Reality for
distance learning was demonstrated on a small scale however VR while being more immersive, does not
integrate with the user’s environment and therefore makes it difficult to teach students with a tangible
example of the subject matter. Mixed Reality (MR) is used as an independent concept or to classify
the spectrum of reality technologies, as referenced in reality virtuality continuum 1994; 2007). As an
independent concept, MR combines the best of both virtual reality and augmented reality. When used
to classify the larger scope of reality technologies, it refers to the coverage of all possible variations and
compositions of real and virtual objects.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch005

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 
Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner

This type of connectivity has now reached the pinnacle were technology has emerged both the quality
and cost to a practical level. While this is fantastic, allowing someone to engage in a task totally unfa-
miliar to them such as, rebuilding a carburetor, as a pedagogical medium we propose a note of caution
and suggest prior instruction with this as a continued practice strategy. If the AR or Mixed Reality can
take them step-by-step through a process, we can make an argument that the students will not find it
insignificant to remember or learn the process because they don’t have to, the AR will do it for them
(Callaghan, Gardner & Davies, 2008). In this chapter, we will explore various ways for AR to be used
as a pedagogical tool and propose methods to avoid letting the student side-step the learning process.
Over time, it is likely that only a few adaptive learning software packages will prevail. Hopefully,
software vendors not controlled by very large universities or companies will choose to share how their
algorithms work. We have learned enough about how people learn to know that not everyone learns the
same way. Beyond the seven learning styles (visual, aural, verbal, physical, logical, social, and solitary)
with which many educators are familiar, modern technologies are enabling researchers to determine there
may be more. In fact, one recent book by David Schwartz, Jessica Tsang, and Kristen Blair (2016), “The
ABCs of How We Learn”, identifies 26 unique learning styles. As datasets of learners’ activities increase
and algorithms improve their abilities to discern different styles, this higher number will likely increase.
Sophisticated software increases the potential to tease out the most effective way to help each person
learn. The weakness of today’s educational system is that we often teach to the average, excluding learn-
ers on the upper and lower edges with a Bell Curve focus (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). A learner who
conforms survives, while non-conformers do not. As colleges, universities, and corporations develop
and refine stronger adaptive learning algorithms, I hope they avoid the bias toward conformity.
As we embrace adaptive learning software, we have to make sure that we choose learning algorithms
that work to the learners’ strengths instead of forcing them to adapt to a norm. In the end, we lose if we
are all coached to think alike. One of the surest signs that a technology trigger is starting its roller-coaster
ride through the Gartner’s “Hype cycle of innovation” is when the name we all call that trigger becomes
a part of the public lexicon (2014).

The Technology Explained

Augmented Reality (AR) and Mixed Reality (MR) are often used synonymously, however, some sepa-
rate the two terms to mean slightly different things. We choose to use the two as the same. While it is
counter-intuitive to envision, AR is actually much more sophisticated and difficult to implement then
VR. With VR, the hardware and software do not need to keep track of the real world that the user is in
whereas in AR not only does it need to track the real world, it also needs to understand what it observes
in the real world and translate that to the software so the simulation can be matched with the world. Until
most recently, this process was just not fast enough and there was a big delay in the simulation updating
the movements of the user in the simulation and often the simulation would get out of synch with the
world cause uncomfortable jarring in the experience for the user. Part of the solution to this problem is
generating an immediate modality for the computer to understand items and features in the real world
that could be used to track movements and places of interest pertaining to the application in us (Penland
and Laviers, 2018). In order to accomplish this, developers turned to artificial intelligence and hardware
implementations of complex algorithms that take too much time.

94

Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been around since the early days of computers but until recently it was
used only as a mildly helpful tool to perform simple tasks such as voice and image recognition. Often
probability theory would work better to accomplish AI tasks then the more unusual neural networks that
are truer to form as an AI technique. Neural networks simulate how the brain processes information but
have the problem of being more like a black box. In other words, they learn how to recognize patterns
but we can’t really examine what took place inside the network to understand how the network learned
what it did and therefore researchers and developers have been hesitant to use them in commercial ap-
plications. The reason neural networks have been overlooked since their discovery in 1943, when Walter
Pitts and Warren McCulloch wrote a program that modeled the human brain in a very simple sense with
few neurons. The problem with these neural networks was very simple, computers were simply too slow.
A neural network can be thought of as in input array (think in terms of pixels of an image), an output
array (think in terms of the name of a face on a picture) and some hidden (middle) layers in-between
the input layer and the output layer. The more middle layers between the input and output, the better
the AI does its job and the more abstract concepts are that the neural network can learn. The problem
that arises is that every layer that is added increases the complexity of the processing exponentially. In
the computer world this is a very bad thing and for many years it was a huge obstacle to overcome and
therefore neural networks were giving very little attention. This was true until another technology grew
from the gaming industry, video cards and Graphics Processing Units (GPUs).
GPUs started from the ground up to perform fairly simple and low-resolution computational tasks
with a high degree of parallelism. That is, instead of one or a few very powerful and high-resolution
computer processor cores, the GPU would have hundreds or even thousands of cores that could all
work simultaneously. This made the practicality of deep neural networks a reality and soon enough this
technology allowed researched to beat the world’s best Go player for the first time, a feat some scientist
thought was impossible. Soon after, companies across the world started a race to implement AI in their
core business practices Abramovich and Horowitz (2018) and country after country started programs to
further research in AI starting something of an AI space race among nations (Gershgorn, 2018).
These advances have lead companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Intel and others to start developing
AI processors that could run these parallel computations with very little power and more importantly in
real-time. This technology has finally opened up the world of Augmented and Mixed reality to consum-
ers, businesses and educational institutions.
Apple and what they did with the new technology provide the best example of this use of extra AR
and AI processors. In order to bring AR to their devices, as mentioned above, they developed a whole
new chip that they called their neural engine. This chip is similar to the GPU mentioned above but it
is even more specifically designed to process neurons in a neural network in parallel. This processor
allows very complex computation on the devices with very low power usage making it relatively practi-
cal to run Augmented Reality tasks on the very power constrained, computationally limited phones and
tablets. This chip is used for their facial recognition component as well as other neat features on the
phones. However, it is important to note that this is only part of the story. In addition to the hardware
introduced, Apple also introduced their AR Kit, which is a handy framework for software developers
can use to easily make AR based applications. Arguably, it is this spirit of producing more and more
tools, frameworks and even programming languages that is driving the explosion of AR, VR, and MR
in addition to driving the explosion of Artificial Intelligence in general. (Gershgorn, 2017)

95
 
Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner

As colleges, universities, and corporations develop and refine, an actual example of a virtual world
used for education is NASA’s simulator. This very complex simulator provides space simulation sce-
narios and is used for training next-generation astronauts (BBC, 2008). Other simulators, (many based
on virtual worlds from computer games) are already in common use training people in high-risk or
stressful occupations, (e.g. surgeons, soldiers). By designing their own computer games young people
can acquire Computer Science skills.

AR Devices Available

Microsoft announced the HaloLens in 2016 and it was truly amazing in the features it provided (Swartz,
2016). Laduma announced the HoloLens 2 which sees an increase in the field of view by two-fold (Pick-
ersgill, 2019). The HoloLens 2 has a price point that is higher than many consumers or casual gamers
may be interested in. This would suggest that Microsoft sees this entry as a viable tool for commercial
or educational use.

Why Traditional Learning Suffers vs. VR, AR or Mixed?

Many of the higher institutions suffer a dedicated instruction system as well as a deficiency of personal
interaction between the students and the instructors. The assessment methods applied by those institu-
tions are usually outdated and cannot measure the learning goals adequately, this provides the student
with a very little opportunity of utilizing their knowledge to solve real-life problems (Penland & Laviers,
2018). Students from a privileged educational background, as well as the students from disadvantaged
educational backgrounds, usually enter higher educational institutions with differences in the skills and
knowledge required for studying different disciplines (Penland & Laviers, 2018).
If students lack schedule flexibility, instructors’ availability, and vast interaction in a particular leaning
system, it cannot be regarded as a VR, AR or mixed realities. VR/ AR reality learning can be regarded
as mixed when the learners have frequent access to their instructors, both online and physically (Penland
& Laviers, 2018). Mixed Reality (MR) is any method of learning that uses technology to bridge the gap
between students and instructors. The quality, frequency, and the quantity of communication between
the instructors and students alone are not enough in VR, AR or Mixed Realities, but refining the learning
experience of the student Penland & Laviers, 2018).
The most common problem faced by higher education institutions in adopting the Mixed Reality
approach is the inadequate computer skills for the instructors. Some of the major challenges hindering
the application whether it be VR, AR or MR technology in higher education include students’ restricted
access to technological resources and lack of innovative methods from instructors. Integrating online
materials via virtual with the traditional classroom provides a positive effect on students’ performance,
enhances a flexible learning atmosphere, and ensures student autonomy (Sheehan, 2017).

96

Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner

Machine Learning

Machine learning is an artificial intelligence (AI) discipline geared toward the technological develop-
ment of human knowledge (Hurwitz & Kirsch, 2019). AI allows computers to handle new situations via
analysis, self-training, observation and experience and is used in anti-virus and anti-spam software
to improve detection of malicious software, spyware, adware etc. on your devices. (Hurwitz & Kirsch,
2019). AI is also changing the way vehicle systems are engineered and built. It is being used extensively
in self-driving cars.
Why is machine learning important? Resurging interest in machine learning is due to the same fac-
tors that have made data mining and Bayesian analysis more popular than ever. Things like growing
volumes and varieties of available data, computational processing that is cheaper and more powerful,
and affordable data storage. All of these things mean it is possible to quickly and automatically produce
models that can analyze bigger, more complex data and deliver faster (such as from micro to macro or
the universal placement theory) with more accurate results – even on a very large scale. And by building
precise models, an organization has a better chance of identifying profitable opportunities – or avoiding
unknown risks (Hurwitz & Kirsch, 2019).

Sift Features

Matching features across different images in a common problem in computer vision. When all images
are similar in nature (same scale, orientation, etc.) simple corner detectors can work. But when you have
images of different scales and rotations such as mountain ridge, aspen grove etc., one needs to use the
Scale Invariant Feature Transform (Sinha, 2010). Why care about SIFT?
SIFT is not just scale invariant. You can change the following, and still get good results: Scale, Rota-
tion, Illumination and Viewpoint.
SIFT is quite an involved algorithm and below is an outline of what happens in SIFT.

1. Constructing a scale space This is the initial preparation. You create internal representations of the
original image to ensure scale invariance. This is done by generating a “scale space”.
2. LoG Approximation The Laplacian of Gaussian is great for finding interesting points (or key points)
in an image.
3. Finding key points with the super-fast approximation, we now try to find key points. These are
maxima and minima in the Difference of Gaussian image we calculate in step 2.
4. Get rid of bad key points Edges and low contrast regions are bad keypoints. Eliminating these makes
the algorithm efficient and robust. A technique similar to the Harris Corner Detector is used here.
5. Assigning an orientation to the keypoints An orientation is calculated for each key point. Any
further calculations are done relative to this orientation. This effectively cancels out the effect of
orientation, making it rotation invariant.
6. Generate SIFT features Finally, with scale and rotation invariance in place, one more representation
is generated. This helps uniquely identify features therefore, you can easily identify the feature you
are looking for (Sinha, 2010).

97
 
Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner

Stimulated NEURON

The NEURON stimulator environment is used in laboratories and classrooms around the world for build-
ing and using computational models of networks of neurons (Hugenard & McCormick, 1994). NEURON
had its beginnings in the laboratory of John W. Moore at Duke University, where Carnevale and Hines
started to develop simulation software for neuroscience research. It has demonstrated benefits and been
guided by feedback from the growing number of collaborative groups of neuroscientists who have used
it to incorporate empirically based modeling into their research strategies (Carnevale & Hines, 2006.)
NEURON’s computational engine employs special algorithms that achieve high efficiency by ex-
ploiting the structure of the equations that describe neuronal properties. It has functions that are tailored
for conveniently controlling simulations and presenting the results of real neurophysiological problems
graphically in ways that are quickly and intuitively grasped (Carnevale & Hines, 2006). Instead of forc-
ing users to reformulate their conceptual models to fit the requirements of a general-purpose simulator,
NEURON is designed to allow them to deal directly with familiar neuroscience concepts. Consequently,
users can think in terms of the biophysical properties of membrane and cytoplasm, the branched archi-
tecture of neurons, and the effects of synaptic communication between cells (Carnevale & Hines, 2006).

METHODOLOGY

Background

One thing most parents realize early in their experience raising their children (or at least by their second
child) is that the more they do for their kids and the less the child has to think for himself or herself,
the harder it becomes for them to solve their own problems as they grow older. A study conducted by
researchers at the U.S. Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) examined automation levels (Calhoun, 2013)
whereby they allowed artificial intelligent agent to help UAV pilots fly an increasing number of aircraft.
In this study they found that the greater the automation level, the greater the number of problems slipped
passed unobserved and possibly catastrophic the pilot. In other words, the pilot started to trust the AI
and just stopped paying attention. We propose a similar study detailed below to identify if AR/MR
teaching techniques lead to a similar detachment from learning and we propose some ideas and thoughts
about how we can reduce this effect to allow the learner to truly realize the benefit of this amazing new
medium for instructional delivery.
Our study will use qualitative methods to measure and analyze the potential relationship between
student engagement and meaningful learning (Callaghan, Gardner, Horan & Scott, 2008). Mixed Reality
Teaching & Learning Environment (MiRTLE) enables teachers and students participating in real-time
mixed and online classes to interact with avatar representations of each other. The long- term hypothesis
that will be investigated is that avatar representations of teachers and students will help create a sense
of shared presence, engendering a sense of community and improving student engagement in online
lessons. (Callaghan, Gardner, Horan & Scott, 2008).

98

Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner

Survey questions should be developed for both the teachers and the students to see what parts worked,
and what parts need improvements. We would expect that there would be tutorial videos to help the
educators learn how to develop content, but the goal should be to make a system for our teachers that
required very little training on how to use so that they are as free as possible to start creating for their
classes and sharing their material.
We propose some basic questions for the educators that have been asked to use a portion of the
developed platform are below. We would recommend that of the people used in the study we develop
several example platforms and have groups of teachers try separate implementations, so we can target
UIs that seem to work best with many of the educators.

1. What part of the AR/MR did you find the most useful to explain your topic?
2. What part of the AR/MR would you change if you could?
3. Of the modules that you used to develop content, which one did you like the most and why?
4. Please provide any suggestions you must change or add to the interface you used to improve how
you use it to make AR/MR content.
5. Overall, on a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being the best, how would you rate this product?
6. How likely are you on a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being the most likely to use a product like this to
create content to use in your classroom?
7. How likely are you on a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being the most likely to recommend a product like
this for other educators?

On the student side we will also want to ask them how their experience was as well in the form of
another survey. It is not only important to make the best development environment for the educator, we
also want to ensure that the content they develop is seen as high quality and useful for the students, as
well. Some questions might include:

1. How did your Virtual Reality course compare to a traditional lecture or online course?
2. Did you find that the visual and immersive experiences augmented your learning?
3. While you were taking the course did you feel like you were part of a group when you had the
headset on and were in a space with other students? In other words, did the AR/MR allow you to
feel like you were present with your partners/classmates in the educational experience?
4. On a scare of 1 to 10, 10 being the most likely, how likely are you recommend this form of lecture
to other students for the subject matter that you were exposed to?
5. What was your favorite part of your AR/MR experience and do you think we could have done
something to make it better?
6. What did you like least about your experience and do you have any suggestions about how to im-
prove or make that experience better?
7. What did you think needed improvement?

If our study is to be effective in evaluating meaningful and applicable learning, it must incorporate
a long-term plan to evaluate students not just after the proposed learning event but must reevaluate the
learner in intervals for months or even years later. We would propose as part of our study, to introduce
anomalies (unconscious or experimental variables) not specifically included in the training but should
be noticed by the student. The fear we have is that the more the augmented reality guides the student, the

99
 
Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner

less the student will be alert to an event happening that was not in the programming of the augmented
reality tutor (Penland & Laviers, 2018).
This portion will be biased by the quality of what the educator put together but should still provide
some useful information to help assist and direct developers when developing the final system.
If this is the case, content developers should consider adding such features into their content as a
practice to support the user in critically evaluating and problem-solving on their own. We can easily argue
that it is not possible to cover every possible deviation to a process that can possibly happen and so it is
of the utmost importance to make sure the student is able to properly go beyond the training content. We
are currently in the developing stages with our pilot study and anticipate collecting findings in spring of
2020 from the two groups. One group will be a controlled undergraduate cohort from a small, university
in West Texas and the second cohort will be a graduate selection from a small liberal arts institution in
the northeast panhandle of West Virginia.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As we have explored the reduction in engagement levels with increased levels of automation or assis-
tance, we have several thoughts one should consider if using Augmented Reality as a tool for education.
First, passively providing information to the student should be avoided. Questions or problems should
be presented throughout the session that actively engages the student to participate in the process. This
would force the student, just as it would in a physical classroom to switch from passive listening to
actively learning. We see this technique often in computer-based classes where students are required to
answer multiple-choice questions as they progress. In AR we can be more creative and offer interesting
animations and visual perspectives that also engage the student’s curiosity.
Second, if the purpose of the Augmented Reality is to demonstrate a technique over a physical device
(for example rebuilding a carburetor) then for show the student, then remove the helpful overlays until the
student needs it to continue and then only add them back in slowly and as needed to insure the student
can perform the task without the augmented assistance. This will ensure that the student is truly learning
the task and not learning how to use Augmented Reality to complete the task. This closely resembles
exactly how someone might show an apprentice or student how to complete a task in the physical world.
Indeed, as we explore this future technology direction, we begin to see that it provides a transformational
environment for learning, but the way we have learned and taught for countless generations remain, at
the core, very much the same (Penland & Laviers, 2018).

100

Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner

CONCLUSION

Virtual/Augmented/Mixed reality has consistently been demonstrated to decrease pain, anxiety, un-
pleasantness, and perceived time spent in a medical procedure. In addition, nurses have commented
that it helps children be less nervous and calmer during procedures both in schools and clinics. As the
field advances, these Augmented Realities may decrease the number of needed treatment/ counseling
sessions, and is showing initial promise for managing chronic pain and anxiety; however, future studies
should continue to deconstruct critical variables methodologies with standardized outcomes to evaluate
the efficacy of AR.
Scientists, clinicians and educators are just beginning to scratch the surface when it comes to current
applications of AR. Historically, AR technology has been expensive, available to few and mostly sought
out by researchers and gaming technicians. The current state of AR as a tool for pain management is still
in its early developmental stages. With technology rapidly evolving, increased interest in complementary
nonpharmacological interventions, and the reported burden and disability associated with increasing
rates of chronic pain, AR is quickly gaining attention as a complementary pain management strategy
(Stepneski, 2019). What was once valued solely as high-tech entertainment equipment has now captured
the interest of neuroscientists, clinical researchers and pain management clinicians.
As the costs associated with Augmented Reality technology decrease and the flexibility/customizabil-
ity of the gaming environments increase, AR will have numerous applications with an array of medical
and mental conditions. Eventually, as part of a healthcare providers toolkit, AR may be integrated into
a variety of medical settings, physical therapy and treat a variety of psychiatric conditions (i.e., anxiety,
post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse), to name a few (Stepneski, 2019). The ability to
instantly transport into a virtual world for the purposes of distraction, exposure to a feared situation, or
to augment diaphragmatic breathing, guided imagery and/or self-hypnosis makes VR a tremendously
powerful tool.
Ultimately, an important advancement is the portability of AR for private practice and eventually home
use. At that point, AR will no longer be used solely in a medical setting for painful medical procedures
but will be expanded for the management of chronic pain, physical therapy, long-term rehabilitation and
other associated symptoms (Stepneski, 2019). In addition, AR may be used to augment and/or deliver
other therapies such as hypnosis and biofeedback. The expanding scope of AR is on the rise and is
promising for the field of pain management and beyond (Penland & Laviers, 2018). Given the advances
in neuroscience, such as increased knowledge regarding the connectivity of the brain and behavior, pain
perception and modulation, and the dynamic interplay between biological and psychological (e.g., atten-
tion, memory and emotion) factors implicated in pain perception, AR will emerge as a viable first-line
intervention and complementary therapy to the healthcare and educational industries (Stepneski, 2019).

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

No one wants to be “the guinea” and operated on by a junior doctor. Additionally, this process helps to
address issues before they arise. One new AR/MR surgical tool is Laduma (Ffiske, 2019). The company
is an immersive consultancy that has been working to create a new 360 experience of a S-ICD procedure,
normally performed on people at risk of a cardiac arrest. The experience allows doctors to get a view of
the process, next to a doctor in an operation room. These immersive qualities help to improve training

101
 
Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner

in virtual reality without a tool being picked up. While expensive, experiences like these help doctors
hone their craft and learn, without being in the operation room. Hands-on experiences will always trump
other forms of training, yet, it provides a great groundwork to build on (Ffiske, 2019).

Meaningful Learning Realities without Bias

There are multiple experiences which help people learn in augmented/ mixed realities without bias.
Companies tackle racial bias in numerous training programmers such as Starbucks in 2018, who shut
8,000 of its stores for bias training (Dorvilas, 2019). Leaders should delicately handle these types of situ-
ations to educate their employees in the best way possible. These learning experiences have an adverse
effect on the mental health of employees who work in the company.
Dorvilas (2019) designed a AR/MR experience to remove the shame and guilt felt afterward, via
debiasing techniques. ‘Companies can spend millions of dollars on extremely ineffective, and virtually
useless training that can have an adverse effect which can hurt the company even more,” she said. “Bias
training shouldn’t be there to shame. People should feel good about making others feel accepted. Debias
isn’t something that you can work out in a day. It’s a behavior that you must work through. We want to
give people the capacity to work in a safe and comfortable space (Dorvilas, 2019).
Dorvilas (2019) found that empathy allowed people to humanize each other and applied that to AR/
MR. Numerous studies show that unconscious bias impacts education and teaching, as it shapes how
people teach and how they see relative achievement. This shaped the creation of Teacher’s Lens, an app
which provides simulations in AR/MR and reduces bias in a safe and comfortable way. The app presents
the teacher with a racially diverse classroom, and tracks who the teacher interacts with. In this way, the
benefits of AR/MR are made clear.
By creating and enhancing these AR/MR opportunities, the researchers expect to eventually improve
student retention and graduation rates, as researched and suggested (Bledsoe & Baskin, 2014). Expo-
sure to diverse, high-impact experienced-based virtual-based augmented reality activities proved to be
an important component in previous formative studies of both Penland and Laviers (2018). The key to
making these programs successful will be meaningful, student engaged and formative feedback from
students, employers, and instructors, with our proposed study. Diversity of experiences and flexibility
of work schedules for all were invaluable to all participating stakeholders (Penland & Laviers, 2018).
It is difficult to believe that it has been almost two decades that the word eLearning has entered in the
corporate lexicon. We now can deploy video, virtual and augmented role-plays. We can connect people
socially, upload user generated content and track and rate content that is delivered.
North Carolina State Online and Distance Education (2019) is providing an immersive experience
in many online programs largely due to the innovative technology provided by Distance Education and
Learning Technologies Applications (DELTA). Some of that technology includes augmented/mixed
realities. DELTA began exploring the use of AR/MR for educational purposes in 2013, and during the
last four years, they’ve worked with faculty and staff to create immersive learning experiences.
NC State’s Global Training Initiative (GTI) uses AR/MR for training programs to teach cultural com-
petence that focus on working with students, businesses and organizations throughout North Carolina
to help them become more globally successful through an immersive cross-cultural training experience
(2019). GTI has conducted three workshops to test user experience with the virtual training and so far
they have received positive feedback. This technology in an effective and engaging way for students and

102

Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner

professionals, In today’s rapidly changing economy we need to challenge the higher education institu-
tions global competence to be globally competitive.

REFERENCES

Abramovich, G. (2018). Fifteen mind-blowing stats about artificial intelligence. Retrieved June 2019:
https://www.adobe.com/insights/15-stats-about-artificial-intelligence.html
BBC News. (2008). Nasa investigates virtual space. Retrieved May 2019: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
technology/7195718.stm
Boston, W. (2019). The Outcomes Imperative for Adaptive Learning. Accountability, Online Education,
Technology. Retrieved March 2019: https://wallyboston.com/new-realities-in-higher-education/
Calhoun, G., Draper, M., & Miller, C. (2013). Adaptable Automation Interface for Multi-Unmanned
Aerial Systems Control: Preliminary Usability Evaluation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Er-
gonomics Society Annual Meeting. 10.1177/1541931213571008
Callaghan, V., Gardner, M., & Davies, M. (2008). Towards a Mixed Reality Intelligent Campus. In Intel-
ligent Environments of 08. University of Essex. Retrieved May 2019: https://www.academia.edu/11914123/
TOWARDS_A_MIXED_REALITY_INTELLIGENT_CAMPUS
Callaghan, V., Gardner, M., Horan, B., & Scott, J. (2008). A Mixed Reality Teaching and Learning
Environment. Hybrid Learning and Education. Retrieved June 2019: https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/221116738_A-Mixed-Reality-Teaching-and-the-Learning-Environment
Carnevale, T., & Hines, M. (2006). The NEURON Book. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511541612
Dorvilas, C. (2018). Benefits of Immersive Learning. Retrieved June 2019: https://www.oculus.com/
experiences/rift/1552250918219351/
Ffiske, T. (2019). Virtual Perceptions. Retrieved June 2019: https://www.virtualperceptions.com/benefits-
virtual-reality-training-learning/
Gershgorn, D. (2017). Everything you need to know about Apple’s AI chip. Retrieved June 2019: https://
qz.com/1073036/everything-you-need-to-know-about-apples-ai-chip/
Gershgorn, D. (2018). AI is the new space race. Here’s what the biggest countries are doing. Retrieved
June 2019: https://qz.com/1264673/ai-is-the-new-space-race-heres-what-the-biggest-countries-are-doing/
Herrnstien, R., & Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American
Life. Free Press.
Horowitz, J. (2018). JPMorgan’s latest hire proves the bank is serious about artificial intelligence. CNN
Business. Retrieved March 2019: https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/03/investing/jpmorgan-artificial-
intelligence-chief/index.html

103
 
Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner

Hugenard, J., & McCormick, D. (1994). Electrophysiology of the Neuron. New York: Oxford University
Press. Retrieved from http://www.cnl.salk.edu/~arthur/MyFirstNEURON.html
Hurwitz, J., & Kirsch, D. (2019). Machine Learning: For Dummies. Retrieved June 2019: https://www.
ibm.com/analytics/machine-learning?
Milgram, Takemura, Utsumi, & Kishino. (1994). Augmented Reality: A class of displays on the reality-
virtuality continuum. Proceedings of Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies, 2351–34.
Penland, J., Laviers, K., Bassham, E., & Nnochiri, V. (2018). Virtual Learning: A Study of Virtual Real-
ity for Distance Education. In Handbook of Research on Blended Learning Pedagogies and Professional
Development in Higher Education. IGI Global.
Pickersgill, T. (2019). Exploring Immersive Technology in the Healthcare Industry in 2019. Retrieved
June 2019: https://www.thinkladuma.com/
Schwartz, D., Tsang, J., & Blair, K. (2016). The ABCs of How We Learn. W.W. Norton & Company.
Sheehan, L. (2017). Virtual Reality in Your OT Practice. OT Potential. Retrieved June 2019: https://
otpotential.com/blog/virtual-reality-and-occupational-therapy
Sinha, U. (2010). SIFT: Theory and practice. AI Shock. Retrieved June 2019: https://aishack.in/tutorials/
sift-scale-invariant-feature-transform-introduction/
Stepneski, K. (2019). Teaching Cultural Competencies Through Virtual Reality. Online and Distance
Education News. Retrieved June 2019: https://online-distance.ncsu.edu/teaching-cultural-competencies-
through-virtual-reality/
Wagner, E. (2014). Big Data, Analytics and Reflections on Student Success. WCET Frontiers.

ADDITIONAL READING

Abrosimova, K. (2014). Hypergrid Business. Retrieved on March 2019: http://www.hypergridbusiness.

com/2014/09/5-ways-virtual-reality-will-change-education
Al-Khalidi, S. (2014). New paradigm of effective e-learning through system development life cycle
structure. International Journal of Information and Education Technology (IJIET), 2(4), 185–188.
doi:10.7763/IJIET.2014.V4.395
Alvermann, D. E., Hutchins, R. J., & McDevitt, R. (2012). Adolescents’ engagement with web 2.0 and
social media: Research, theory, and practice. Research in the Schools, 19(1), 33–44.
Ausburn, L. (2002). The freedom versus focus dilemma in a customized self-directed learning environ-
ment: A comparison of the perceptions of adult and younger students. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 26(3), 225–235. doi:10.1080/106689202317245428
Bledsoe, T., & Baskin, J. (2014). Recognizing student fear: The elephant in the classroom. College
Teaching, 62(1), 32–41. doi:10.1080/87567555.2013.831022

104

Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner

Bonk, C., & Graham, C. (2012). The Handbook of Blended, Learning Global Perspectives and Local
Designs. John Wiley & Sons.
Boyle-Baise, M., & McIntyre, D. (2008). What kind of experience? Preparing teachers in PDS or com-
munity settings. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research
on teacher education (3rd ed., pp. 307–330). Routledge.
Bozhovich, E. (2009). Zone of proximal development: The diagnostic capabilities and limitations of
indirect collaboration. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 47(6), 48–69. doi:10.2753/
RPO1061-0405470603
Bozorgzadeh, A. (2018). “VR ‘stopped having potential’ and started being real”. Virtuleap. Retrieved
on March 2019: https://venturebeat.com/2018/10/09/in-2018-vr-stopped-having-potential-and-started-
being-real/
Bronack, S., & Tashner, J. (2006). Learning in the zone: A social constructivist framework for dis-
tance education in a 3-dimensional virtual world. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(3), 265–286.
doi:10.1080/10494820600909157
Brunner, I., Skouen, J., Hofstad, H., Abmuss, J., Becker, F., & ... . (2016). “Is upper limb virtual reality
training more intensive than conventional training for patients in the subacute phase after stroke?”: An
analysis of treatment intensity and content. BMC Neurology, 16(1), 219. doi:10.118612883-016-0740-y
PMID:27835977
Carrington, V., & Robinson, M. (Eds.). (2009). Digital Literacies: Social Learning and Classroom
Practices. London, UK: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446288238
Cobb, J. (2013). Leading the learning revolution: The Expert’s guide to capitalizing on the exploding
lifelong learning education market. AMACOM.
Cobb, J., & Steele, C. (2012). 10 Ways to be a better learner. Tagoras.
Cohen, S. (2014). Technology in the classroom: Is it a good thing? Retrieved on June 2019: https://www.
todaysparent.com/family/technology-in-the-classroom/
Coiro, J. (2011). Talking about reading as thinking: Modeling the hidden complexities of online reading
comprehension. Theory into Practice, 50(2), 107–115. doi:10.1080/00405841.2011.558435
de Castell, S., & Luke, A. (1988). Defining “literacy” in North American schools: Social and historical
conditions and consequences. In E. R. Kingten, B. M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy
(pp. 159–174). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1983)
Dede, C. (2007). Reinventing the role of information and communication technologies in education.
In L. Smolin, K. Lawless, & N. C. Burbules (Eds.), Information and communication technologies:
Considerations of current practices for teachers and teacher educators. 106th Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education (Part 2, pp. 11–38). Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
7984.2007.00113.x

105
 
Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner

Dreher, C., Reiners, T., Dreher, N., & Dreher, H. (2009). Virtual worlds as a context suited for informa-
tion systems education: Discussion of pedagogical experience and curriculum design with reference to
Second Life. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 211–224.
Falloon, G. (2010). Using avatars and virtual environments in learning: What do they have to offer?
British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 108–122. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00991.x
Foundry (2018). “More real than real: Creating a feeling of presence”, Exploring Virtual Reality, Foundry
Visionmongers Limited, UK. Retrieved on March 2019: https://www.foundry.com/
Freire, P. (2005). Teachers as Cultural Workers. UK: Routledge.
Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework:
A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003
Garrison, D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching,
cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet
and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31–36. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002
Gee, J. (2010). A situated-sociocultural approach to literacy and technology. In E. A. Baker (Ed.), The
new literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 165–193). New York, NY: Guilford.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. (2009). Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we
take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259. doi:10.3102/0013189X09336671
Gunasekaran, A., McNeil, R. & Shaul, D. (2002). E-learning: research and applications, industrial and
commercial training, 34 (2), 44-53.
Hammond, Z., & Jackson, Y. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain (1st ed.).
Hawkins, I., & Phelps, A. (2013). Learn Chemistry/ Enhance Learning and Teaching. Retrieved March
2019: https://www.thoughtco.com/teach-yourself-chemistry-604139\
Hebel, S. (2010). Lumina describes how far states must go to meet college completion goals. Chronicle
of Higher Education. Retrieved March 2019: http://chronicle.com/article/Lumina
Holden, M. (2005). Virtual environments for motor rehabilitation: Review. Cyberpsychology & Behavior:
The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 8(3), 187-211; dis-
cussion 212-9. Retrieved June 2019: https://search.proquest.com/docview/67962132?accountid=143111
Huang, H., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S. (2010). Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learn-
ing environments: Based on a constructivist approach. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1171–1182.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.014
Inman, C., Wright, V. H., & Hartman, J. A. (2010). Use of second life in K-12 and higher education: A
review of research. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 44–63.
Jarmon, L., Traphagan, T., Mayrath, M., & Trivedi, A. (2009). Virtual world teaching, experiential learn-
ing and assessment: An interdisciplinary communication course in second life. Computers & Education,
53(1), 169–182. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.010

106

Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner

Kastoudi, D. (2012). Using a quest in a 3D virtual environment for student interaction and vocabulary
acquisition in foreign language learning. In the EUROCALL Review. Proceedings of the EUROCALL
2011 Conference, 20, 87–89.
Kaya, M. (2015). The role of technology in an emerging ELT constructivist pedagogy, Humanizing
Language Teaching, 1, Retrieved June 2019: http://www.hltmag.co.uk/feb15/sart06.htm
Kist, W. (2009). The Socially Networked Classroom: Teaching in the New Media Age. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Kolowich, S. (2010). Buying local, online. Inside Higher Ed., Retrieved June 2019: http://www.inside-
highered.com/news/2010
LaViola, J., Kruijff, E., Bowman, D., Poupyrev, I., & McMahan, R. (2017). 3D User interfaces: Theory
and practice (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
Lee, S. (2018). “Machine Learning Applications in E-Learning: Bias, Risks and Mitigation”, Chief
Learning Officer. Retrieved March 2019: https://www.clomedia.com/2018/machine-learning-applications-
in-e-learning-bias-risks-a
Lynch, M. (2017) 20 Top Virtual Reality Apps that are Changing Education. https://www.theteched-
vocate.org
Mills, K. A. (2010). Shrek meets Vygotsky: Rethinking adolescents’ multimodal literacy practices in
schools. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1), 35–45. doi:10.1598/JAAL.54.1.4
Roach, A., & Beck, J. (2012). Before coffee, Facebook: New literacy learning for 21st century teachers.
Language Arts, 89(4), 244–255.
Rowsell, J., & Lapp, D. (2011). New literacies in literacy instruction. In L. M. Morrow & L. B. Gambrell
(Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (4th ed., pp. 395–411). New York, NY: Guilford.
Walton, A. (2011). Learning at a distance: Undergraduate enrollment in distance education courses and
degree programs. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Retrieved
on June 2019: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012154

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Artificial Intelligence Processors: Are the simulation of human intelligence processes by machines,
especially computer systems. These processes include learning (the acquisition of information and rules
for using the information), reasoning (using rules to reach approximate or definite conclusions) and
self-correction.
Graphics Processing Unit: Is on the computer’s video card or cards that contain an array of up to
many thousands of low-resolution processor cores able to perform many simple tasks simultaneously.
Hype Cycle of Innovation: The digitalization of education is gaining momentum. An increasing
number of choices face the CIO, and the “Hype Cycle for Education, 2014” offers a concrete example
of a “CIO toolbox” of crucial tools for the next five years and beyond.

107
 
Perceptions and New Realities for the 21st Century Learner

Mixed Reality: Mixed Reality (MR) is used as an independent concept or to classify the spectrum
of reality technologies, as referenced in the reality–virtuality continuum. As an independent concept,
mixed reality combines the best of both virtual reality and augmented reality.
Machine Learning: Is the process of presenting the computer program with a large set of training data
where the data consists of a set of variables and what the outcome was for that data. An example would
be pixel values for an image of a person’s face, the outcome (or classifier) would be a unique number
that represents who that was. So, the input array would have the pixels and the expected outcome that
the output neurons should show is the unique identifier of the person. The machine learning algorithm
would have many sets of input data for each item (like a face) it is supposed to learn.
Pedagogical Medium: Is something that relates to teaching. An example of a pedagogical tool is a
smartboard for instructional delivery.
Sift Features: Are features of an image that a computer algorithm can easily identify and use to track
spot locations from multiple directions, distance and lighting.
Simulated Neuron: Is a computer algorithm that simulates a neuron. The brain is made up of many
neurons, an estimated 250 billion in the human mind. Each neuron is connected to a bunch of neurons
going into it and it has a set of outputs leading to other neurons. These connections are called Axons.
A neuron is normally either off or on and when a threshold is met the neuron will either fire a signal,
turning on, or it will turn off. The key element is the threshold that must be met to activate. This is what
is changes when we learn how to do something and is what we simulate in our machine learning algo-
rithms via what is known as a sigmoid function. The function has a weight value associated with it that
goes up and down until it gets to the correct level that matches the input training data. Normally we send
data from our input into the neuron and see if it fires on the output (forward propagation). But, when we
are in a training session, the information flows from the expected output backwards (back propagation)
through the networks and the weights are adjusted.

108
 109

Chapter 6
Designing Curricular Games
in Teacher Education:
Exploring an Evolution of
Game-Based Teaching

Janna Jackson Kellinger

University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA

ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the use of game-based teaching in teacher education courses. It compares a ver-
sion of a course taught in a traditional manner to the game-based version. It then traces the evolution
of the author’s use of game-based teaching and details ways the author overcame various obstacles in
subsequent courses. In doing so, it discusses the affordances and constraints of learning management
systems and concludes that small changes in learning management systems would greatly improve the
ability to use them to create curricular games.

INTRODUCTION

When I was a high school English teacher, I played games in my classroom with my students. We played
competitive games where teams of students had to race to put items, such as the different parts of an
MLA (Modern Language Association) citation, in the proper order; we played last person standing
games where we stood in a circle, tossed a ball, and when you got the ball you had to give an example
of the designated part of speech that started with the last letter of the previous word; we played process
of elimination games like Jotto where students had to figure out the target word by guessing other words
and the person who knew the target word would say how many letters were the same in both words. For
the most part, students loved the games and the games helped reinforce their learning.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch006

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 
Designing Curricular Games in Teacher Education

However, one of the first games I played was such a disaster I almost quit teaching right then and
there. I was a student teacher and decided to play Jeopardy the trivia game with my students. I drew the
grid on the chalkboard with the categories and the varying amounts of points for each category, erased
each amount after it was used, and used the chalkboard to keep track of each group’s score. This meant
my back was turned to the students quite a bit. I instructed the groups to “slap in” when they knew the
answer. Because it was so hard to tell which group “slapped in” first, chaos ensued when a group felt
like they had slapped in first, but I had called on another group. In addition, little did I know that while
my back was turned, students were wadding up pieces of paper and throwing them out the window.
Directly below the classroom was the vice principal’s office. He came storming upstairs and chastised
me after seeing “snowballs” outside his window. I vowed that if I remained in teaching, I would never
play Jeopardy with my students again. I later decided to try it again, but this time with strict rules. After
that, when we played Jeopardy in class, groups went in order, each group had a spokesperson who had
one minute to answer, if they got it wrong, the next group would have a chance to go and if all groups
had a chance to attempt the same question without succeeding, then that original group got to choose
the category and amount for the next question. With these rules in place, playing Jeopardy went much
more smoothly. This was my first lesson in designing curricular games—the importance of rules. In fact,
you could argue, it is the rules that make the game. As McGonigal (2011) points out, the goal of golf is
to put a ball into a hole. Without the rule that you have to hit that ball with a club from far away, players
could just walk up to the hole and drop the ball in, but clearly there would be no fun in that.
While the term “games” encompasses a wide range of activities and whose definition has fuzzy
boundaries, the focus of my work has been on curricular games which I describe as unit-long or semester
long “problem space[s] where players can try out different solutions [to achieve a goal] without suffer-
ing real-world consequences” (Kellinger, 2017, p. 30). As I explain further, “Those one-shot games are
fun and can be motivating (at least sufficiently motivating to get students to learn enough facts to win
the game), but tend to be recall games, not games that promote deeper understanding, critical thinking,
problem-solving, or innovation” (Kellinger, 2017, p. 29). While I dabbled in those “one-shot” games as
a high school English teacher, I did not advance in my development of designing true curricular games
as I define them until I entered the world of teaching in higher education. This chapter explores my
evolution in thinking, explains some of the nuts and bolts of designing curricular games, discusses how
to troubleshoot common problems, and recommends changes that could easily be made to Learning
Management Systems (LMSs) to convert them into curricular game authoring platforms.
While an LMS will not enable a lone instructor to create a video game like Grand Theft Auto, it
is important to remember that students likely will not compare curricular games to commercial video
games, what Squire (2011) calls the “ceiling”, but rather to the “curriculum” part of “curricular games”,
in other words, the type of instruction that they are used to, what Squire (2011) calls “the floor”. My
hope is in writing this chapter that readers will also see game-based teaching as a doable endeavor by
decreasing the intimidation factor. By exploring my own mistakes, I hope to convey the iterative nature
of designing curricular games as each time you teach it, you are also playtesting it with an eye towards
ongoing improvement.

110

Designing Curricular Games in Teacher Education

BACKGROUND

Much of the focus of scholarship on game-based teaching has been focused on the K-12 grades (Shafer,
2006; Squire, 2011; Prensky, 2006). In fact, one of the earliest works was about fourth graders designing
games for younger kids to play to learn math (Kafai, 1995). Some have explored game-based teaching
in business trainings while touching on higher education (Kapp, 2012), although largely with a focus
on simulations, which I would argue are related to but not the same as game-based teaching. Reacting
to the Past, semester-long role-playing games where students play historical figures, bridges that gap
between simulations and games and, according to Denby (2000) has students “engaged all the time” (p.
1). Some researchers have explored using Commercial off the Shelf (COTS) games in higher education
classrooms, such as Whitton (2010), with fewer exploring the nuts and bolts of creating and employing
curricular games in higher education, such as Sheldon’s (2011) Multi-player Classroom, and even fewer
in the context of online learning, such as Akilli (2007) and Aldrich (2009). In many higher education
institutions, instructional designers assist instructors in designing online courses. Although researchers
have investigated the use of video game principles in instructional design, such as Dickey (2005 & 2011)
and von Gillern & Alaswad (2016), in my experience, instructional designers have largely focused on
clear and efficient ways for instructors to deliver curriculum online, not ways to get students to experi-
ence the curriculum.

EVOLUTION OF MY GAME-BASED TEACHING

Traditional Teaching

While I was still in graduate school, I taught an educational technology class that was a complete failure.
I stood at the front of the computer lab and modeled for students what they were supposed to do and
then expected them to do it. I was employing the gradual release of responsibility, or “I do, We do, You
do”, teaching model (Maynes, Julien-Schultz, & Dunn, 2010) but students had no context, no motiva-
tion, and no meaning attached to the “you do” part. In other words, the course lacked the essential ele-
ments Malone and Lepper (1987) outline in answering the question “What makes things fun to learn?”,
namely challenge, fantasy, curiosity, and control. My course evaluation scores and comments reflected
the disconnect between the material, the instructor, and the students. Particularly harsh was one stu-
dent’s course evaluation comment: “I found the class to be very long and boring and left with very little
knowledge other than the fact that if you use AIM Chat on a different computer, it changes your buddy
icon” (Jackson, 2009, p. 295). Although I vowed not to teach that class again, just as I recanted on my
Jeopardy vow, I agreed to teach a similar class when I got a job as an assistant professor.

Game-Based Teaching 1.0

Knowing that my pedagogy failed the first time, I decided to try something new. When I taught high
school, I had used some one-shot games in my teaching, as described above, but I always felt like some-
thing was missing. I realized that, while those one-shot games were fun, they simply tested students on
previously acquired knowledge instead of engaging students in deeper learning. Meanwhile, I was drawn
to immersive adventure video games like the Myst series but never was able to find the time to get into

111
 
Designing Curricular Games in Teacher Education

serious gaming. Drawing from my admittedly limited experiences playing video games, I decided to design
the class like a video game with a game story (supplying fantasy), levels (providing challenge), activities
and assignments with some surprise events that unlocked more of the game story (inspiring curiosity),
and a choice of different paths (giving students control). I thought I was being innovative. Little did I
realize that others had already been designing curricular games such as Barnard University’s Reacting
to the Past semester-long games referred to above and New York’s Quest to Learn school whose whole
curricula is game-based (Salen, et al., 2011). In addition, others had done extensive research on using
games to teach (Gibson, Aldrich & Prensky, 2007; Van Eck, 2010) which showed that games motivate
and engage students in ways that traditional teaching does not. I, however, embarked on this notion of
game-based teaching on my own, based on my gut instinct that if video games can teach skills necessary
for success in the game world, designing a class using the principles behind video games should be able
to teach students skills in the academic world.
In order to convert that initial course into a game, I developed a game story where the student is the
“you” in the story. As the protagonist in the game story, each student had to complete different tasks
which are really the assignments embedded into the game story. This way, instead of pushing content
onto students without any context like I had done previously, I provided support for students to draw
meaning from the content and immediately apply it within the context of the game story, in other words,
the motivation and desire to pull the content for their own use.
I also had students in different groups based on their self-assessment of their own technological
skills which then determined which version of each assignment they saw. That way students could do
assignments which were reflective of their technology skills by assigning them based on each student’s
challenge zone, i.e. just beyond their current capabilities (Vygotsky, 1978). In this way, I could differen-
tiate student learning in a class with students who came to the class with vastly different technological
skills. Student comments on course evaluations suggests this differentiation worked as they remarked on
how the class began where they were in terms of technology skills and moved them beyond what they
thought possible (Jackson, 2009):

• [The professor] truly meets her students where they are and allows them to grow from there.
This is so important in this class because everyone seemed to have different backgrounds with
technology.
• Thanks so much… I learned a ton in your class! I’m clearly not a computer guru, but I feel much
more comfortable than I ever have, and that’s what it’s all about, right? You really forced me to get
out of my comfort zone. Thanks again!
• Thank you for helping me face my technological fears.
• As hard as I have struggled through certain parts of your class, I feel that I have learned more from
you than I have in many other classes and appreciate why [another professor] recommended you
to me both for my own lack of technological experience and for the quality of techniques that you
incorporate in your own classes. I have learned as much about teaching as I have about technology
in your class, and I plan to incorporate and utilize as many aspects of your teaching as I can in the
upcoming year. (Jackson, 2009, p. 301)

These comments were an indication that I was onto something, however, there were still some prob-
lematic aspects of this first iteration of this course.

112

Designing Curricular Games in Teacher Education

The primary pedagogical basis of this game-based class was mastery-based learning (Bloom, 1980).
In other words, students could not move on, or “unlock”, the next segment of the game story and the as-
signments embedded within, until they demonstrated mastery of a previous assignment. Because moving
forward in the course was dependent upon achieving a minimum cut score on an assignment, students
had to be able to revise and resubmit assignments. In fact, I found this to be the largest driver in student
learning as I could teach through feedback on assignments and students would have a chance to use that
feedback to make improvements instead of what happens far too often to instructor feedback where the
student focuses on the letter grade and only glances at the written feedback. This made instructor feed-
back much more meaningful to the instructor and to the student. This “revise and resubmit” policy has
been by far the most favorable part of my game-based teaching courses. As one student put it, “Having
played my share of videogames in my life, many of which were role-playing games, I liked being able to
solve problems multiple times” (Kellinger, 2017, p. 30). This also made student success more likely as
I could be reasonably sure that students had the skills they needed for the final, or “boss”, assignment.
While this first version was a vast improvement upon my initial attempt to teach an educational tech-
nology class, I still ran into some problems. The most glaring one was having only one deadline: the end
of the semester. My students are graduate students and lead busy lives. Having only one deadline resulted
in massive procrastination. This was compounded by the mastery learning approach (Bloom, 1980) to
my game design so that students had to complete one assignment before unlocking the next. While the
“revise and resubmit” aspect of assignments was by far the most popular feature and my course evalu-
ation scores did greatly improve (Jackson, 2009), when the students who waited until the last minute
could not access the next item until I graded and they passed it, frustration grew.
Thinking back to the eighties and the heyday of video game arcades when people would actually
unplug a video game in an arcade to wipe out high scores so then they could, if only briefly, be the one
with the high score, I instituted a rudimentary leaderboard listing the top students with the most points
in the hopes of inspiring competition among students to both try to do better on individual assignments
and to progress faster through the course. However, I quickly abandoned this aspect as I found that it
only inspired competition among the top two or three students and that the other students quickly got
discouraged. I did continue to periodically send messages to the top scorer to let them know they had
the top score but quickly abandoned this as well as it felt artificial and went against several of the goals
of my class such as learning for learning sake and not for an artificial point system as well as students
being able to work at their own pace, particularly because graduate students are often in that “sandwich”
generation where they are taking care of aging parents and little ones at the same time. Because I kept
the focus on student learning, I was able to achieve this balance between using scoring to help students
improve without engendering a sole focus on doing whatever it takes to earn more points, as illustrated
in these student quotes below:

• “Though I found many of the pre-planning projects frustrating at first, I feel that I learned a lot
from struggling through them and felt driven to submit multiple attempts in order to improve my
score, something I have done while playing video games.”
• “Love, love, loved the structure of this class. I never felt any pressure, as I do with other classes,
so I was able to put more thought behind my submissions.” (Kellinger, 2017, p. 30)

I found that trying to create competition within a class was counterproductive while fostering com-
petition within oneself was productive.

113
 
Designing Curricular Games in Teacher Education

Game-Based Teaching 2.0

In the next rehaul of this class, I abandoned the serial approach where each assignment had to be com-
pleted at a certain level of mastery before the next one was unlocked, and instead I took a “river and
lakes” (also called a “string of pearls”) approach by having multiple assignments per level and having
the Learning Management System (LMS) keep a running total of points with students having to reach a
certain cut score in their cumulative total before “leveling up”. This allowed students to work on multiple
assignments within a level and alleviated some of the frustration around wait times as they could work
on another assignment while waiting for me to grade another one. It also gave students more choice since
they could choose the order in which they did assignments within a level.
Meanwhile, I started to realize that all courses could lend themselves to a game-based format, not
just the educational technology course. As I gradually started to convert my other courses to a game-
based format, I realized that in my initial attempt at game-based teaching in the educational technology
course, I made the course overly complicated. Thus, one of my goals was to simplify the game without
taking away the learning or the fun.
While both traditional and game-based versions of this next class, which focused on designing cur-
riculum and instruction, garnered roughly the same averages in terms of course evaluation ratings, the
differences in how students perceived the two versions was revealed in the qualitative comments. Students
who took the traditional version of the class remarked on how the class increased their knowledge and
understanding of the topic whereas students who take the game-based versions remark on the practical
applications the class affords. The main reason behind this is also evident from the qualitative com-
ments. In the traditional versions, many students remarked on how I as the instructor modeled a variety
of teaching styles. In the game-based versions, students talked about how the course mirrored real-life.
For example, one student talked about how uncanny it was that the course reflected her own thoughts
and feelings from her first year of teaching. By embedding both the content and the assignments into
the game story, the course allowed students to experience the curriculum, instead of just observing it.
In the educational technology class that I initially converted into a curricular game, the game story
served as a frame for the content, which was delivered through PowerPoints, readings, videos, and as-
signments. In this designing curriculum and instruction course, the game story is the content, which is
then supported by PowerPoints and readings. In other words, students learn the bulk of the material from
reading the game story. The readings and PowerPoints serve as supporting materials and the assignments
in the class are tasks that the protagonist has to do in the game story. The game story IS the textbook
written in second person as a series of experiences from which the protagonist learns. Feedback from
students about this course being similar to their very own teaching experiences tells me that combining
content with context is a useful way to prepare students for careers as teachers.
By having the game story be the content, not only can the course cover a large number of readings by
having the non-playing characters (NPCs) summarize them, the NPCs themselves can represent different
viewpoints. In the case of this curriculum class, the NPCs who are the veteran teachers each represent
a different curricular ideology. By doing this, not only can these different ideologies be presented in a
way that masks the instructor’s own ideology, through discussions among the NPCs, the commonali-
ties, nuances, differences, and contradictions among the ideologies can be explored. In fact, a recurring
question the protagonist has is how teachers with such different ideologies can respect each other as
professionals. Along the way, the protagonist is given a questionnaire that helps them determine their
own ideological viewpoint and faces a series of decisions that clarifies their viewpoint. At one point in

114

Designing Curricular Games in Teacher Education

the story, the veteran teachers take the protagonist (the newbie) out for drinks and challenges the newbie
to identify their various ideologies in a drinking game, with the reward being that the veteran teachers
pay for the newbie’s drinks if successful.
In order to construct the game in this way, I used a Learning Management System (LMS) where
the designer can set rules for if and when certain items are revealed to students. In this case, I used
Blackboard’s “adaptive release” capability which allows designers to set rules to make something vis-
ible to individual students based on time, group membership, attempting a task such as a taking quiz
or posting on a discussion board, achieving a certain score either on an individual item or a calculated
total, or whether or not an item was checked off as being reviewed. This last feature was crucial to the
game design because it allowed me to set up a choice with a number of responses. The students are then
instructed to mark their choice as “reviewed”. In this way, I could “branch” the narrative to have students
make meaningful decisions with consequences, in other words, have a different narrative experience
depending on the choice made, similar to the Choose Your Own Adventure books where the reader is
asked a question about what they want the protagonist to do next and instructed to turn to different pages
depending on their choice. Sid Meir, designer of Civilization, states that games are “a series of interesting
decisions that lead to a satisfying conclusion” (quoted by Prensky, 2011, p. 272). This, of course, can
get exponentially overwhelming for the designer as a decision tree can expand exponentially. Because
of this, while the narrative had different paths at various points, they all lead back to a “golden spine”
(Rabin, 2009, p. 152), i.e. the main story line, ensuring that while students experience some different
story lines, they do so without missing out on the content of the course.
In my previous game-based course, the game story followed a “string of pearls” or “rivers and lakes”
construction where the students would do assignments within a level but could only level up after achiev-
ing a certain number of total cumulative points on assignments. While students were within a level, they
could do the various assignments for points and revise and resubmit as needed. However, students were
still dependent upon me to grade the assignments in a timely fashion when on the cusp of entering a new
level. Because my students tend to do their assignments on the weekends and in the evenings when I am
not working as most of my students have full-time jobs and many have families, even this modification
created a sense of frustration as students periodically had to wait for me to grade in order to level up.
To troubleshoot this, I constructed dual paths so that students could continue working on one path
while they waited for me to evaluate an assignment on the other path. In this case, one path centers
on the professional development the teachers do in the game story which is using student data to drive
curricular decisions, and the other path is on planning the curriculum for the year. While I did create
certain chokepoints where students had to have made a certain amount of progress on both paths since I
did not want students to get too far ahead on one path, constructing the game narrative this way gave me
enough of a cushion to catch up on grading during business hours. I have learned, however, that provid-
ing students a syllabus with all the readings, assignments and rubrics at the beginning of the course does
give instructors more leeway since students can always “work ahead” while they wait for the instructor
to assign points to their work. In fact, recently, I have started to explicitly state that students should feel
free to do so if they find themselves waiting for me to grade something.
I also took advantage of the adaptive release rule based simply on an initial attempt of an assignment.
That way, students can move ahead after attempting an assignment but further down the narrative path
they can only move on after passing that assignment with a certain score. In this way, students can move
ahead until mastery of that task is required in order to do the next task, giving me time to grade (and
regrade if necessary) the assignment before a certain cut score has to be reached.

115
 
Designing Curricular Games in Teacher Education

I also use quizzes frequently that are automatically graded by the LMS, thus alleviating the time
pressure on me to grade. Because students can retake quizzes as many times as needed, I created ques-
tion pools where the LMS randomly chooses a subset of questions so that the student takes a different
quiz every time he or she retakes the quiz. This also inserts an element of chance because they might see
some of the same questions again when they retake the quiz. Doing this allows me to set adaptive release
rules based on the quiz score (or sometimes just an attempt), frees me up to only grade major assign-
ments, and means students get immediate feedback because they do not have to wait for the instructor
to score the quiz. It is important to know that very rarely are these quizzes called quizzes. Instead, they
are called by different names depending on their function in the story. For example, the drinking game
mentioned previously is actually a quiz. Keeping everything in terms of the game story avoids the risk
of a curricular game becoming a “broccoli and chocolate” game (De Castell and Jenson, 2003) where
students only get to play the fun part of a game after they have done traditional academic work.
Instead of using the “I do, we do, you do” gradual release of responsibility teaching model that I
employed in my traditional teaching, I took a “performance before competence” (Gee, 2007) approach.
In other words, students attempt to do something before accessing the information about how to do it.
This gives students the context and motivation to understand the material. As Gee (2003) states, the
instruction manual for a video game only starts to make sense after you have tried to play the game (p.
102). Because of the revise and resubmit policy, or in the case of quizzes, retake until passed policy,
students were able to try their hand at something first while still having opportunities to improve. For
example, in the hiring process, students have to pass a professional conduct quiz in order to get hired.
I structured the professional conduct quiz so that it drew from multiple question pools to make sure it
covered the various concepts I wanted to teach. So, when a student gets the question from the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) pool wrong, or even when they get it right, the response
feedback includes information about FERPA. In this way, the material is given context and meaning
and students have a reason to consume the material. Instead of pushing content onto students, students
were motivated to pull the content for their own use. When they take the quiz again, they now have the
information they need to pass the quiz, even if they get a different question from the FERPA question
pool. Another way I used the performance before competence approach is through the adaptive release
rule based on students attempting to do something. Once an attempt is made, the LMS then releases the
material to the students.
The technologies I use are not limited to the LMS. Because the LMS allows designers to attach or
link to PowerPoints, embed videos, and insert HTML (Hyper-Text Mark Up Language), I could seam-
lessly incorporate other technologies into the course. In the PowerPoints that support the game story,
I used narration and internal links so that students can make decisions that lead to different paths as
they navigate through a PowerPoint Presentation. Students also “watch” other teachers teach through
embedded videos. I also used an animation software that allows me to have a cartoon-like character read
the text I inserted. The accompanying hand gestures, facial expressions, and body movement makes the
animated character appear more life-like. In this way, I could do things like have the principal in the
story introduce concepts during orientation and professional development similar to a principal doing
so in a real school. I also embedded animation into the interview quiz so that the principal asks the
interview questions. If the student response contains the key word needed to answer that question, such
as “evidence-based reasoning” or “social justice”, the student passes that question. By using a ques-
tion pool, students experience a different set of interview questions every time, and by using animation
software, students experience an interview.

116

Designing Curricular Games in Teacher Education

Using the discussion boards built in the LMS allows students to discuss their ideas and approaches
with the other students who are the other “new teachers” in the class as they move through the course.
Because I run this as a self-paced course, students have discussions with whoever is at that point and are
able to see posts left by students who have already passed through that point. Even though the course is
self-paced, I do provide a weekly schedule on the syllabus so students can estimate where they should
be in the course.
In the midst of the course, I inject a crisis into the game story which students have to rely on their
accumulated knowledge to solve. Using the “Mark reviewed” option, students choose how to examine
the data and then adaptive release reveals more information depending on what option is marked as re-
viewed. In this way, I do some “stealth assessment” (Shute, 2011) to see which options students chose.
This allows me to see where a student is in terms of understanding which aspects of data analysis are
most useful in this scenario and which students deemed irrelevant. In these ways and others, I was able
to design a course-long curricular game infused with fantasy, challenge, curiosity, and control.

USING LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

TO DESIGN CURRICULAR GAMES

Affordances

Most learning management systems have a way to control which items are visible to students. Using these
adaptive release rules are the key to designing a curricular game within a learning management system.
Just as video games require mastery before a player can move to the next level, so can curricular games
designed with learning management systems. In order to do this, students must have opportunities to
revise and resubmit assignments and/or retake quizzes until mastery is demonstrated. Taking advantage
of designing quizzes and scoring them within the learning management system allows instructors to
offload that task, have students receive immediate feedback on their performance, and move ahead in the
game. In this way, instructors can spend more time giving feedback on assignments graded by rubrics.
Having students sign up for groups or assigning groups also allows for students to experience a course at
their level of expertise and/or from different perspectives. For example, a general course on curriculum
design can show different content depending on which subject area students want to teach. In these ways
and others, curricular games can provide a more personalized learning experience.
Because learning management systems are web-based, most have the option of inserting HTML to
design a page. This allows designers to copy and paste embed codes from videos, animation software, or
other types of tools to create a more immersive and engaging experience. For example, in a third course
I converted into a game, I designed it so students experience a series of simulations in order to explore
the various concepts in the course within the context of a larger game story. In doing so, I embedded
a mini-game I created in Scratch; I embedded branched narratives I created in Twine; and I embedded
other simulations created in PowerPoint using internal linking where students are directed to different
slides depending on their choices. In addition to internal linking, animation, triggers, motion paths, and
textboxes as well as other features in PowerPoint can all be used to create mini-games. YouTube also
has a way to embed choices at the end of a video so that the user is led to different videos depending on
choices made. All these can be embedded, or at least linked to, from an LMS.

117
 
Designing Curricular Games in Teacher Education

Constraints

While learning management systems can be repurposed to design curricular games, they are not de-
signed to be a game authoring platform and therefore have several limitations. Many are designed to be
a repository of information for students to access. Designing avatars controlled by the user that interact
with sprites or objects is beyond the capabilities of most, if not all, learning management systems in
their current form. Surprisingly, some have regressed in this area, going from a more GUI (Graphic User
Interface) platform to a more text-based one. For example, WebCT was very graphics-based but when it
merged with Blackboard, that was diminished. Some do allow for “hotspot” questions in quizzes where
users have to click within a certain area on an image to get a question right. Leveraging this aspect may
be away to create some more click-generated interactivity.
Allowing players to collect objects and have an inventory of tools would be possible using an option
where users could choose items by “marking as reviewed” or “signing up for a group” or other means and
then, by using adaptive release rules, those items could be displayed in an inventory. More complicated
inventory systems that require players to purchase equipment or other objects would involve keeping
track of money and ways of earning money would be beyond most learning management systems, al-
though using a calculated grade along with adaptive release might allow curriculum designers to create
rudimentary ones. Tweaking the grading system so that items marked as reviewed could be used as part
of a calculation in a grading column would create a means to do so.
While learning management systems allow designers to create rubrics to grade individual assign-
ments and calculated grades allow for students to accrue “experience points”, having a master rubric
that keeps track of progress along several dimensions would allow a designer to create multiple rubrics
with the same criteria where the learning management system could keep track of progress along each
criterion, much like video games that keep track of different aspects such as health or strength. Even
keeping track of one dimension of progress would be helpful in designing a progress bar.
Many learning management systems are building in “badges” that students can earn. Having a list or
line of badges that are grayed out until a student earns one would allow students to see not only how much
progress they have made, but also how much more they have to go. In my original game-based teaching
courses, each new segment was represented by a book on a bookshelf. I had one student say that every
time she saw a new book she groaned because it meant more work. If I had been able to display all the
books with the ones “unopened” grayed out, instead of feeling like endless work, it would have felt like
progress being made towards an end goal. These tweaks would allow learning management systems to
better replicate capabilities of video games such as the progress bars, overview maps, and Heads-Up
Displays (HUDs) which show progress on individual items to motivate the learner.
Other tweaks such as having fill in the blank questions that can be marked correct only if the stu-
dent response does NOT contain a certain key word would allow instructors to test for misconceptions.
Also, adding the NOT option to the Boolean logic employed in the adaptive release feature would give
curriculum designers more flexibility. As I stated above, I used the “incorrect” feedback response as a
means of using quizzes to teach, so having multiple “incorrect” feedback responses depending on which
multiple choice answer was selected would allow curriculum designers to pinpoint and correct common
misconceptions. In that same vein, having tiered incorrect feedback responses depending on how many
attempts were made would allow curriculum designers to adjust the amount of scaffolding by having the
incorrect feedback be hints that increase in specificity in direct relation to the number of attempts the
student has made to get that question correct or to pass the quiz. Not only would these changes be use-

118

Designing Curricular Games in Teacher Education

ful in a game-based teaching format, but also in general, as they allow curriculum designers to provide
automated specific feedback to support student learning.
Other common features in coding such as using macros to create mini functions, being able to per-
sonalize the curriculum by using variables, looping so that certain things happen while a condition is
true, and increasing the amount of chance by both a pure random number generator and one controlled
by percentage would also increase the ability of curriculum designers to use an LMS as a game author-
ing platform. These features would allow curriculum designers to create goal-driven simulations by
programming in the probability of different events happening. For example, a simulation for health-care
providers could program in the probability of seeing a patient with certain diseases or one on weather
could program in the probability of a hurricane being in the different category levels. This would allow
curriculum designers to balance the skill level and chance in a game-based course since a course based
on all skill feels too much like traditional schooling but one based on all chance would feel arbitrary.
This also allows curriculum designers to build conditional knowledge by having students learn how to
adjust their learning to different scenarios.
These tweaks are just the beginning. Many more could be made to make LMSs more game-like.
However, any changes made would need to be done with a low floor and a high ceiling. In other words,
so that instructors new to designing online classes can immediately start using an LMS without reading
an instruction manual (low floor), but that experienced instructors and curriculum designers have lots
of options and capabilities to use the LMS as a game-authoring platform (high ceiling). This way, LMSs
can enable instructors, instructional designers, and curriculum designers to level up.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

As my use of game-based teaching has evolved, I have found that using the game story as the vehicle
for content delivery allows the course to cover a wide range of materials and gives the content context
so that students can experience the curriculum. Having multiple non-playing characters with different
perspectives can present the material with different lenses and sometimes with competing agendas.
Because the protagonist in the story begins as a blank slate, students can then choose their own perspec-
tive and play that out in the game. By using the various features of a learning management system, I
have been able to use it as a gaming platform primarily through “unlimited attempts” allowing students
to try and try again until they get something right and through “adaptive release” so that students can-
not unlock the next segment until they do so. However, because learning management systems are not
designed to be game authoring systems, there are limitations. Making learning management systems
more graphics based, tweaking the software to give curriculum designers more control over the rules of
releasing content and the feedback given, and employing common features of coding such as variables
and looping would greatly improve the gaming capabilities of learning management systems. It is my
hope that as game-based teaching gains popularity, learning management systems will adapt and adopt
features that make it not only easier to design curricular games, but also allow for more robust curricular
games to be designed.

119
 
Designing Curricular Games in Teacher Education

REFERENCES

Akilli, G. (2007). Games and simulations: A new approach in education? In D. Gibson, C. Aldrich, &
M. Prensky (Eds.), Games and simulations in online learning: Research and development frameworks
(pp. 1–20). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-304-3.ch001
Aldrich, C. (2009). Learning online with games, simulations, and virtual worlds: Strategies for online
instruction. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Bloom, B. S. (1980). All our children learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
De Castell, S., & Jenson, J. (2003). Serious play. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(6), 649–665.
doi:10.1080/0022027032000145552
Denby, D. (2000). Evaluation of ‘Reacting to the past’. FIPSE, US Dept. of Education. Retrieved from
www.barnard.edu/reacting/Denby_Evaluation.pdf
Dickey, M. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video
games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2),
67–83. doi:10.1007/BF02504866
Dickey, M. D. (2011). World of Warcraft and the impact of game culture and play in an undergraduate
game design course. Computers & Education, 56(1), 200–209. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.005
Gee, J. P. (2003). What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2007). Good videogames + good learning: Collected essays on videogames, learning, and
literacy. New York, NY: Peter Lang. doi:10.3726/978-1-4539-1162-4
Gibson, D., Aldrich, C., & Prensky, M. (Eds.). (2007). Games and simulations in online learning: Re-
search and development frameworks. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. doi:10.4018/978-
1-59904-304-3
Jackson, J. (2009). Game-based teaching: What educators can learn from videogames. Teaching Educa-
tion, 20(3), 291–304. doi:10.1080/10476210902912533
Kafai, Y. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kapp, K. (2012). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies
for Training and Education. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Kellinger, J. (2017). A Guide to designing curricular games: How to “game” the system. Cham, Swit-
zerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42393-7
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for
learning. Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, 3(1987), 223-253.

120

Designing Curricular Games in Teacher Education

Maynes, N., Julien-Schultz, L., & Dunn, C. (2010). Modeling and the Gradual Release of Responsibil-
ity: What Does It Look Like in the Classroom? Brock Education Journal, 19(2), 65-77. Retrieved from
https://brock.scholarsportal.info/journals/brocked/home/article/view/136
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world.
London: Penguin Books.
Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me mom—I’m learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon Publishers.
Prensky, M. (2011). Comments on research comparing games to other instructional methods. In S. Tobias
& J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 251–280). Charlotte, NC: Information
Age Publishers.
Rabin, S. (2009). Introduction to Game Development (2nd ed.). Herndon, VA: Cengage Learning.
Salen, K., Torres, R., Wolozin, L., Rufo-Tepper, R., & Shapiro, A. (2011). Quest to learn: Developing
the school for digital kids. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
doi:10.1057/9780230601994
Sheldon, L. (2011). The Multi-player classroom: Designing coursework as a game. Herndon, VA:
Cengage Learning.
Shute, V. (2011). Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support learning. In S. Tobias & J.
D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 503–524). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishers.
Squire, K. (2011). Video games and learning: Teaching and participatory culture in the digital age.
NY: Teachers College Press.
Van Eck, R. (Ed.). (2010). Gaming and cognition: Theories and practice from the learning sciences (pp.
152–168). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-717-6
Von Gillern, S., & Alaswad, Z. (2016). Games and game-based learning in instructional design. Inter-
national Journal of Technologies in Learning, 23(4), 1–7. doi:10.18848/2327-0144/CGP/v23i04/1-7
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Whitton, N. (2010). Learning with digital games: A practical guide to engaging students in higher
education. New York City, NY: Routledge.

ADDITIONAL READING

Annetta, L. A. (2008). Video games in education: Why they should be used and how they are being used.
Theory into Practice, 47(3), 229–239. doi:10.1080/00405840802153940

121
 
Designing Curricular Games in Teacher Education

Annetta, L. A., Murray, M. R., Laird, S. G., Bohr, S. C., & Park, J. C. (2006). Serious games: Incorpo-
rating video games in the classroom. Educause, 29(3), 16–22.
Bedwell, W., Pavlas, D., Heyne, K., Lazzara, E., & Salas, E. (2012). Towards a taxonomy link-
ing game attributes to learning: An empirical study. Simulation & Gaming, 43(6), 729–760.
doi:10.1177/1046878112439444
Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, H. (2008). Videogames and Education. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
de Freitas, S., & Maharg, P. (2011). Digital games and learning. London: Continuum.
Fullterton, T., Swain, C., & Hoffman, S. (2004). Game design workshop: Designing, prototyping, and
playtesting games. San Francisco, CA: CMP Books.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Learning by Design: Good Video Games as Learning Machines. [Print]. E-learning,
2(1), 5–16.
Gibson, D., Aldrich, C., & Prensky, M. (2007). Games and simulations in online learning: Research and
development frameworks. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-304-3
Jackson, J. (2011). Game changer: How principles of videogames can transform teaching.
Khine, M. S. (Ed.), Learning to Play: Exploring the Future of Education with Video Games (pp. 107–128).
New York, NY: Peter Lang. doi:10.3726/978-1-4539-0084-0
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward: Obstacles, opportuni-
ties, and openness. Cambridge, MA: The Education Arcade at MIT.
Miller, C. T. (2008). Games: Purpose and potential in education (pp. 73–125). New York, NY: Springer.
Pivec, M., & Moretti, M. (2008). Game-based learning: Discover the pleasure of learning. Lengerich,
Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based Learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon Publishers.
Rabin, S. (2009). Introduction to Game Development (2nd ed.). Herndon, VA: Cengage Learning.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2006). The Game Designer Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
doi:10.1201/9780080919171
Steinkuehler, C., Squire, K., & Barab, S. (2012). Games, learning, and society: Learning and meaning
in the digital age. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139031127

122

Designing Curricular Games in Teacher Education

Tobias, S., & Fletcher, J. D. (2011). Computer games and instruction. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishers.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Adaptive Release: Also known as selective release, this term refers to a way for instructors to control
which students see what in a learning management system by setting rules to determine what conditions
must be met in order to make something visible to individual students, groups of students, or the whole
class.
Boolean Logic: Boolean logic uses operators such as AND, OR, and NOT to define certain condi-
tions to determine if something is true or false.
Boss: A boss battle is the final challenge in a video game where all skills learned throughout the
video game are used to defeat the boss, who is a conglomeration of all the powers and skills of the mini-
bosses encountered along the way.
Branching: Branching is when something like a story or an assessment has different paths depending
on user choice or a pre-determined algorithm to determine if certain conditions have been met.
Curricular Games: Curricular games are games designed to teach students through a game story
where students play the protagonist with obstacles students must overcome to reach an end goal.
Learning Management System (LMS): A software platform for instructors to teach students or
trainers to train workers, it is a way to deliver online content and track student progress.
Leveling Up: Videogames are often constructed in such a way that players must demonstrate mastery
of an easier skill before “leveling up” to a higher level that requires more skill or skills.
Non-Playing Characters (NPCs): Non-playing characters are characters in a game who are not
being played by the game player. In video games, they are agents controlled by computer as opposed to
avatars which are characters controlled by the human player.

123
124

Chapter 7
How Paper and Digital
Children’s Books Support
Student Understanding
Laura B. Liu
Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus, USA

Kayla Pride
Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus, USA

Payten Ewing
Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus, USA

Maycie Benedict
Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus, USA

ABSTRACT
This study builds on previous research regarding digital texts and learner engagement to provide in-
sights on the impact of digital and paper texts on first-grade student learning. Three formats of the same
STEM children’s book included (1) a paper version read by the teacher; (2) a digital version read as a
class and facilitated by the teacher; and (3) a digital version read independently by individual students,
without the teacher. Mixed methods analysis involved a pre- and post-reading worksheet assessing stu-
dent comprehension and concept retention, followed by teacher interviews. Quantitative and qualitative
findings demonstrated the value of paper texts read with teacher guidance to highlight key concepts and
sustain student focus. Teacher interviews also noted the value of digital texts to engage student interest,
suggesting there is a pedagogical place for paper and digital texts in the classroom. Findings highlight
the complexity of learner engagement and need for thoughtful pedagogies.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch007

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

INTRODUCTION

Many schools are introducing electronic devices into elementary classrooms as early as kindergarten. An
emerging goal of for teachers is to ensure students are comprehending and retaining concepts gleaned
through digital text. Yet, recent media and research publications suggest this to be a complex question. For
instance, a 2012 study by the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, which conducts children’s
digital media research, found 3- to 6-year-olds who read interactive e-books with their parents recalled
“significantly fewer narrative details than children who read the print version of the same story” (Heitin,
2019). This is one of many studies highlighting the significance of examining the impact of our digital
evolution, specifically regarding student comprehension and retention of key concepts gleaned through
digital texts. Our research responds to this pressing societal question by exploring the learning impact
of using paper and digital formats of the same text teaching students about composting. This research
also adds to Heitin’s (2019) work by examining the critical role of the teacher in reading, facilitating,
or granting students complete independence in navigating the paper and digital texts to increase student
comprehension of STEM content. This study is particularly beneficial to inform teacher selection of
lesson materials to teach STEM content.

BACKGROUND ON DIGITAL LITERACY

Digital vs. Paper Texts

This study is initiated in the context of recent research on the significance of and trends within the
digital literacy movement. For instance, recent development of a conceptual framework for emergent
digital literacy (Neumann, Finger, & Neumann, 2017) highlights progress made in the 21st century in
child literacy for both digital and non-digital texts. The author discusses the importance of sociocul-
tural interaction in emergent literacy development, and describes a debate regarding whether emergent
literacy should or should not include electronic texts. In explaining the framework for emergent digital
literacy, the authors describe similarities and differences between digital and non-digital texts. Another
recent study on digital literacy by Sezgin and Ulus (2017) also highlights distinctions in using paper and
digital books, specifically with preschool students. The authors focus on preschool as a critical stage for
emergent literacy and discuss the benefit of using digital books in this stage, to mirror the prevalence of
digital technology in society today. The authors explain the benefits and drawbacks of paper and e-books,
and discuss the interactive value of e-books for preschool children of diverse learning styles (Sezgin
& Ulus, 2017). Similarly, Yokota and Teale (2014) discuss the variety and quality of features in paper
and e-books and ideal curricular moments for teachers to incorporate each format into their classrooms.
Yokota and Teale (2014) provide teachers with a guide for selecting the format of book most appropriate
for a given class and lesson, based on a selected list of attributes.
This study also considers research asserting the common belief that digital literacy results in greater
student comprehension, engagement, and literacy results than that produced by paper literacy. Knobel
and Lankshear (2006) describe common misunderstandings regarding digital literacy, and explain that
digital literacy should not be considered something “unitary, and certainly not as some finite «com-
petency» or «skill»,” but as “shorthand for the myriad social practices and conceptions of engaging in
meaning making mediated by texts that are produced, received, distributed, exchanged etc., via digital

125
 
How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

codification” (para. 24). The authors contend that digital literacy may be more accurately termed, digital
literacies. The authors further explain that digital literacy does not foster better comprehension simply
by being online. Rather, digital literacy enhances literacy development by delivering text to readers in
new, more advanced and relevant ways (Knobel & Lankshear, 2006). These digital texts explored in this
study present the same texts, pictures, and story as the paper copy, to enable a controlled study examin-
ing the impact of digital and paper formats to support student comprehension and concept retention.

Student Interest

Research demonstrates that student interest impacts attention, goal setting, and learning strategies, thus
making learner engagement a key factor to consider in improving teaching practices (Avard, 2006).
Learner engagement is both “critical and complicated” in the education process, and needs greater un-
derstanding, particularly in regards to how “students behave, feel, and think” (Fredricks, Blumenfeld,
& Paris, 2004, p. 59). Student interest is shaped by the different impact paper and digital texts have on
student learning. Many studies demonstrate that digital texts benefit literacy development by engag-
ing reader interest. For instance, Levinson and Barron (2018) found that digital texts provide a bridge
across cultures and generations, including in the homes of English Language Learners. However, other
studies have highlighted challenges presented by digital texts in the development of emergent literacy.
In particular, Holum and Gahala (2001) found that digital texts reduce capacity for reflection, and that
“children are better served when adults read aloud to them, thus providing opportunities for spontaneous
questions and verbal interaction” (p. 15). Due to the divergence of findings presented in recent studies,
more research is needed to explore how paper and digital texts impact student interest, as well as student
comprehension and concept retention, particularly for early readers.
When students are interested in what they are learning, this interest impacts the way they value and
retain that information. Not only does student interest shape how students learn, but student interest also
improves academic performance. Students are able to make connections with information after establish-
ing background knowledge from prior experiences (Renninger & Hidi, 2016). Additional research on
student interest and prior knowledge includes Fenichel and Schweingruber’s (2010) work demonstrat-
ing that students who already have an interest in science may be more motivated learners in science,
compared to those who have no prior interest established. Once a student is interested in what they are
learning, they then engage more effectively with the material. Digital texts may have a key role to play
in activating prior knowledge, as students may spend more time outside of school contexts reading on
digital devices than on paper. Perry, a museum evaluator, developed a framework intended to enhance
museum exhibits, and found this framework could also be used in promoting student interest and its
role in student learning. The six steps in this framework are: curiosity, confidence, challenge, control,
play, and communication (Fenichel & Schweingruber, 2010). The Children’s Museum in Indianapolis,
Indiana uses this framework to enhance the learning process for visiting students. After engaging student
interest, effective pedagogies must sustain this interest to be beneficial, long-term. This study examines
how use of digital and paper texts promote interest and learning. The role of teacher guidance in this
process is critical.

126

How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

Teacher Guidance

This study also is informed by research on the role of teacher guidance in cultivating student digital
literacy development. A recent study on teacher guidance in digital literacy development highlights
appropriate uses for digital texts in educational settings, including pivotal moments for incorporat-
ing technology, and selection of digital texts based on students’ developmental and educational levels
(INFOhio Early Literacy Task Force, 2017). The authors stress the importance of teacher guidance and
support for students engaging with digital texts, and further suggest that teachers use digital texts as a
tool, not as a replacement for paper texts (INFOhio Early Literacy Task Force 2017). A key role for the
teacher or other adult engaging early readers with digital texts is to teach moderate and proper use of
technology, particularly in educational settings where conceptual learning is being shaped (INFOhio
Early Literacy Task Force, 2017).

Summary

The above studies provide beneficial information and research perspectives in shaping the theoretical
foundation for our study, examining the impact of digital and paper texts on first-grade student compre-
hension of a STEM children’s book focused on composting. The findings in these studies demonstrate
the value of both paper and digital texts in early reader literacy development, while also raising important
questions about the different role paper and digital texts may play in supporting student interest and
comprehension. As highlighted above, Renninger and Hidi (2016) provide useful information on how to
spark student interest, while Fenichel & Schweingruber (2010) explores strategies for engaging student
interest in science classrooms. Our study builds on this work by exploring how digital and paper texts
engage interest to support comprehension and concept retention of STEM content.

METHODS

Research Purpose and Question

Our study builds on the above research by examining the impact of paper and digital texts on early reader
STEM literacy development, as well as the teacher’s role as a reader of a paper text to the class, facilita-
tor of a class-directed reading of a digital text, or a nearly absent figure, as students navigate their own
digital texts, independently. This research is critical and timely to inform elementary teacher approaches
to integrating paper and digital texts in curricula.
The research questions shaping this study are:

(1) How do paper and digital versions of the same text impact early reader comprehension and concept
retention of STEM content?
(2) How do differing degrees of teacher guidance impact early reader comprehension and concept
retention of STEM content?
(3) What implications can be drawn from this study for teacher practice and future research related to
the integration of digital and paper texts in elementary school curricula?

127
 
How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

Mixed Methods Approach

This study employs a mixed methods approach to research, described as combining quantitative and
qualitative research “techniques, methods, approaches, concepts, or language in a single study or set
of related studies” (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2005, p. 19). Collins, Onwuegbuzie, and Sutton
(2006) highlight that mixed methods researchers must determine if qualitative and quantitative designs
are to be “implemented concurrently or sequentially, whether they are combined partially or fully, and
whether they receive equal or unequal status” (p. 72). Moreover, Hanson et al.’s (2005) basic steps in
designing a mixed methods study (p. 227) prescribe deciding: (1) if/how to employ a theoretical lens,
(2) how to collect data, and (3) when/how the data analysis will occur, particularly if the quantitative
[QUAN] and the qualitative [QUAL] implementations of the study are concurrent or sequential.
This study employs a sequential [QUAN → QUAL] mixed methods approach in first analyzing
quantitative data, then analyzing qualitative data to add insight to quantitative findings (Hanson et al.,
2005), as part of a data triangulation process (Creswell, 2014). In this study, both the quantitative and
qualitative findings were viewed as valuable in adding complementary insight to the study, though the
quantitative analyses were conducted first and shaped the initial results.

COURSE SITE AND PARTICIPANTS

Research Site

School 1. School 1 is an elementary school located in South Central, Indiana, with just over 450 stu-
dents enrolled in 2018-2019, and only four English Language Learners in the entire school. There are
22 teachers in the school, and almost half of the teachers are relatively new teachers, with less than five
years of experience. Just under 10% of the student population receives reduced price meals, while 35%
of students receive free meals, daily.
School 2. School 2 also is an elementary school located in South Central, Indiana, with just over 350
students enrolled in 2018-2019, and only 18 English Language Learners in the entire school. There are
14 teachers in the school, and around half of the teachers are relatively new teachers with less than five
years of experience. Nearly 9% of students receive reduced price meals, while about 19% percent of the
student population receive free meals, daily.
School 3. School 3 also is an elementary school located in South Central, Indiana, with just over 500
students enrolled in 2018-2019, and have less than 2 English Language Learners in the entire school.
There are 36 teachers in the school, and around half of the teachers are relatively experienced with more
than ten years of experience. Nearly 45% of the students receive reduced price meals, while about 45%
percent of student population receive free meals, daily.

128

How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

Study Participants

School 1. The 1st grade teacher in school 1 is a white female who has been teaching for more than five
years. Out of 20 student participants in our study, 95% of participants are white, 5% are African-American
and 5% of participants are Hispanic. Of all 20 students, 5% of participants are English Language Learn-
ers (ELLs), whose native language is Spanish, and 20% of student participants have IEPs. Of all IEPs in
the class, 15% involve speech disabilities, 5% involve cognitive disabilities, and 5% hearing disabilities.
This 5% used hearing aids during this study.
School 2. The first grade teacher in school 2 is a white female who has been teaching for more than
10 years. Out of the 25 students who participated in our study, around 85% of the students are white,
approximately 5% of the students are African American, and 3% of participants are Hispanic. Of all the
participants, roughly 25% of the class receive additional support through IEPs.
School 3. The first grade teacher in school 3 is a white female who has been teaching for more than
10 years. Out of the 18 students who participated in our study, 100% of the participants are white and
speak English. Approximately 25% of the participants receive assistance through IEPs.

Pedagogical Activities

Prior to this study, three of the researchers authored three versions of a children’s book on composting,
as part of a teacher education course assignment to create a civic science children’s book on soil and
water conservation to share with early elementary students. The three versions of this children’s book
became a central tool in this study on early reader engagement and comprehension. The course instructor
is the fourth author for this study.
The researchers invited three 1st grade classrooms across three schools to complete a pre-test work-
sheet on composting by reading five questions aloud and asking students to circle the correct picture,
in response. The class was evenly distributed into three randomly selected groups of students. Each of
these groups was given a different version of the composting book to read: a paper version, a digital
animated version, or a digitally recorded author reading of the book.
Group 1: In-person author reading of the paper version of book, and the author-teacher provides
students with full guidance throughout the entire book.
Group 2: Animated digital version of book created through Storyjumper.com, displayed using an lcd
projector on a screen in front of class. The author-teacher provides students with minimal guidance, and
gives students freedom to tell her how to navigate the digital book.
Group 3: Digitally recorded author reading of the book using Screencastify.com, displayed on indi-
vidual iPads with headphones. The author-teacher provides no guidance and students are free to navigate
the story as desired, or even leave the story to view different apps.
All students returned as a whole group to complete a post-reading activity, identical to the pre-
reading worksheet used. The researchers read the five worksheet questions aloud, and students selected
their responses by circling the correct picture. After each student completed the worksheet, the author-
researchers provided the correct answers.

129
 
How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

Data Collection and Analysis

The worksheets were collected after students completed the pre- and post-reading test to compare results
before and after reading the story, and across school sites. These findings served as the quantitative data
for this mixed methods study. After the worksheets were gathered and results were noted, the researchers
interviewed the classroom teacher with five predetermined questions related to the learning activities.
The interview was recorded and transcribed to prepare for analysis. This transcription served as the
qualitative data for this mixed methods study.
First, the quantitative data was analyzed by calculating average pre- and post-reading scores for each
reading group (paper, author-teacher read; digital, author-teacher facilitated; digital-student independent
reading) across each of the three schools. Average pre- and post-reading scores were compared across
groups within and across schools, using same group comparisons, to consider if student comprehension
and retention was impacted by book format and teacher guidance. These quantitative findings were then
examined in light of the qualitative findings: teacher interviews.
After quantitative findings were analyzed, the interview data was analyzed using constant compara-
tive methods of analysis (Glaser, 1965). First, each researcher examined the interviews in search for
thematic findings responding to the research questions. Thematic findings were categorized by research
question, and any other unanticipated emergent findings were noted. The researchers came together to
share their findings, discuss any convergence and divergence in the responses, and then select the most
salient themes to guide the presentation of the findings. This study took a grounded theory approach
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967), in that the researchers did not enter data collection and analysis with a set
hypothesis based on a theoretical framework shaping “preconceived theory” before collecting the data
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 12). Rather we implemented the study, allowing “theory to emerge from
the data” (p. 12) to shape findings.

Validity & Reliability

To enhance the validity of our findings, we implemented this study in three elementary schools across
three different SES contexts in South central Indiana, including one low-SES school, one middle-to-low
SES school, and one middle-SES school. SES distinctions across the schools intend to strengthen the
study’s validity and reliability by examining findings across contexts and examining findings across
groups within the same context. All three elementary schools include students of similar ethnic and
linguistic background (white, English-speaking). Thus, future research might explore similar research
questions across contexts including students of more diverse ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. Finally,
inter-rater reliability was established as the researchers individually examined the interview data for
emergent themes, and then shared findings with one another to establish shared group findings, based
on selected key themes.

FINDINGS

Quantitative Results

130

How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

School # 1 Results
Research Group Number of Students in Group Average Pre-test Correct Average Post-test Correct
Paper book/ full teacher
5 1.8 5
guidance
Storyjumper.com/ some teacher
7 2.8 4.6
guidance
Screencastify/ no teacher
8 3 3.9
guidance

Figure 1.

School # 2 Results
Research Group Number of Students in Group Average Pre-test Correct Average Post-test Correct
Paper book/ 100% teacher
8 2.4 4.25
guidance
Storyjumper.com/ some teacher
9 2.6 4.3
guidance
Screencastify/ no teacher
8 4.25 4.75
guidance

Figure 2.

131
 
How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

School # 3 Results
Research Group Number of Students in Group Average Pre-test Correct Average Post-test Correct
Paper book/ 100% teacher
5 2.5 4.5
guidance
Storyjumper.com/ some teacher
6 3.3 4.3
guidance
Screencastify/ no teacher
6 3.6 4.4
guidance

Figure 3.

QUAN AND QUAL FINDINGS

Finding 1: Paper Texts Enhanced Student

Comprehension and Concept Retention

Findings from this study suggest that paper texts may enhance student comprehension and concept
retention. In school 1, students who were read the paper book scored higher (all perfect scores) on the
post-test activity. In school 2 and 3, the majority of the students who were read the paper book received
a four or five. This was greater than in other groups. However, it is not clear the extent to which the
teacher guidance or the paper text supported comprehension and concept retention in the student group
whose post-test scores showed greatest improvement.
Qualitative findings drew upon interviews with all three teachers. School 1 teacher felt that both digital
and paper texts are important for students to be exposed to and enjoy, but that digital texts are particularly
engaging for her students, and even more for boys. However, she was inspired by her participation in
this study to pay closer attention to what truly engages early readers. School 3 teacher reflected that her
students were “more receptive to digital” texts (School 3 teacher intv, 04/09/19). School 1 and school 2
teachers reflected that their schools attempted to maintain balance in having both digital and paper texts
in the classroom. While school 2 teacher’s students enjoyed digital books, she preferred to read aloud to
them with ‘real’ books. She reflected that “having the actual text/book in their hands helps them follow
along and learn to read much better than using a digital form” (School 2 teacher intv, 04/02/19). Paper
books enhance reader focus.

132

How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

Finding 2: Screen Time Increased Interest Yet

Hindered Comprehension and Retention

A second finding from this study is that screen time may increase student interest, yet hinder student
comprehension and concept retention. As noted in the above findings, school 2 teacher reflections aligned
with the finding that students retained greater content from paper books read in person. Yet, school 3
teacher challenged this idea in observing her own students “more receptive to digital” content (School
3 teacher intv, 04/09/19). School 2 teacher recognized that students enjoyed digital books more, while
also observing that paper books fostered greater focus over time, and paper books read with a teacher
enabled discussing content together. Teacher 1 and 3 teachers did not highlight this distinction, and only
noted that the digital books seemed to be more engaging or enjoyable for their students to read, yet did
not offer evidence that the digital books produced greater comprehension or concept retention.

Finding 3: Teacher Guidance Enhanced Student

Comprehension and Concept Retention

A third finding evident in school 1, 2, and 3 is that the scores for students who received full teacher
guidance improved more than any other group. School 1 improved by 3.2 points. School 2 improved by
1.85. School 3 improved by 2 points. For full teacher guidance using the paper book, the three schools
saw an average score for improvement of 2.35 between the pre-test and post-test. In comparison, the
digital Storyjumper and Screencastify reading saw an average improvement of 1.5 and 1.1, respectively.
These quantitative findings suggest that constructive teacher presence has a positive impact on student
comprehension and concept retention, and some teacher presence is better than none, to have a positive
impact on student learning.
In school 1, the majority of students who had no teacher guidance missed key pictures and ideas in
the story. Some students would move back and forth to different places of the Screencastify video on
their individual iPads without listening to the full story. In school 1 and school 2, some students chose
to not watch the story, but only listen on their earphones. This resulted in students missing key images
shown on the screen and asked in the post test questions. In school 2, a few of the students also did
not watch the screen, but only listened, during the digital Storyjumper reading. In school 3, students
listened to the Storyjumper while not looking at the screen, but paid full attention to the screen during
the Screencastify reading.
In contrast, in school 1, 2, and 3, teacher guided reading of the paper books allowed teachers to check
for prior knowledge before reading, and check for comprehension in the middle and end of the book.
This group interaction enhanced student reading comprehension more than the digital books without
teacher guidance. Participants who read the Storyjumper digital animated book demonstrated some active
engagement in viewing the pictures and responding to the questions, but did not evidence the same level
of engagement as participants reading the paper book with the teacher. Participants in the Screencastify
viewing with no teacher guidance showed little engagement, including blank staring at the screen while
questions and pictures were asked. Other participants in this group chose to not view the pictures at all
while looking around the room.
Further interview findings aligned with these conclusions. School 2 teacher reflected on the value
of teacher-guided reading to enable pausing to point out and explain concepts explored in class, such as
“character, setting, problem/solution, compound words, contractions” (School 2 teacher intv, 04/02/19).

133
 
How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

School 1 teacher’s reflections evidenced her increased focus on student interest, as a result of participat-
ing in the study. She reflected that the study had made her “more cognizant of paying close attention to
what does grab my student’s attention” and her eagerness “to try any strategy that helps to interest my
students” (School 1 teacher intv, 03/15/19).

Finding 4: Teacher Participation Enhanced Teacher Focus on Civic Science

An emergent finding was that teacher participation in this study enhanced teacher interest in integrating
civic science topics into the classroom, and sparked conversation about civic science topics already be-
ing integrated into their curricula. While this finding did not directly respond to the research questions,
teacher interviews evidenced this. School 3 teacher reflected that she had not integrated a lot of civic
science curricula into her classroom, but that she found “connection to a real-life community issue” to be
“very meaningful” and that she had already reached out to a local extension office with a lot of Internet
resources related to environmental topics (School 3 teacher intv, 04/09/19). School 2 teacher reflected
that their use of Project-Based Learning (PBL) supported teachers in becoming more “aware of their
surroundings” and “the needs of our community and the world,” including writing their own nonfiction
books about endangered animals after a National Geographic author visit (School 2 teacher intv, 04/02/19).
Finally, school 1 teacher highlighted that she already invited her students to read National Geographic
for Kids, Scholastic Readers, and Mystery Doug Science online, and invited the 4-H Extension office
and the Recycling Center to share presentations with the class on the environment.

DISCUSSION

This research offers key insights regarding the use of print and digital children’s texts to engage early
readers in conceptual learning, particularly for civic science topics. This study also offers perspective
for how varying degrees of teacher guidance may impact early readers’ conceptual understanding and
retention. This study evidences greatest gains in comprehension and concept retention when paper books
are read with teacher guidance, followed by digital books read with teacher facilitation, followed by
digital books read independently by individual learners. This study recognizes the value of digital books
in enhancing reader interest, while evidencing the importance of cultivating conceptual understanding
via paper books and teacher guidance.

Digital vs. Paper Texts

In this study, students who received the greatest in-person teacher guidance in reading a paper book
demonstrated the greatest gains in pre- and post-reading handout comprehension scores. Moreover, in
both school 1 and school 3, this paper book group outperformed students who viewed the story using a
digital medium, with less or no teacher guidance. These findings contribute greater understanding for

134

How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

how paper and digital texts impact learner engagement, comprehension, and retention (Fredricks et al.,
2004). This study suggests paper books with teacher guidance have the greatest impact on early reader
gains, and thus resonates with previous research suggesting that in-person readings of paper texts may
be more effective to engage learners by providing opportunity for “spontaneous questions and verbal
interaction” (Holum and Gahala, 2001, p. 15). School 2 teacher offered the same reflection for why she
preferred to read paper texts aloud with her students. School 1 teacher noted that she attempts to strike
a balance in using paper and digital texts in her classroom, yet noted her aim to observe how and when
to use each more thoughtfully. School 3 teacher challenged the study’s main finding by highlighting that
her students preferred digital books, though did not note evidence for how her use of digital or paper
texts in the classroom had impacted student learning over time.

Interest vs. Comprehension and Concept Retention

Research demonstrates that student interest impacts attention, goal setting, and learning strategies, thus
making learner engagement a key factor to consider in improving teaching practices (Avard, 2006).
School 1 teacher emphasized this point in reflecting on the study. While many teachers may agree that
learner engagement is “critical,” learner engagement is also “complicated,” particularly in regards to
how “students behave, feel, and think” (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004, p.59), including the dif-
ferent impact that paper and digital texts have on learner engagement. School 3 teacher echoed many
studies concluding that digital texts benefit literacy development by engaging reader interest and pro-
viding a bridge across cultures and generations, including in the homes of English Language Learners
(e.g., Levinson & Barron, 2018). Yet, school 2 teacher’s reflections echoed other studies highlighting
challenges presented by digital texts, including reduced capacity for reflection, and that “children are
better served when adults read aloud to them, thus providing opportunities for spontaneous questions
and verbal interaction” (Holum & Gahala, 2001, p. 15). In light of this discrepancy, further research is
needed to explore how paper and digital texts impact learner comprehension and concept retention, and
ideal teaching contexts to use each approach, particularly for early readers.

Balanced Use of Digital and Paper Texts

Research does not need to negate the value of digital texts and independent reading to emphasize the
value of paper texts and teacher guidance. Like school 1 and 2 teacher’s reflections, research can high-
light the importance of moderation and purpose in using digital texts without completely replacing paper
texts read by teachers or parents. Digital texts can continue to play a significant role in drawing student
interest to content presented, particularly for vulnerable populations, such as English Language Learners
(Levinson & Barron, 2018). This study builds on previous research suggesting that digital texts alone
may be less sufficient than paper texts in producing comprehension and retention, including for civic
science concepts, as seen in this study.

Challenges of “Independent Screen Time”

This research found that independent screen time hindered student comprehension and concept reten-
tion. This could be due to the lack of teacher guidance combined with the independent reader’s ease and
temptation to click back and forth, to rewind and fast-forward, in the digitally recorded author reading.

135
 
How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

It is not within the scope of this study to determine if or how older readers may be impacted by this
“clicker” temptation. However, in this study, the absence of support from a teacher or adult, led to early
reader distraction and lack of focus on key pictures and story content. Students appeared uninterested and
skipped back and forth in both the video author reading and the digital book. This behavior corresponded
with students’ missing questions on the post-test activity that also used the same key pictures found in
the storybook. This finding resonates with research concluding that electronic texts and hypertext may
promote among children “a reduced attention span and a general impatience with sustained inquiry”
(Birkets 1994, p. 27, as cited in Holum & Gahala 2001, p.15). Students in our study who experienced
the greatest guidance from a teacher reading the paper book, in-person, demonstrated the highest gains
in comprehension and retention, from the pre- and post-reading scores. This group experienced greater
student engagement through teacher questions and group interaction, both of which were minimal or
non-existent in the other two groups. These findings encourage greater teacher-student engagement to
enhance student comprehension, reflective capacities, and concept retention (Holum & Gahala, 2001).
While balancing integration of paper and digital texts may be a long-term aim, this scope of this study
only evidences the value of paper texts read in-person to increase early reader comprehension and con-
cept retention.

Civic Action vs. Comprehension Alone

This study offers important findings regarding the value of paper and digital texts to enhance civic sci-
ence curricula in elementary classrooms, including for emergent readers. This emergent finding connects
with previous research on strategies for cultivating civic science knowledge, dispositions, and skills in
the classroom. Avard (2006) highlights the practice of integrating civil education with other curricular
content. Similarly, Hidi and Renninger (2006) conclude that creating a story involving civic science will
enhance and deepen student interest. Digital texts enhance reader interest (Levinson & Barron, 2018),
so may be able to enhance reader action steps after completing a story. More research is needed to un-
derstand better how digital and paper children’s book can enhance student civic action, beyond student
comprehension. In addition, research should explore feasible action steps for youth after reading such texts.
Krasny and Tidball’s (2019) work explores elementary school community gardens as a pedagogical
strategy for fostering student civic action. Positive learning outcomes discovered in this work include
shifting the negative historical focus in environmental education on pollution and climate change to
“positive expressions of community engagement and environmental stewardship,” re-phrased as civic
ecology education (Krasny & Tidball, 2019, p. 6). Another benefit of civic ecology is that students are
motivated by the opportunity to contribute to their community and feel that they could have a lasting
impact from what the student is learning in the classroom. Lastly, civic action invites the integration
and participation of community members, families, and local adults in the education process, by of-
fering knowledge and practices that students may not have had learned, previously. Aligned with the
focus of Krasny and Tidball’s (2019) work, this research evidences enhanced teacher interest to explore
civic science concepts in the classroom, a different focus from studying environmental problems alone.
Composting, the civic science topic in this study, provides a feasible action point for youth.
U.S. public schools play a key role in guiding students to learn about civics-related subjects, events,
and actions around the world. Teachers are integrating civics as a meaningful content area in elementary,
middle, high school, and post-secondary classrooms. The National Commission on Service-Learning
(NCSL) found many teachers felt “civic engagement and service-learning are marginalized in schools”

136

How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

and, as a result, many students are “missing valuable opportunities to learn about social responsibil-
ity, personal responsibility, citizenship, and social justice” (DeJarnette & Sudeck, 2002, p. 140). Thus,
teachers are finding ways to integrate civic education, including environmental stewardship, into daily
curricula. As teachers integrate environmental civic action into classrooms, they must aim to connect
this to meaningful learning outcomes, as other forms of civic learning. Environmental service-learning,
as other forms of civic service learning, must be embedded in the “curriculum and assessed according
to standards and objectives,” and “intended to be systemic and long-term in classrooms in order to foster
students’ burgeoning sense of civic engagement” (DeJarnette & Sudeck, 2002, p. 143).

IMPLICATIONS

Implications for Practice

Perhaps the most significant implication of this study is to read paper books with your children, whether
students in your classroom or children in your own home. Digital texts have become an increasing trend
in elementary classrooms and homes. Yet, this study suggests that teachers and parents of elementary
students may want to spend more face-to-face time reading papers books with children in their class-
rooms and homes. Paper texts require following a linear line of thought and slows down text digestion
-- increased by digital device ‘clickers’ -- and enables more time for reflective questions to emerge, and
for adults present to respond to the early reader’s emerging questions and reflections on the content
(Holum & Gahala, 2001).
Another implication for practice from this work is the important step of engaging students in civic
science action after reading civic science books. Action steps could also involve students creating their
own civic science stories to promote “civil education” (Avard, 2006). Another action step could involve
engaging students in composting to support students in developing further interest in the civic science
content (Hidi and Renninger, 2006). Teachers can implement, civil engagement in their classrooms by
introducing students to issues of local concern (Avard, 2006). Civil engagement is not only limited to
composting, but could be implemented through a variety of ways across disciplines and subject matters.
Potential topics of civic science interest for elementary students may include testing for nutrients in soil
samples of local farmers, evaluating quality of well-water samples for local landowners, or promoting
energy conservation by educating local entities in conservation measures (Avard, 2006).
Finally, teacher candidates also need opportunities to prepare to teach environmental civic science
curricula and engage students in civic action stemming from this work. DeJarnette and Sudeck’s (2002)
study evidenced the impact of service learning on teacher candidates’ civic action. One Candidate ex-
pressed, “I realize now that it is not as difficult as I thought it would be to get involved in a cause and to
make a difference” (p. 155). Another Candidate reflected that a teacher education service leaning project
motivated her “to become involved in my own events” (p. 155). This study highlights the importance of
engaging teacher candidates in understanding the importance and impact of environmental civic action
and to teach lessons that involve this. This study provides elementary teachers with a model for imple-
menting civil engagement (Avad, 2006) pedagogies. Students might create their own children’s books
and then create a classroom compost. A wide variety of civil engagement or civic science concepts and
activities may be engaged through children’s books, both paper and digital, to inspire meaningful action.

137
 
How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

Implications for Research

This work encourages researchers to partner with teachers in developing studies and findings. This study
shows that teacher perception of practice and research matters, as these perceptions shape practitioner
decisions. Regardless of the quantitative results from this study, the qualitative findings demonstrate how
teacher participants interpreted the findings and sought to translate this into future practice. Teacher 2
already engaged in a paper-rich, teacher guided curricula, while teacher 1 sought balance in paper and
digital text use, and teacher 2 expressed more interest in digital texts. This finding serves as a reminder
that teacher response to research findings are key to impact teacher practice. It is not enough for research-
ers to reach findings shared within the academy of education research. Researchers must partner with
teachers to have an impact.
Future research also might explore if the findings from this study hold true across a broader set of
grade level, cultural, linguistic, and SES school contexts. Moreover, much more needs to be explored
regarding the impact on student action. This study only examines the impact of paper and digital books
on student comprehension and concept retention. It is not known if or how paper and digital texts may
play complementary roles in shaping student interest to take action on civic science concepts. Perhaps
digital texts may offer greater benefit in this area, due to their cultural relevance to students’ 21st century
digital literary worlds. Whether employing digital or paper texts, future research should explore the
impact of both on student post-reading action. This future research also might examine the impact on
student comprehension and concept retention if paper or digital text readings are followed by engaging
students in civic action.

REFERENCES

Avard, M. (2006, January 31). Civic Engagement in the Classroom. NSTA. Retrieved May 13, 2019,
from https://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=52839
Byker, J., Good, A.J., Miller, E., & Kissel, B. (2018, Winter). Multicultural media authorship. 21st
Century Learning and Multicultural Education, 22-25.
Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. T., & Sutton, I. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and
purpose for conducting mixed-methods research in Special Education and beyond. Learning Disabilities
(Weston, Mass.), 4(1), 67–100.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DeJarnette, N. K., & Sudeck, M. (2016). Advocating for a cause: Civic engagement in the elementary
classroom. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 7(1). doi:10.17499/jsser.27299
Fenichel, M., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2010). Surrounded by Science: Learning Science in Informal
Environments. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4),
436–445. doi:10.2307/798843

138

How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. New York: Aldine.
Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed meth-
ods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 224–235.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.224
Heitin, L. (2019, February 20). How Should Reading Be Taught in a Digital Era? Retrieved from https://
www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/11/09/how-should-reading-be-taught-in-digital-era.html
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psy-
chologist, 41(2), 111–127. doi:10.120715326985ep4102_4
Holum, A., & Gahala, J. (2001). Critical issue: Using technology to enhance literacy instruction. Na-
perville, IL: North Central Regional Education Laboratory.
Hougham, R. J., Nutter, M., & Graham’s, C. (2018). Bridging natural and digital domains: Attitudes,
confidence, and interest in using technology to learn outdoors. Journal of Experiential Education, 41(2),
154–169. doi:10.1177/1053825917751203
IDOE. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/overview.aspx
INFOhio Early Literacy Task Force. (2017, October 16). Best Practices for Digital Reading. Retrieved
from https://www.infohio.org/images/ZOO_DOCS/toolkit/BestPracticesForReadingDigitalTex t.pdf
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2005, April). Mixed methods research: Is there a
criterion of demarcation? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Canada.
Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2006, May 30). Digital literacy and digital literacies: Policy, pedagogy
and research considerations for education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, (1). Retrieved May 26,
2019, from https://www.idunn.no/dk/2006/01/digital_literacy_and_digital_literacies_-_policy_peda-
gogy_and_research_cons
Krasny, M. E., & Tidball, K. G. (2009). Community gardens as contexts for science, stewardship, and
civic action learning. Cities and the Environment, 2(1), 1–18. doi:10.15365/cate.2182009
Levinson, A. M., & Barron, B. (2018). Latino immigrant families learning with digital media across
settings and generations. Digital Education Review, 33, 150–169.
Levinson, M. (2017). Action civics in the classroom. National Council for the Social Studies, 78(2),
68-70. Retrieved from http://www.c3teachers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Levinson.pdf
Neumann, M. M., Finger, G., & Neumann, D. L. (2017). A conceptual framework for emergent digi-
tal literacy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(4), 471-479. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.ulib.uits.
iu.edu/10.1007/s10643-016-0792-z
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2016). The Power of Interest for Motivation and Engagement. New York,
NY: Routledge; Retrieved from http://search-ebscohost-com.proxy.ulib.uits.iu.edu/login.aspx?direct=t
rue&db=nlebk&AN=1100829&site=ehost-live

139
 
How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

Sezgin, E. Y., & Ulus, L. (2017). The early literacy at preschool education: The book or the e-book?
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(4). Retrieved from http://ulib.iupui.
edu/cgi-bin/proxy.pl?url=http://search-proquest-com.proxy.ulib.uits.iu.edu/docview/1988915859?acco
untid=7398
Storyjumper. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.storyjumper.com/
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for develop-
ing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yokota, J., & Teale, W. H. (2014). Picture books and the digital world: Educators making informed
choices. The Reading Teacher, 67(8), 577. Retrieved from http://ulib.iupui.edu/cgi-bin/proxy.pl?url=http://
search-proquest-com.proxy.ulib.uits.iu.edu/docview/1523712650?accountid=7398

ADDITIONAL READING

Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring: The Class that Launched the Environmental Movement. New York,
NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Henderson, R., & Honan, E. (2008). Digital literacies in two low socio-economic classrooms: Snapshots
of practice. English Teaching, 7(2), 85–98.
Kuzyk, R. (2007). Learning gardens: New York’s Green Branches program links gardens to the street.
Library Journal, 132(17), 40–43.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New Literatures. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Lewicki, J. (1998). Cooperative ecology & place: Development of a pedagogy of place curriculum.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. ED461461.
Lewis, E., Mansfield, C., & Baudains, C. (2008). Getting down and dirty: Values in education for sus-
tainability. Issues in Educational Research, 18(2), 138–155.
Sofkova Hashemi, S., & Cederlund, K. (2017). Making room for the transformation of lit-
eracy instruction in the digital classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(2), 221–253.
doi:10.1177/1468798416630779
Teale, W. H., Zolt, N., Yokota, J., Glasswell, K., & Gambrell, L. (2007, March). Getting children in-
2books: Engagement in authentic reading, writing, and thinking. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(7), 498–502.
doi:10.1177/003172170708800707
Yokota, J., & Teale, W. H. (2017, March-April). Striving for international understanding through litera-
ture. The Reading Teacher, 70(5), 629–633. doi:10.1002/trtr.1557

140

How Paper and Digital Children’s Books Support Student Understanding

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Ecological Diversity: The biodiversity and ecosystem variations within a region, and the broader
impact this biodiversity has on its larger regions and, ultimately, the planet.
Paper Text: In this study, “paper text” refers to a story or book in physical form as written text printed
on paper. The reader may physically open the book and turn the pages of the story by hand. Audio and
visual recording of the story are not available.
Screencastify.com: An education-purposed digital tool that supports production of HD screen or
webcam videos that may be narrated, annotated, and edited. Screencastify.com may be downloaded onto
a browser as a Chrome extension.
Storyjumper.com: A digital tool primarily for teachers and students to use in creating or teaching
how to create online, interactive, narrated books. Storyjumper.com provides tools to scaffold the book
creation process. Readers can view pictures and read text, but are not able to physically feel or flip the
pages of the online book. Readers click a screen to turn the page.
Teacher Guidance: In this study, “teacher guidance” refers to direct direction and instruction from
the teacher to help students understand, navigate, and complete tasks in the classroom.

141
142

Chapter 8
Integrating Digital Literacy in
Competency-Based Curriculum
Daniel Otieno
Kenyatta University, Kenya

ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the integration of digital literacy in competency-based curriculum (CBC). In the
introduction, the authors discuss the 21st century skills and their relevance to the competency-based
curriculum. The discussion funnels from global, regional, and local contexts. Theoretical perspectives
in ICT and the CBC are dealt with to provide a background. Multiple approaches of integrating digital
literacy within the curriculum are highlighted later in the chapter. These issues are discussed in the
light of the extant literature on digital literacy and the competency-based curriculum. The discussion
revolves around the trends, controversies of digital literacy in the CBC with possible solutions put forth
towards the end of the chapter. Finally, recommendations and future research directions are made. The
chapter concludes with a summary of the major issues discussed in the chapter and recommendations
for further reading.

INTRODUCTION

The demands of the 21st century has created the need to equip the new generations of millennials with
new skill sets that will enable them to contribute positively to the challenges of the new order of things.
These demands have precipitated the need for a curriculum that incorporates the desired skills – the
21st Century skills. The development of the Competency Based Curriculum (CBC) is an effort to make
this a reality. This chapter discusses issues relating to digital literacy and how they can be integrated in
the CBC. The concept of CBC is discussed from a global and regional perspective and various issues
surrounding the integration of digital literacy in the CBC are discussed in great length. In many devel-
oping countries, there is a mismatch between the curricula and the needs of the labour market. Youth
graduating from the education system are unable to fit properly in the job market. Many countries around
the world have implemented the CBC curriculum to address the challenges faced by the employment
sector and bridge the gap between the skills requirement and education. Digital literacy is one of the

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch008

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Integrating Digital Literacy in Competency-Based Curriculum

necessary skills. This chapter will discuss some of the ways through which digital competencies can be
taught through the curriculum.
In Kenya, the Ministry of Education has piloted a new competency-based curriculum and is in the
process of implementing it to replace the previous system that has been too exam oriented. The impetus
for the new curriculum is to teach new competencies to school-age children that will enable them face
the challenges of the 21st century. Among the competencies embedded in the new curriculum is digital
literacy. The chapter discusses some of the pertinent issues around digital literacy and the competency-
based curriculum. Drawing on global and local experiences, the objectives of the Chapter are to provide
a general understanding of the issues of digital literacy and its integration in the CBC. It seeks to discuss
the issues, perspectives and challenges in the integration of digital literacy and contribute to the discourse
around competency-based curriculum and digital education.
The chapter is organised as follows. After a description of the underlying concept of digital literacy,
the issues around the competence-based curriculum, perspectives and challenges surrounding the inte-
gration are discussed. The final recommendations for further reading and research are provided for the
purposes of extending the discourse.

BACKGROUND

ICT in Education

The aim of education is to prepare a labour force that will meet the requirements of the labour market.
Information communication and technology has received adequate attention in education. The United
Nations and other global partners in education have mainstreamed ICT in their developmental agendas.
The UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers was developed to support countries to put in
place policies and standards that provide guidelines for national teacher ICT competency. It aimed at
providing an important component for governments to develop legal frameworks for the integration of
ICT in Education Masterplans (Olsson, 2006). The framework has three different approaches to devel-
oping teachers’ competencies. These are: the development of technology literacy, enhancing knowledge
deepening and eventually the creation of knowledge. The use of ICT in teaching is essential because it
makes learning to occur more efficiently and effectively. Through the use of ICTs, students are able to
deepen their understanding and create new knowledge in their subject areas. They can innovatively apply
this to solve the complex problems that face modern societies (UNESCO, 2011).
The use of technology in education necessitates the equipping of teachers with new pedagogical
competencies and new approaches in teacher education. Teachers should become aware of policy goals
and be able to identify the various areas of education reform that are related to these policy goals. The
policy goals identified in the UNESCO ICT framework are technology literacy, knowledge deepening
and knowledge creation. These policy goals are discussed in the followings sections under the broad
sub-heading of digital citizenry, collaborative learning/teaching and lifelong learning. They provide
essential building blocks for erecting the digital edifice in educational institutions that will provide a
basis for efficiency and effectiveness.

143
 
Integrating Digital Literacy in Competency-Based Curriculum

Digital Citizenry

In relation to technology literacy, the pertinent policy goals include increasing enrolment, developing
high-quality teaching and learning resources and improving literacy skills (UNESCO, 2011). Writing in
“The unfinished revolution”, Abbot & Ryan (2000), explain that if we are to be successful in education
in the 21st century, we should assist each child to develop and transcend the traditional boundaries of
literacy and numeracy. Our children need to be prepared to be creative, innovative and solve the emerging
global challenges. The world is rewarding creativity and there is need to move beyond the singular focus
on academic schooling and achievement (Abbot & Ryan, 2000). Apart from academic qualifications,
employers are looking for additional skills such as the ability to communicate, work in teams, adopt to
change, innovate and be creative. These are the skills that need to be imparted in the current generation
as they move into the new century. Other than these skills, the current generation of people will require
digital skills for them to fit in the emerging world. This is a call for a new generation of digital citizenry.
Karaduman and Ozturk (2014) have defined digital citizenship as the application and advocacy for behav-
iours necessary for legal, ethical, safe and responsible use of information communication technologies
in online environments. As digital citizens we must be aware of the role of technology in our lives and
make efforts to use it in an ethical and responsible manner.
As children transition into young adult lives, it is imperative to invest in their education in a manner
that makes them take responsibility for their own learning (Abbot & Ryan, 2000). This can be achieved
when the children have developed basic literacy and numeracy skills in tandem with higher order skills
of metacognition. It is possible for learners to learn independently by being able to access online infor-
mation and use community-based resources such as museums, local libraries and resource centres. The
number of children using digital resources in schools need to be increased. There is need to create an
all-inclusive environment where learners with special needs can also successfully use digital resources.
Writing in the International Handbook for literacy and technology, Kame’enui and Wallin (2010) reiter-
ate that many children with special needs are behind in reading development and the use of technology.
It is imperative to provide an environment where they can learn successfully and develop literacy and
digital competencies. This will increase the momentum towards the achievement of the Sustainable
Development Goal of providing quality education, enhancing access and inclusiveness.
Teachers need to know where and when to use technology to manage tasks and activities in the
classroom. For them to do this, they need certain competencies. Teacher competencies related to tech-
nologically based literacy approach include digital literacy skills and digital citizenship. The teacher
should be able to select and use online resources such as educational tutorials, games, web content in
computer laboratories, software to complement curriculum objectives. There is a plethora of web-based
resources which teachers can use in their teaching. The challenge for many teachers in the developing
countries is the lack of awareness of these resources. Those who are aware neither do not know how
to use these resources or do not have the time and means of using them in their instructional practices.

144

Integrating Digital Literacy in Competency-Based Curriculum

Collaborative Learning and Teaching

In relation to the knowledge deepening approach, teachers should design classroom experiences that en-
able students to apply knowledge gained in classroom subjects to solve complex problems encountered
in real-life situations. The pedagogical approaches associated with this include collaborative problem
solving and project-based learning. In collaborative learning, teachers and students share goals and agree
to work on common projects to achieve these goals (Collins, Harkin & Hind, 2002). Apart from working
with students, teachers can demonstrate collaborative learning through team teaching. Team teaching
demonstrates the value of teamwork and mutually assists the teachers to build and benefit from each
other’s strengths. Conversation is important in collaborative work. Through conversations, teachers can
generate relational knowledge about teachers’ biographical connections and differences. This increases
the complexity of thinking and acceptance of different ideas (Collins, Harkin & Hind, 2002). The em-
phasis on conversations as an approach to teaching is a shift from the traditional models of teaching. It
adopts the model where the teacher is engaged in a structured conversation with the students to achieve
learning outcomes. Teachers can engage learners in structured conversations that help them develop
their self-worth and esteem.
Teaching must move from the traditional roles of the teacher as the sole repository of knowledge
to that of a facilitator. In a digital environment where a vast amount of information is readily available
on the internet at the click of a button, the teacher plays the role of facilitating learning by assisting the
learners to acquire the most relevant information and use it to solve current problems. This can be done
by showing skills that can be used to search for information online and apply critical and analytical
thinking abilities to synthesis the information and use it practically in daily life. By engaging learners in
conversations, teachers can assist them build on the knowledge they have discovered and apply it in the
real-world situation. This provides the scaffolding that is necessary for effective knowledge acquisition
and development.
Digital-based classroom assessment is another area that needs to be addressed in digital instruction.
This kind of assessment focuses on complex problem solving which is incorporated in the learning ac-
tivities. The competencies related to these approaches include the ability to mange information, structure
problem tasks, and integrate software tools and applications with learner centred teaching. Collabora-
tive learning teaches academic and social skills including how to set goals, negotiation of authority,
personal responsibility, inductive and deductive approaches to learning, creativity and interdependence
with children of different backgrounds (Collins, Harkin & Hind, 2002). All these skills are essential for
success in a connected and globalised world. It is essential to assess the extent to which learners have
developed these competencies. The virtual environment is replete with various tools that can be used
to assess the development of these skills. The teacher can access these resources through open access
or regular subscriptions.

Life-Long Learning

Pertaining to the knowledge creation approach, the teacher should design classrooms that engage students
in creating knowledge, innovation and engage in lifelong learning. Knowledge should go beyond school
curriculum to include social skills that are essential to develop new knowledge. These skills include
problem solving, effective communication, collaboration, critical thinking, decision-making and cre-
ative expression. These are among the 21st century skills that are necessary for workplace productivity

145
 
Integrating Digital Literacy in Competency-Based Curriculum

in the current dispensation. The role of the teachers is to structure the classroom activities and learning
experiences to provide scenerios where students can apply these skills and assist them in knowledge
acquisition. Learners must be equipped with positive attitudes towards life-long learning. The world
today requires individuals who are committed to continuous learning both inside and outside the formal
setups. This will ensure that the current and future generations are able to produce and use knowledge
that will contribute to sustainable development and the achievement of the sustainable development
goals. Digital literacy is an essential skill for developing life-long learning.
The internet provides a vast amount of resources for continuous learning and a person must be digi-
tally literate to navigate through this vastness and make meaning out of it. As Kılıç & Yılmaz (2019)
report, it is important to mainstream lifelong learning at all levels of education. The amount of knowledge
available in the world is huge and is constantly changing. Individuals must be able to adjust and change
in consonance with the changing global information and knowledge landscapes. In this regard, lifelong
learning provides an opportunity for people to adjust to these changing landscapes. The realities and
potentialities in the use of ICT can be achieved if the developing countries can increase the efforts in
mainstreaming and strengthening the application of ICTs in education and all spheres of society. Fol-
lowing in the implementation of UNESCO ICT-CFT, different countries were required to establish local
policies that make the framework a reality on the ground (Olsson, 2006). Several developing countries
have taken the right steps in this direction.

ICT POLICY IN KENYA

The government of Kenya has prioritised digital literacy as demonstrated by several policy frameworks
such as the Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2005 that recognizes the many ways ICTs are utilized to improve
the quality of learning in schools. Digital literacy is a key component of ICT integration in the education
system. The National Policy on ICT of 2006 mainstreamed digital education in private and public sectors.
The development of this policy was guided by the need to develop relevant infrastructure and human
resource capacity. The key stakeholders were engaged in the development of an appropriate policy and
regulatory framework. The policy was later revised in 2016 to realign it with the new constitution 2010.
It is important to understand the frameworks that provide the legal basis for enhancing digital literacy
in our education system. A good understanding of the ICT policy (Republic of Kenya, 2016) provides a
basis for entrenching digital literacy in educational institutions in Kenya. The National ICT in Education
Vision is a product of the National Policy on ICT. In this document, the Ministry seeks to promote ICT
as a universal tool for education by equipping every institution, teacher, learner and the community with
appropriate ICT competencies. The Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2019 on Reforming Education, Training
and Research for Sustainable Development gives a lot of emphasis on ICT in Education, Training and
Research. To implement this policy the government intends to “build the capacity of lecturers, trainers,
teachers and instructors to integrate ICT in education, training and research” (Republic of Kenya, 2019,
p. 60).

146

Integrating Digital Literacy in Competency-Based Curriculum

ICTs and Teacher Competencies

The major driver for successful educational reform is capacity building for educators through educational
and professional development. Teachers can be supported to understand how to use ICTs in their class-
rooms and to engage with students and enrich their experiences. Currently, there exists a gap between
what learners achieve and their potential. This gap is widened by the lack of adequate capacity building
for teachers. In Sweden, although computers have been used for a long time in schools, teachers do not
have adequate competencies in ICT (Olsson, 2006). The Learning Resource Centre at Stockholm Institute
of Education has identified several learning competencies for teachers. These include information literacy,
technology literacy and creativity (Olsson, 2006). Teachers need to be trained on the use of communica-
tion and learning platforms, designing homepages, using web evaluations, smart boards among others.
The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and UNESCO have developed an ICT
Competency Framework for Teachers (Schrum, Strudler & Thompson, 2011). The framework defines
various competencies for teachers that those engaged in developing learning resources can use to do so.
To the extent that digitized instruction has been encouraged in classrooms, there are several issues
that need to be addressed. These issues include teacher preparation, availability of equipment and other
resources, student characteristic among others. There is need to understand the issues pertaining digital
literary to get contextual grounding. Khromov and Kameneva (2016) revealed that there is a gap between
digital natives (students) and the digital immigrants (teachers) which conceptually separates the two
when it comes to the application of digital knowledge. Both teachers and students need to be prepared
to harness digital resources in their classrooms. There are issues related to the technology and student
expectations, motivating and engaging learners.

21st Century Skills

The world has undergone tremendous changes over the last few decades. Technology has changed the
way people interact and relate with each other. Due to the technological, cultural and social changes,
there is need for humanity to learn a new set of skills that will enable future survival in this new dispensa-
tion. These new skill sets are commonly referred to as the 21st century skills. The 21st century skills are
necessary for a person to survive in the modern workplace. It is essential that teachers are well prepared
to integrate technology in their teaching so that children can learn how to use technology in their daily
life (Linda, 2010). These skills are referred to differently by various actors such as life skills, competen-
cies, soft skills among other references. In October 2013, UNESCO’s Asia Pacific Education Research
Institutes Network (ERI-Net) formally begun using the term ‘transversal competencies’ to include all the
skills, values and attitudes, such as collaboration, self-discipline, resourcefulness and environmental ap-
preciation. The United Nation recognizes that these are the competencies necessary for learners’ holistic
development and for them to successfully adopt to the changing global environment. They are essential
in fostering deep knowledge and thinking skills in students (Nir, Ben-David, Inbar & Zohar, 2016). The
modern world requires reflective thinking and innovative approach to the imminent challenges. This can
be achieved if students are trained to think critically through deep learning.

147
 
Integrating Digital Literacy in Competency-Based Curriculum

COMPETENCY-BASED CURRICULUM

With the realisation that the 21st Century has brought in its wake the need for new skill sets; a lot has
to be done to align the educational systems with these changes. The new generation of young people
graduating from the learning institutions need to be equipped with these new skill sets for their survival
in the new century. They also need to play a positive role in socio-economic development. These skills
are necessary for modern day workplaces and include creativity, reflective thinking, communication,
collaboration, intercultural understanding, digital literacy amongst others. There are ongoing dialogues
on digital literacy surrounding the curriculum and teacher education programs. The UNESCO studies
(UNESCO, 2016; Care & Luo, 2016) found that few teacher development programs address these com-
petencies. Nusche (2016) drawing from country reports established that most European Union states
have changed their basic education curricula to reflect the competencies recommended by the European
Commission’s recommendations. In the case of the African Union and other developing countries many
higher education institutions have been supported by their respective governments in developing com-
petence-based curriculum that covers a variety of disciplines. (Kouwenhoven, 2003). Examples of such
countries include Kenya, Mozambique, Ghana and Ethiopia. Although these are not the only countries
where the competency-based curriculum has been rolled out. The following discussion will address the
issues related to digital literacy within the spectrum of competency-based curriculum in Africa.

PERSPECTIVES ON THE COMPETENCY-BASED CURRICULUM

Competency based curriculum has been around for a considerable period. It is important to understand
how the various countries around the world are integrating digital literacy in their various models of
competency-based curriculum. CBC is intended to equip students with necessary new competencies and
develop further the competencies which have already been acquired.
This section will discuss the various approaches of integrating digital literacy in the competency-
based curriculum and the pertinent issues. Kouwenhoven (2003) has defined competency as “the ability
to choose and apply an integrated combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes with the intention to
realise a task in a certain context while competence is the capacity to accomplish ‘up to standard’ the key
occupational tasks that characterise a profession” p.46. Hager & Gonczi, 1996 has a similar conception
of what competencies refer to. Thus, the application of competency-based curriculum within the context
of digital literacy includes the use of a combination of digital skills, knowledge and attitudes in digital
literacy. In this case, competency is domain specific and relating to this specific area of knowledge.

Electronic Resources in Teaching And Learning

Khromov and Kameneva (2016) affirm that to effectively implement curriculum by means of e-learning,
there is need to establish a level of awareness. Teachers need to be made aware of online information
resources, e-learning resources, information technologies which ensure student learning. With the
introduction of the new competency-based curriculum and digital instruction, the Kenya Institute of
Curriculum Development is spearheading the development of relevant content for the new curriculum.
These efforts are jointly being supported by public private partnerships. There are pertinent issues around

148

Integrating Digital Literacy in Competency-Based Curriculum

content development that needs to be addressed and understood. The Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2019 has
prioritized the role of public private partnership in the development and provision of ICT in education.

Teacher Training For Digital Andragogy

The most important issue in digitized instruction is teacher preparation. Blackley and Shefffied (2015)
came up with the phrase “digital andragogy” which refers to digital activities that are undertaken within
the context of a classroom or learning environment. Paul Gilster (1997) introduced the term “digital
literacy” which refers to the ability to retrieve and use information from various digital sources without
being concerned about different competencies mostly criticised for being restrictive (Koltay, 2011, p.
216). As teacher educators approach instructional design, they must integrate research-proven techniques
that ensure the quality of teaching is acceptable and is relevant to the societal needs (Sharp, 2018). With
growing significance of digital environments among learners (Hoskins, 2011), there is need to understand
the various ways of integrating digital technology in teacher training and how teacher training institutions
are adopting to the changes in the education system. The question that needs to be addressed is whether
the teacher training curriculum at tertiary and university levels is adopting to the realities of the day and
incorporate the changes in the school curriculum. There are several issues around teacher preparation
that need to be addressed in relation to digital literacy. Obanya (2002) has pointed out programmes used
for training teachers are still largely based on traditional modes while Rozalind (2003) asserted that fre-
quently the training focuses the ways of using digital equipment such as computers but does not address
the issues of how to utilise the underlying technology to improve instruction and curriculum delivery.
Many teachers in sub-Saharan Africa have not fully imbibed the use of mobile technology in teaching.
While they use mobile phones in their daily communication, such as texting and calling, they still do not
use their smart phones for teaching purposes. Obanya (2002) conducted a study amongst social studies
teachers and found out that with proper training, teachers’ self-efficacy on the use of mobile technol-
ogy in teaching can greatly be improved. Sharp (2018) found out that teachers engaged in collaborative
digital literacy were not well acquainted with digital learning environments such as wikis, blogs, and
asynchronous discussions. Learning environments have made it possible for a large number of learners to
access educational resources. However, they have also changed the way in which instruction is delivered.
Due to their fundamental difference from the traditional face to face environments, digital environ-
ments require different methods of delivery (Linder-VanBerschot & Summers, 2015; Scanlon, McAndew,
& O’Shea, 2015). Therefore, this calls for enhanced teacher training to equip teachers with appropriate
pedagogic techniques as they prepare to teach in the changing educational environments. Several coun-
tries have made significant strides in this direction. In a training conducted by UNESCO in Zimbabwe,
the teachers were equipped with skills in digitization of instructional materials, incorporation of games
and gamification in instructional modules and integration and incorporation of inclusivity in blended
learning (“Workshop on Digitization”, 2018). Web-based learning environments provide rigorous
learning environments where learners gain from varied online experiences (Sharp, 2018). These are
the some of the areas that revised teacher education curriculum content need to incorporate. Available
literature describes some of the digital learning environments that can be used in instructional design.
These include cognitive apprenticeship methods (Boling et all., 2014), virtual tutorial (Taylor, Dunn, &
Winn, 2015), virtual experts (Mudd, Summey, & Upson, 2015), use of social networks (Eid & Al-Jabri,
2016) and digital discourse (Kent, Laslo, & Rafaeli, 2016). These instructional approaches have several
benefits to the learners that include improving learner retention, increasing opportunities for interaction

149
 
Integrating Digital Literacy in Competency-Based Curriculum

and student engagement, as well as enabling a more learner-centered approach in instructional delivery
(Sharp, 2018). Consequently, collaborative digital literacy practices have received a lot of attention with
children and adolescent learners (Sharp, 2018).

Mobile Technologies In Digital Education

The advent of mobile technology has made the teaching and learning process to assume a totally different
dimension. Gone are the days when teaching and learning could only take place within the confines of
the classroom under the guidance of a physically present teacher. In the modern dispensation, computers
and mobile technology has made it possible for teaching and learning to occur beyond the boundaries
of the traditional classroom. Since the development of mobile technology, there are suggestions for
educators to undertake new methods of curriculum design and delivery (Looi & Sun, 2018). Mobile
learning has the potential to enhance student memory and promote critical thinking, creativity and col-
laborative learning. (Otero, Milrad, Santos, Verssimo, & Torres, 2011). The use of mobile technology
creates more opportunities for learning. Chin and Chen (2013) reiterate that teachers can create smart
learning environments using modern technologies. There are several ways of using mobile technologies
to facilitate the achievement of learning outcomes. These technologies include m-learning and u-learning
(Badiwi, De Runz, Faiz., Cherif, 2018). The use of social media offers a fertile ground for teachers to
venture into in the teaching of curriculum content in school. Integrating digital media into classroom
instruction requires various levels of competencies because young people access and use digital media
at different levels. The type of media and its complexity determines how learners and teachers perceive
digital practices within the classroom. The wider population uses digital media in their daily activities
and the inability to engage with emerging digital technologies in the classroom leads to a disconnect
between everyday life and educational practices (Creer, 2018).
Since digital literacy practice is a relatively new and dynamic field it is constantly changing due to
fast technological developments. In his study Creer (2018) established that people particularly the young
generation use digital media of different types for a wide range of purposes. This implies that educators
dealing with young people in the classrooms must create a conjecture between how they integrate the use
of digital media and the way young people utilise the same in their daily lives. This calls for a change in
perspectives and approaches. The use of smart phones in education creates greater access to information
and other learning resources. Smart phones can be used to do what previously was done using pen and
paper. Teachers and students can access digital platforms such as facebook, Instagram, twitter and other
social platforms for educational purposes. Recently the WhatsApp platform has provided a suitable in-
terface for students and lectures to interact through groups. Communication has been greatly enhanced.
At the touch of a button instant messages can be relied between the teachers and their students. Short
messages can be used to convey a sense of friendship and cordial relationships which can also convey
emotions. Teachers use blogs to share notes and thoughts with their students and are suitable platforms
for communicating and developing literary skills. Twitter is a very useful tool which can be used for
educational purposes. It enables the user to conduct blogs and has the advantage of being real-time (Creer,
2018). Profile pictures which appear on the homepage personalises each site. These functions use many
modes and enable users to share visual and verbal symbols. These modes are important in face-to-face
communication, and so by incorporating this feature, twitter brings into the virtual space, the features
that are important during face-to-face communication (Creer, 2018).

150

Integrating Digital Literacy in Competency-Based Curriculum

Linda, Lindstrom and Hashemi (2017) conducted a study amongst newly arrived migrants to inves-
tigate their mobile activities. The study investigated how the immigrants used a mobile app to learn the
Swedish language. The findings showed that in comparison to the control group, the experimental group
revealed some improvement in the speed of their speech and showed more confidence while speaking.
This confirms that the use of pronunciation app can be beneficial in developing language skills. While
reviewing studies related to mobile language learning, Bachore (2015) explains that this is a field that
is growing quickly where research confirms that mobile devices are useful in teaching and learning of
languages. African countries represent the sectors with the fastest growing number of mobile phones
uses and therefore this presents a great potential for teachers of non-native languages to incorporate the
mobile technologies in teaching and learning. These technologies offer the benefits of accessibility, im-
mediacy, interactivity and versatility.

Online Content In Teaching

There is a huge base of e-resources that teachers can use to enhance their teaching. Most of these re-
sources are available online and accessible to teachers. Several websites have been developed to provide
open access to e-resources which teachers can use in their classrooms. Teachers can use podcasts to
enrich their lessons. Podcasts are pre-recorded rather than broadcast live (Linda, 2010). The challenge
for practitioners is to provide an environment that is challenging for children to use technology. Teachers
can engage children by preparing podcasts which can be watched at home or during specific times in the
school timetable. Websites such as www.storynory.com provide a lot of stories for children which can be
useful in teaching English comprehension to children. A detailed discussion of websites and how to use
online content is outside the scope of this chapter, but the reader is advised to contact the recommended
reading list for practical uses of technology in teaching.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has dwelt at length with issues touching on digital literacy and how educators can integrate
the same in the curriculum to build the necessary competencies in the children and youth. The issues
discussed include the use of virtual learning environments and online electronic resources to enrich the
learning experiences of leaners and make the whole teachers process rich and rewarding for teachers. The
Chapter has explored the various online resources available and presented a repertoire of digital tools
which the teachers can use in their pedagogic practices. Various challenges facing online teaching and
the use of digital media have also been addressed satisfactorily. The Chapter has presented an overall
perspective and suggested specific ways of integrating technology in education.

151
 
Integrating Digital Literacy in Competency-Based Curriculum

RECOMMENDATIONS

The preceding discussion has led to several recommendations that can be adopted to integrate digital
literacy in the curriculum. Firstly, teachers need to be well trained so that they can integrate technology in
their teaching. They need to be sensitized regarding the available resources and tools and be informed on
how they can use them to improve instruction. Teachers must rethink their pedagogical practices with a
view of integrating and mainstreaming digital literacy in the curriculum areas which they teach. Learners
with special needs must be considered in digital literacy programmes to ensure there is inclusiveness.
The institutions responsible for teacher training such as Universities and colleges need to review their
curriculum and introduce vital components of digital literacy. Countries particularly in the developing
world need to embrace modern technological advancements in the use of social medial platforms, mobile
technology to ensure young people develop the necessary competencies which will enable them to meet
the challenges of the 21st century.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Given the gaps in knowledge in the existing literature, there is need to conduct more research on the
efficacy of digital technology to improve learning in other curriculum areas. Adequate work has been
done to explain how digital technology is useful in enhancing the learning of languages, however, there
is need to research on how this technology can be used to improve learning in other curriculum areas.

REFERENCES

Bachore, M. M. (2015). Language learning through mobile technologies: An opportunity for language
learners and teachers. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(31).
Bdiwi, R., De Runz, C., Faiz, S., Cherif, A.A. (2018). Smart learning environments. In Teacher’s role
in assessing classroom attention. Research in Learning Technology.
Blackley, S., & Sheffield, R. (2015). Digital andragogy: A richer blend of initial teacher education in
the 21st century. Issues in Educational Research, 25(4), 397–414. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.
au/iier25/blackley-2.html
Boling, E. C., Holan, E., Horbatt, B., Hough, M., Jean-Louis, J., Khurana, C., & Spiezio, C. (2014).
Using online tools for communication and collaboration: Understanding educators’ experiences in an
online course. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 48-55. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.07.002
Care, E., Kim, H., Vista, A. & Anderson, K. (2018). Education system alignment for 21st century skills:
focus on assessment. Centre for Universal Education at Bookings.
Care, E., & Luo, R. (2016). Assessment of transversal competencies, policy & practice Asia-Pacific
region. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO.
Chin, K. & Chen, Y. (2013). A mobile learning support system for ubiquitous learning environments.
2nd International Conference on Integrated Information, 73, 14–21. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.02.013

152

Integrating Digital Literacy in Competency-Based Curriculum

Sharp. (2018). Collaborative Digital Literacy Practices among Adult Learners: Levels of Confidence
and Perceptions of Importance. International Journal of Instruction, 1(11), 153-166. doi:10.12973/
iji.2018.11111a
Creer, A. (2018). Introducing everyday ‘digital literacy practices into the classroom: an analysis of multi-
layered media, modes and their affordances. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 7(2),
131-139. Doi:10.7821/naer.2018.7.265
Eid, M. I. M., & Al-Jabri, I. M. (2016, August). Social networking, knowledge sharing, and student learning:
The case of university students. Computers & Education, 99, 14–27. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.007
Hager, P., & Gonczi, A. (1996). What is competence? Medical Teacher, 18(1), 15–18.
doi:10.3109/01421599609040255
Hoskins, B. (2011). Demand, growth, and evolution. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(1),
57-60. doi:10.1080/07377363.2011.546267
Kame’enui, E.J., & Wallin, J.U. (2002). Information technology and literacy needs of special popula-
tions: Ode to FedEx and Dairy Farmers. In International Handbook of Literacy and Technology (vol.
2). Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, Inc.
Karaduman, H., & Ozturk, C. (2014). The effects of activities for digital citizenship on students’ atti-
tudes toward digital citizenship and their reflections on students’ understanding about digital citizenship.
Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 5(1), 38-78.
Kent, C., Laslo, E., & Rafaeli, S. (2016). Interactivity in online discussions and learning outcomes.
Computers & Education, 97, 116-128. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.002
Khromov S.S., Kameneva N.A. (2016). Modern approach to the formation and development of digital
literacy in education. Open Education, (1), 60-65. doi:10.21686/1818-4243-2016-1-60-65
Kılıç, A. E. & Yılmaz, R. (2019). Descriptive Analysis of the Articles Published in the Last10Years
within the Context of Lifelong Learning: A Meta-analysis. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of
Education, 8(1), 322-359.
Koltay, T. (2011). The Media and The Literacies: Media Literacy. Information Literacy.
Kouwenhoven, G. W. (2003). Designing for competence: towards a competence based curriculum for
the faculty of education of the Eduardo Mondlane (Doctoral dissertation). Enschede: Twente University.
Linda, T. (2010). 21st century digital technology and children’s learning. In Reflective practice in Early
Years. London: Sage.
Linder-VanBerschot, J. A., & Summers, L. L. (2015). Designing instruction in the face of technology
transience. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16(2), 107-118.
Looi, C., & Sun, D. (2018). Boundary interaction: Towards developing a mobile technology-enabled
science curriculum to integrate learning in the informal spaces. British Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy, 49(3). doi:10.1111/bjet.12555

153
 
Integrating Digital Literacy in Competency-Based Curriculum

Mudd, A., Summey, T., & Upson, M. (2015). It takes a village to design a course: Embedding a librarian
in course design. Journal of Library and Information Sciences in Distance Learning, 9(1-2), 69-88. do
i:10.1080/1533290X.2014.946349
Nir, A., Ben-David, A., Bogler, R., Inbar, D., & Zohar, A. (2016). School autonomy and 21st century
skills in the Israeli educational system: Discrepancies between the declarative and operational levels.
International Journal of Educational Management, 30(7), 1231–1246. doi:10.1108/IJEM-11-2015-0149
Obanya, P. (2002). Revitalizing Education in Africa. Stirling-Horden Publishers (Nig.) Ltd.
Olsson, L. (2006). Implementing use of ICT in teacher education. In Education for the 21st Century:
Impact of ICT and Digital Resources. Chicago: Springer.
Otero, N., Milrad, M., Santos, A. J., Verssimo, M., & Torres, N. (2011). Challenges in designing seamless
learning scenarios: Affective and emotional effects on external representations. International Journal
of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 5(1), 15–27.
Republic of Kenya (2019). Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2019 on A Policy Framework for Reforming Educa-
tion, Training and Research for Sustainable Development. Government Printers.
ROK. (2016). National Information Communication and Technology Policy. Retrieved from http://icta.
go.ke/pdf/National-ICT-Policy-20June2016.pdf
Rozalind, G. (2003). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers & Education, 42(2), 111-131.
Schrum, L., Strudler, N., & Thompson, A. (2011). ICTs and Teacher Competencies. Policy brief.
UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000216691?posInSet=10&query
Id=131d494b-2c29-457e-bc42-7be6c37daaed
Taylor, J. M., Dunn, M., & Winn, S. K. (2015). Innovative orientation leads to improved success in
online courses. Online Learning, 19(4), 112-120.
UNESCO. (2011). UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2016). School and teaching practices for twenty-first century challenges: lessons from
Asia-Pacific Region. Regional synthesis report. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/
pf0000244022
Workshop on ‘Digitization of Instructional Materials in Teacher Education’ produces resource persons
development. (2018 July 5). Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/harare/about-this-office/
single-view/news/workshop_on_digitization_of_instructional_materials_in_te/

ADDITIONAL READING

Abbot, J., & Ryan, T. (2000). The unfinished revolution. Stafford, UK: Network Education.
Collins, J., Harkin, J., & Nind, M. (2002). Manifesto for Learning. London: Continuum.

154

Integrating Digital Literacy in Competency-Based Curriculum

Ortlieb, E., Cheek, E. H. Jr, & Semingson, P. (2018). Best practices in teaching digital literacies. Em-
erald Publishing. Hobb, R. (2017). Create to learn: Introduction to digital literacy. Media Education
Lab. Wiley. doi:10.1108/S2048-0458201809
Reed, M., & Canning, N. (Eds.). (2010). Reflective practice in Early Years. London, UK: Sage.
doi:10.4135/9781446288924
White, J. (2015). Digital literacy skills for FE teachers. Sage publications. doi:10.4135/9781473909571

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

21st Century Skills: These are skills that have been recognised as being essential for a person to live
meaningfully and succeed in the 21st century.
Collaborative Learning: This involves learners’ participation in the learning process in a joint and
interactive manner. They share variety of learning experiences and support each other in the learning
process through questions and answers and group discussions.
Competency-Based Curriculum: This is the curriculum whose content areas place more emphasis
on the acquisitions of transversal competencies rather than the acquisition of knowledge for the sake of it.
Digital Citizenship: This is the demonstration of behaviours necessary for appropriate use of infor-
mation communication technologies in online environments.
Digital Literacy: The advocacy and application of information communication technologies in
online settings.
Lifelong Learning: This involves learning that is continuous and never ending which continues even
after individuals exit formal schooling and proceed to adult life.

155
156

Chapter 9
Student Agency:
A Creatively-Focused Digital
Critical Pedagogy

Shawn Robertson
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8900-9604
St. Joseph’s College, USA

ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the theoretical ideas educators should explore and understand in relationship to
developing student agency as a pedagogy. It also examines how using it can potentially inspire digital
critical pedagogy. The process by which certified teachers engaged in to become more aware of their
own critical pedagogy and skill to implement student agency is discussed throughout the chapter. Their
perceptions of what student agency is and should be is explored alongside ideas for instituting creative
digital pedagogy and student agency in a practical fashion in a focal point of the chapter.

INTRODUCTION

Teachers have not been prepared adequately to integrating technology in their teaching some of this is
caused by the philosophy of education imparted to them by teacher education programs. Many teacher
education programs employ strategies that are geared towards the learner of yesterday not the learner
of tomorrow. Public and private P-12 schools also structure their learning environments based on “old
school” methods of teaching and learning. For the betterment of society and the full engagement of
students, teachers need the training and resources to fully implement instructional practices that will
support thinking that promotes 21st Century skills and leads our students into the future. One aspect of
21st Century skills is the concept of self-directed learning that is inclusive of self-efficacy or agency.
This notion of agency is one that has been largely neglected by instructional structures at all levels of
education, but none so prevalent as in our P-12 schools. In fact, in recent years a standards-focused
assessment craze has hijacked sound instructional practices in favor of instructional practices that test

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch009

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Student Agency

specific ways of thinking, but creativity has been left out of this new focus. Technology Thought Leader
Will Richardson (2019) clarifies this point further by stating:

That creative freedom, or “agency,” is a key aspect of almost every deep learning experience that we
have in life. Our ability to decide on our own terms what, when and how to learn leads to learning that
“sticks” far more than when we are given little or no choice. (p.14).

In every way we can think of choice matters. Empowering students with that opportunity is the key
to unlocking a new future that is yet to be created. Technology has enhanced and accelerated the op-
portunities for such learning to take place for students. However, without changes in structure and phi-
losophy students are being developed as thinkers who are devoid of the opportunity to think creatively
for themselves within the framework of agency.

TEACHING AND LEARNING IN CREATIVE FASHION

This chapter will explore current learning structures in school systems and present theoretical recom-
mendations for changes in learning practices that will support student agency and promote critical digital
independence with and for students. Critical independence related to one’s own creativity is the most
powerful tool we can give to students. This notion of critical creative pedagogy has its roots in Project
Based Learning (PBL) and other creative products. Author Patti Drapeau author of Sparking Student
Creativity (2014) states “Creative thinking lessons build on critical thinking and go beyond simple recall
to consider “what if” possibilities and incorporate real-life problem solving; they require students to use
both divergent and convergent thinking.(p.2)” In diving in deeper into the topic, Nodoushan and Deeson
(2015) explain that there must be deep conceptual understandings of content before true creative thinking
can take place. The intricacies that exist in such frameworks are deep and complex. Teachers often shy
away from engaging in such instructional strategies because of logistical issues or lack of a perceived
linear structure for learning. What educators fail to recognize as a result, is that activities like PBL can
lead to what Savin-Baden (2016) refers to as Transdisciplinary Threshold Concepts. Transdisciplinary
Threshold Concepts (TTC) are:

...concepts which transcend disciplines and subject boundaries but which are challenging and complex to
understand, but once understood, the student experiences a transformed way of understanding, without
which the they would struggle to progress through the curriculum (Savin-Baden, 2016).

Providing students with opportunities for TTC is one of the benefits of creative critical pedagogy.
Such a pedagogy recognizes the intersectionality of learning within varied contexts, content areas and
peoples. Creatively engaging in such instructional deconstruction of teaching and learning is at the core
of this chapter’s purpose. This chapter also seeks to provide practical and thoughtful instructional goals
for teachers to consider while building unique learning structures for their students. Finally, it will also
share teacher perspectives on the nuances of aspects of becoming a more critical teacher in relation to
instructional risk, pedagogy and student agency.

157
 
Student Agency

STUDENT AGENCY

Unpacking agency within the context of learning within a digital framework is a critical activity. This
section explores the concepts that are necessary components to connect agency with regard to teaching
and learning in relationship to critical pedagogy. One key question explored in this section is: How can
we begin to connect the intersectionalities that exist within the paradigm of creative learning?
Teaching and learning are as much about culture as they are about process, and teachers learn to
process but often neglect the cultural connections that link to those processes. Most teachers, especially
new ones, simply are not aware of their digital cultural beliefs on any actionable self-reflective level.
Digital cultural beliefs are the ways in which an individual thinks and acts in relation to the technical
world. For instance, some believe that technology is central to how we live and learn and thus it should
be a major part of how we “do” schooling. Others believe that technology should not be a central aspect
to our lives at work, school or play. The reality is that whether it is embraced or rejected, technology is
here to stay. Our deconstruction of that reality and how we can understand it in relation to our pedagogy
is key to developing new, innovative common sense frameworks for teaching and learning. Examples
of frameworks that bridge the divide between what exists and what could exist within a digital critical
pedagogy are digital frameworks such as TPACK (Mishner and Koehler) and the SAMR model (Reu-
ben Puentedura). Each of these frameworks offer teachers a structure by which to begin to assess where
they are individually in varied areas and build new instructional beliefs, thoughts, practices and student
centered tasks. TPACK offers teachers the opportunity to assess their Technological Knowledge and
understand how that knowledge links to their Pedagogical Knowledge as well as their Content Knowl-
edge. It provides a view to see the connections of our teaching. When used reflectively, TPACK can
provide teachers with strong guidance on how to improve the connectedness of their knowledge compe-
tencies in the aforementioned areas. The SAMR model is useful in a more specific way in that it shows
teachers specifically where their designed activities fall in terms of the quality of their technological
instruction. Allowing teachers to measure whether their activities are at the “Enhancement” level or at
the “Transformation” level by giving them clear guidelines for those concepts is a useful transition tool
to help teachers make their thinking about digital pedagogy clear and visible. What these conceptual
frameworks have in common is that they aid in the creativity development of teachers by forcing them
to think differently about their pedagogy. The challenge for such models of instruction is that they often
fail to address the need for “Agency” in an explicitly transparent and clear fashion. Agency should be
a part of the context(s) that such models are based on. While the aforementioned models move the bar
higher in terms of what teachers should be engaged in understanding theoretically as well as practically
to benefit their students and themselves, agency is still amiss.

Deconstructing Purposeful Student Agency

For the purposes of this chapter, Agency is conceptualized as the opportunity to demonstrate creative,
critical, self-directed and actualized learning activity and thought within a digital learning environment.
Generally, student agency or the concept of Agency is one that educators have defined as self-directed
learning. The difference between the two may be significant depending on the implementation of the
concept. Self-directed learning usually takes place within the confines of a learning context that has
been largely developed and designed by the teacher or instructor. This sort of learning opportunity is
laden with value-based judgments about what is important for the student to learn about. Such a peda-

158

Student Agency

gogy operates within the confines of the teacher’s mind and desires for, what, when and how to teach
her students. When put into practice it does not give way to the student in any significant way. What the
student is left with is a version of teaching and learning that is dominated and limited by the perspectives
of that teacher, be they critical perspectives or biased ones, the student is forced to operate within that
teacher’s world. Her world typically relies on the status quo to direct her in terms of what a student is
allowed to learn about and when. All too often teachers complain and then explain what it is that they
can and cannot teach and how they can or cannot teach that content. They usually reference the desire
to remain employed and thus they believe that they have no power to change their circumstances, or the
position of their students in their classrooms. Thus, teachers are teaching as they have been taught and
following the rules of engagement for teaching and learning that were established long ago as a means
to re-create socially constructed elements of society. These strategies are ways of teaching that perpetu-
ate and re-create existing structures of power and oppression. Such teaching is an artifact and social
construct of the banking system of education as coined by Paulo Freire (1968).
Freire helps us deconstruct this insidious process through the following passage from his text Peda-
gogy of the Oppressed:

This solution is not (nor can it be) found in the banking concept. On the contrary, banking education
maintains and even stimulates the contradiction through the following attitudes and practices, which
mirror oppressive society as a whole: (a) the teacher teaches and the students are taught; (b) the teacher
knows everything and the students know nothing; (c) the teacher thinks and the students are thought
about; (d) the teacher talks and the students listen — meekly; (e) the teacher disciplines and the students
are disciplined; (f) the teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply; (g) the teacher
acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher; (h) the teacher chooses
the program content, and the students (who were not consulted) adapt to it; (i) the teacher confuses the
authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition
to the freedom of the students; (j) the teacher is the Subject of the learning process, while the pupils are
mere objects. (Friere, 1968, p.22)

Through this deconstruction of the teaching process within the banking concept, Freire helps us break
down the interplay between teaching and learning. All of the aforementioned sub-points (a-j) speak to
the subversive nature of the banking model in which the teacher is at the center of all supposed learning.
These sub-points impact the opportunities for students to discover and enjoy “Agency”. In particular,
the notion that “...the teacher chooses and enforces his choice…”(p.22) shows how arbitrary pedagogy
can be as it is dependent upon the teacher, and the learner is simply the object. Freire also states “...the
teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who were not consulted) adapt to it…(p.22).
This closed-loop perpetuates the silencing of students and destroys any opportunity for self-efficacy
to be nurtured through the educational process in a purposeful manner. With the teacher enforcing his
or her own way as well as choosing the content, the students are effectively silenced and don’t have an
opportunity to develop a voice as they sink deeper into the banking education model. Freire writes:

It is not surprising that the banking concept of education regards men as adaptable, manageable be-
ings. The more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical
consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of that world. The

159
 
Student Agency

more completely they accept the passive role imposed on them, the more they tend simply to adapt to the
world as it is and to the fragmented view of reality deposited in them. (1968, p.22)

The idea that the students develop less critical consciousness is one that is central to the notion of
student agency. Agency cannot be developed in such an intellectually isolated model. Agency requires
that students are able to foster their own critical consciousness in order to have a direct hand in trans-
forming their own world and society-at-large. This also impacts on the students’ ability and opportunity
to tap into their own creative power. Freire (1968) posits

The capability of banking education to minimize or annul the students’ creative power and to stimulate
their credulity serves the interests of the oppressors, who care neither to have the world revealed nor
to see it transformed. The oppressors use their “humanitarianism” to preserve a profitable situation.
(pp. 22-23)

Unearthing and exposing the fact that students don’t have the opportunity to express their creative
power underscores how they are oppressed by the banking system of education.
Focusing on mundane facts and nominal teachings keep students from realizing their true potential to
learn, grow and be free. Therefore, it is necessary to train teachers in the principles of critical pedagogy
to help free their minds and thus open the floodgates of possibility for all students.

Digital Practical Pedagogy Practiced

Within the framework of digital pedagogy, students are more free to recognize their potential, but the
challenge is that they are of course operating within the banking system of education unless they are
liberated, or liberate themselves. Teachers are learning that technology is a great leveler of opportunity
for many students. In order to practice digital critical pedagogy we must understand that the object to be
known is the self. That is, that the individual must come to understand their place in society through the
lens of critical pedagogy. This is done through the deconstruction of the traditional pedagogy and the
embracing of digital pedagogy. Such a pedagogical shift allows students and teachers to acknowledge
the power structures that impact their daily learning opportunities.
Conceptual models for digital pedagogy are limited in that they don’t challenge the biases and assump-
tions made in the process of teaching or the aspirations of creating an educated person. Many teacher
preparation programs simply aim to provide their preservice teachers and in some cases inservice teach-
ers what is considered to be the best pedagogical frames available. For example, previously I developed
digital pedagogically focused assignments for graduate students. In previous work I challenged my stu-
dents to create new projects for their students by transforming what used to be done using paper and pen
to a completely digital activity. My students happily engaged in such work. They moved from creating
graphic organizers to digital ones, they created blogs that took the place of classroom discussions and
other so-called new pedagogically focused practices. However, in reflecting upon what I provided for
my students my critical consciousness did not go far enough because it stopped short of problem posing.

160

Student Agency

Problem Posing

In my previous teaching, what was not addressed was the mode itself, that is power relationship between
the teacher and the student. I took into account the fact that students needed to be taught 21st Century
Skills, but I didn’t address why those skills were necessary beyond the fact that they were promoted by
educational institutions and think tanks. Some of those skills such as, creativity and innovation, criti-
cal thinking, problem-solving, communication and collaboration hint toward a critical disposition, but
when placed within the banking model they fall short of providing students the framework for student
agency. From a practical standpoint, I think it’s necessary to regard student agency as a concept to be
understood and fused with one’s pedagogy as it is being implemented. This implementation may occur
in an imperfect fashion, but it’s more important that it occurs in the first place. Rather than continuing
the process of learning being more about the teacher than the students, it is supposed to support and
emancipate the learner through the process. In order to support and develop student agency I embarked
on a digitally focused pedagogy that centered around the fact that students ought to have control of their
own learning. In fact, if they don’t have control over their own learning then one would say that it is not
their own, but the learning that the educational culture desires to input into them. Though this is part
of the real goal of learning, the emancipation of the mind where one can see fully and experience life
without the shackles that hold one down and assist in helping the teacher pull the student down a pre-
scribed path that the teacher and government have devised- without the student. The struggle to first help
teachers “see” what they are doing to students is the first aspect of this process, followed subsequently
by teaching them how to “let go” of the reigns while continuing to support students in their personal
development and growth. They had to learn how to problem pose for themselves to see the value that it
could have for their students.

COURSE DESCRIPTION AND PARTICIPANTS

This critical work took place in a graduate course for special education teachers. Each participant had
generally 1-7 years of teaching, and there was a wide range of grade levels that the participants taught
on. The levels ranged from pre-k to 12th grade. The focus of the course was the usage of technology
and other issues of diversity.

Critical Consciousness

The concept of unlearning was a key tool for helping the teachers move through the process of enhancing
their own critical pedagogy in order to develop a process for student agency. Robertson (2019) states:
Unlearning can best be defined as the process of examining one’s beliefs about a particular
topic, concept, idea or thought and deconstructing it to the core in order to re-establish a new be-
lief. Teachers must see that they may have limited pedagogy and should always be open to questioning
themselves and their instructional choices.

161
 
Student Agency

Table 1. Critical thinking rubric

Recognizes Relating it
Identifying Identifying the Gathers Comes to
others’ and to the world
Problem Background evidence conclusion
personal POV around them
Creates an Enable to
Shows some Can relate
unclear POV for summarize Struggles
Cannot correctly understanding problem
Group A him or her self or represent to identify
identify the of where the minimally, but
(lowest and gives no issues. Cannot conclusions and
problem(s) problem(s) is cannot give clear
level) support for their express point consequences of
clearly. coming from, but explanation
POV or others’ of views the issue.
cannot be specific. for it.
POV clearly.
Clearly
Creates a clear, Identifies and identifies and
Can name Shows
standard POV evaluates to summarizes Identifies and
problem(s), but understanding of the
and is able to give an extent how main issues. briefly discusses
Group B cannot explain background of the
some strengths problem relates Formulates conclusions and
them (why & problem(s) with a
and weaknesses personally and a clear and consequences.
how). couple of details
of POV socially. precise view
point.
Successfully
identifies
Identifies
main issues,
Shows Creates a clear and evaluates
problems, and
Can identify understanding, and precise POV, problem
questions, Identifies and
problem(s), as well as gives gives strengths/ personally and
Group C Formulates thoroughly
explain the why/ clear, specific weaknesses, and socially, as well
(highest clear and discusses
how, and identify details about the acknowledges as explains
level) precise conclusions and
any related issues related to the alternate POVs how others may
viewpoints. consequences.
problems. background related that may conflict perceive the
Intensely
to the problem(s). with their own. problem through
evaluates all
their contexts.
important
information.
*Graduate Students cited the following as inspiration for their rubric: http://www.neiu.edu/~neassess/pdf/CriThinkRoger-short.pdf
http://www.criticalthinking.com/company/articles/critical-thinking-definition.jsp

The key characteristics of unlearning are:

1. Being self-reflective
2. Committed to Learning
3. Willingness to Change one’s self for the better
4. Open to new and different ideas (p. 267).

This process of unlearning and problem posing had to take place in relation to the participants’ own
critical pedagogy. In order to facilitate this, graduate students were asked first to work individually to
develop a definition for critical thinking and creativity. Through this activity, the participants utilized
the internet and scoured over scholarly resources in order to develop a definition for critical thinking
and creativity respectively. I have included an example of what was a typical creation for these graduate
students.

162

Student Agency

The graduate students, in this case, were significantly thoughtful about how to evaluate critical thinking
in this case. I found that many groups when properly motivated, created similar types of rubrics. They
framed their rubrics within familiar constructs but did see the value in understanding point of view or
multiple perspectives. The students also problem posed when creating their rubrics by asking themselves
critical questions about the context for learning in relation to the rubric.

Contexts for Learning

After creating rubrics such as Table 1. students were responsible for presenting and discussing their
rubrics to the class. During those discussions students were asked to critique the form and substance
of their rubrics as class. Such actions fall into the continuum of unlearning. The students engaged in
thoughtful discussions about unlearning what they thought they knew about critical thinking and moved
closer to recognizing that as they unlearned their pedagogy evolved to a more critical ontology.
As our conversations progressed students faced the following challenges in their thinking:

1. What does evaluating critical thinking look like in teaching in practice?

2. How can I actually use a rubric to evaluate someone’s critical thought?
3. If someone’s thoughts are their own how can we truly measure them and put a value on them?

While those thoughts were critical in nature it was more important that they continue the process of
unlearning and relearning. Asking those questions were examples of problem posing, the process by
which students would be able to unlearn and relearn. This process is key for students to begin to “see”
more clearly.
The graduate students also had to unlearn what their perspective of students would be in their peda-
gogy. For example, although many of these preservice and inservice teachers believed in project-based
learning most only sought to do so if they had clearly articulated every aspect of the assignment for
the student. For the teachers’ when building and/or discussing a pedagogy for their students, there was
little creativity involved and certainly there was limited choice for students, but more importantly, they
would not or could not completely add self-directed learning to their teaching. Adding such a goal would
allow their students to explore what they wanted to explore more fully in order to self-actualize their
role in education and society. The first step in developing such a pedagogy that included student agency
would be to try to clearly define it the concept. In attempting to do this in an authentic manner, students
engaged in a few key activities.

Defining Student Agency Authentically

The graduate students were asked what they thought student agency entailed. They were to write down
their answers first and subsequently use the internet to search for scholarly articles and other writings
that explored the topic in detail in order to give them multiple perspectives and thus the opportunity to
develop their own definition of student agency. Table 2. Student Agency Defined, shows examples of
how some of the students initially thought of student agency and why they thought it was important to
support it.

163

Table 2. Student agency defined
Student Agency Defined
What is student agency and self-efficacy?
“Student agency includes activities that are meaningful to
the learner. This includes areas of interest, meaningful and relevant
topics and self expression. Self-efficacy is the ability of the learner
to see their own potential, to have confidence in themselves as
achievers.” -J
“Student agency is the idea that the student takes more of an
active role in their education. According the Ed Tech Team, when
students have self agency, “the student is making, creating, doing,
sharing, collaborating, and publishing in ways that are meaningful
to them, using real-world tools.” The teacher encourages students
to participate in meaningful and authentic activities and practices
to better themselves. This process is guided by the teacher and is
differentiated towards the individual. Self efficacy is the belief
in one’s ability to succeed, or achieve a goal. When a student has
self efficacy they have confidence in their abilities, they are self
motivated to set goals and work to achieve those goals, as well as
the ability to advocate for themselves.” -F
“Student agency is a learning environment in which students thrive
from engagement and relatable material. Student agency also
allows choice in the classroom and the United States department of
education defines it as “personalized learning”. Self-efficacy is the
idea of our own abilities to succeed and overcome challenges.”-D
“Student agency is what allows students to take an active role in
shaping their future, rather than being solely influenced by their
circumstances. It includes a capacity for self-efficiency, but also
requires the intentional forethought to set a course of action and
adjust it as needed to fulfil one’s goal.
Student agency refers to learning through activities that are
meaningful and relevant to learners, driven by their interests, and
often self-initiated with appropriate guidance from teachers. To put
it simply, student agency gives students voice and often, choice, in
how they learn.”-L
164

Student Agency
Student Agency Importance
Why is it important? How can we support it?
“These strategies are important for students to be the center of
learning. It is a taught strategy but encourages abstract and higher
level thinking. It is important to give the students an opportunity to
make their own choices and use their own voices. It allows them to
learn in ways that they learn best. They become more engaged in
learning and better prepared for their futures. They get to think and
create more abstractly on their own. As educators, we can support
these practices by incorporating real life lessons and projects to
drive their learning. The educator can encourage the students and
teach them how to have a growth mindset in the academic setting
as well as life overall. Educators can also support this learning by
providing the correct environment for the students academically,
socially, and emotionally.” -J
“[Student] agency and self efficacy are extremely important ideals
to instill in our students so that they are confident and know they
can succeed. Self efficacy also promotes positive emotional well
being as well as boost achievement. When students lack self
efficacy or student agency, motivation to succeed, and set goals for
the future is low, thus decreasing the opportunity for the student’s
success. Teachers can support students to build agency and self
efficacy by helping students to build a positive growth mindset.
Teachers can also support this through celebrating big and small
achievements. Positive praise for academic or social success
encourages the student to strive for greatness and build confidence
in their abilities. Peer modeling is another strategy to increase self
efficacy and student agency amongst students. Seeing peers fail at
first and keep pursuing until they achieve a goal is the best model
for students because it makes goals seem more attainable.”-F
“Student agency is so important for so many reasons. It
personalizes learning and makes the material more relatable and
meaningful for the specific age group learning. As a math teacher,
the number one question I receive is, “when will I ever use this
in the real world”. Because of how frequently I get this question
asked to me, I make sure to make all of my lessons relate to the
real world in one way or another so that students can connect on
a personal level and take the learning outside of the classroom. I
also find giving students choice really makes them more engaged
because they feel they have a say and gives them freedom to show
their strengths.”-D
“It’s important because it encourages self esteem and good work
ethic in our students. Student agency keeps students engaged since
they are part of the lesson plan in the first place. Students must be
able to demonstrate mastery. If students know what their goal is
and trust their teacher is going to allow them to move through their
chosen path to the goal while providing expert feedback, students
are more invested in their own growth.
We as teachers can support this by providing tasks that will be
appropriately challenging (not too easy and not too hard). This will
build students’ confidence.” -L

Student Agency

The answers to the aforementioned questions in Table 2 demonstrate how students were thinking
about two significant concepts, the definition of student agency as well as their views on how they could
support its development through their instruction. It also gives us a window into their perspective on
teaching and learning. Student J states the student agency “...includes activities that are meaningful to
the learner. This includes areas of interest, meaningful and relevant topics and self expression.” These
ideas are integral to student agency, and it is important to note that the student developed this idea in
isolation, with the benefit of using the internet to inform her thoughts if she so chose. Student F ex-
plores the concepts a bit more explicitly and deeply as she states that “The teacher encourages students
to participate in meaningful and authentic activities and practices to better themselves. This process is
guided by the teacher and is differentiated towards the individual.” This quotation demonstrates that the
teacher is making a connection to the fact that the students’ activities ought to be authentic and that the
learner herself should be at the center of the educational process- not the teacher. However, the teacher
still believes that her guidance is necessary for student to navigate that process successfully. Student D
states “...Student agency also allows choice in the classroom and the United States department of educa-
tion defines it as “personalized learning”....” The fact that this teacher chooses to use a definition from
the government shows that she deferred to organizational structures for her pedagogical development.
While the explanation holds some merit, student agency in a critical paradigm would begin to question
why the government would be allowed to define one’s scope of thought. Their definition would be de-
constructed and critiqued and not simply accepted.
Finally, student L states “Student agency is what allows students to take an active role in shaping their
future, rather than being solely influenced by their circumstances….” This definition holds promise in
that it recognizes the student shaping his future instead of being influenced by the circumstances of his
educational situation.

Supporting Student Agency

The students shared several different ideas on how to support student agency in their quick study. Student
J states “These strategies are important for students to be the center of learning. It is a taught strategy...
It is important to give the students an opportunity to make their own choices and use their own voices...
As educators, we can support these practices by incorporating real life lessons and projects to drive
their learning.” The full context of her quote demonstrates that she still believes that the teacher is at
the center of the learning experience because she is the one choosing for the student. It is only after she
(the teacher) chooses does the student get the opportunity to have a choice. Additionally, J states that
the teacher should “incorporate real life lessons and projects…” however, she gives no context for what
she considers to be real life lessons. Student F states “Teachers can support students to build agency
and self efficacy by helping students to build a positive growth mindset.” This perception is a popular
one, and is a thinly veiled reference to Carol Dweck’s work on Growth Mindset. While the concept of a
growth mindset could definitely assist students in becoming themselves more fully it is still somewhat
empty as a consistent practice in relation to student agency.
These responses were a major step in moving philosophically towards a creatively focused digital
critical pedagogy for the students in the course within the framework of student agency.

165
 
Student Agency

Table 3. Survey responses on student agency, creativity and pedagogy

Survey Question Response Average

I am a progressive teacher 8.16
At the start of this course I did not want to take instructional risks
4.74
using technology
Risk taking is integral to learning 9.25
Before taking this course I was confident using technology in my
5.8
pedagogy
After taking this course I am more confident using technology in
8.77
my pedagogy
(Response range 0-10/ Disagree-Agree)

Activity Take Away

Through the latter activity I learned that the students in this course had at least a base from which to
build a more critical pedagogy using technology, and that understanding would be built on their own
individual research on the topic of student agency, their past experiences and their personal pedagogy.
These components, along with creativity would make up the goal for developing a student agency phi-
losophy. Understanding creativity would be the next hurdle.

Creativity

This section will explore, in-depth, creative models of critical digital pedagogy in order to provide potential
exemplars of the aforementioned strategy in motion. Key question: What is a creative mindset? Creativ-
ity is a multifaceted dynamic concept that transcends linear or stagnant definitions. Sir Ken Robinson
identifies creativity as “The process of having original ideas that have value” (Ted Talk, 2007). This
process is one that many teachers have great difficulty engaging in fully. Traditional socialization and
models of teaching that stress teacher-centeredness helps to limit the development of creativity in the
classroom. Teachers largely see creativity as a “loose” way of teaching in which students just “have fun”
but don’t really learn anything useful. They equate creative instruction with games. Often many teachers
create or utilize games that have little to no educational value and simply justify the usage of such games
as just something fun to engage in. When teachers are asked to develop creative instructional strategies,
they are more often than not at a loss in developing one that is instructionally sound and purposeful in
its intended outcomes. This is especially true in relation to teachers’ consciousness about the topic of
creativity. In order to measure the effect of the impact of having my students study student agency and
digital pedagogy I surveyed their perspectives on the topic. They completed the survey at the end of the
course. Thirty-one students participated in the survey, all of which were fully licensed teachers. The
students answered 25 questions overall, but only a relevant sampling will be used to further this topic.
When asked directly if they thought they were progressive teachers the average score out of 0 to 10
was 8.16. Though many felt that they were progressive teachers when asked the question: At the start
of this course I did not want to take instructional risks using technology the average score out of 0 to 10
was a 4.74. This indicated that although the teachers believed themselves to be progressive they were
not as willing to take instructional risks- though that would be a progressive teacher’s trait. Addition-

166

Student Agency

ally, they indicated that they believed that risk was in integral part of learning and growing with a 9.25
average score. However, they were not initially willing to take risks in their instruction in any significant
way until after completing the course. Before taking the course, the participants averaged only a 5.8
confidence level on average for using technology instructionally with confidence. After taking the course
average was a 8.77 out of 10. All of the categories measured here are aspects of having an attitude and
perspective in line with growth and critical consciousness. From the results of the survey it was clear
that the course impacted the participants’ growth significantly. Creativity in pedagogical practice was the
key to their development and growth as instructional designers, especially in relationship to technology.

MODELS FOR CREATIVITY IN TECHNOLOGY

In order to help the teachers in this course adjust in their comfort levels with regard to risk, I designed
some learning experiences to help them develop their creativity. In prior iterations of this course I had
always expected teachers to come to the course with some measure of creativity, but as the years passed
I learned that most of the teachers I had as students did not understand creativity or see themselves as
being creative. This was evident because when the opportunity came to them to be creative they often
wilted- though they were given complete autonomy. This is ironic given the fact that most of the teach-
ers indicated that they wanted more control over their instruction, but when they received it they did not
know how to effectively handle it. Many were not ready to take on such a responsibility because they
had been crippled by the banking system in their own education. Teachers were confused and lost when
they were given too much power. For example, in the past I gave teachers an assignment to create a
digital learning center and many were initially excited to do it until they started the process. They wanted
me to tell them what they should include and specifically how they should set it up. I encouraged the
students to take the reins themselves but most relentlessly asked for strict guidance. As a result of this
situation it was necessary to scaffold their learning process so that the students could begin to access
what was inside of them. In order to deal with the gap of creativity we first defined creativity using the
same process we used when we defined critical thinking. After going through the process of defining
creativity, students developed rubrics on creativity Rubric in order to have a clear perspective on how
to view creativity, and because it was self-generated it was an authentic representation.
In order to assist them in moving forward in their understanding I created several short activities for
them to engage in. The first activity is called: Risk Taker- students would try to do something instruction-
ally that they have never done before such as act out a scene, sing, create a video, or do something else
that they had never engaged in before. They would choose the content area and the topic to be explored
and then create it however they would like. This activity is one that is likened to grabbing low-hanging
fruit. It is accessible, and they get to choose how and to what extent they want to complete the assign-
ment. I also ask the students to refer back to their rubrics on critical thinking and creativity to judge
their final products. Some of the products that students developed were activities like: Vlogs (Video
blog), Making Educational Music and Digital Posters. These activities started students down the road
of connecting ideas. A secondary activity that the students engaged in was: Fuse 2- This is where the
creator (student) has to try to put together two ideas in creating a product. Students engaged in creating
activities like digital debate sessions and leveled leveraged activities that build on one another such as
Digital Close Reading and Tags (where the student would do a close read of material and tag it with
other relevant labels thus making the document searchable using tags). This would enable their students

167
 
Student Agency

Table 4. Stages of agency

Stage 1 Creating Audacious Goals for Oneself

Stage 2 Self-directed free choice
Stage 3 Revisit One’s Thoughts
Seek Continuous Improvement:
Stage 4
Know Thyself
Stage 5 Re-engage in the cycle from the beginning

the opportunity to organize and reorganize content for varied purposes such as summarizing and critical
analysis. Another example is the: Conquer Your Fears Fest- This is where people actively write down
what their instructional fears are and create an activity to help them overcome that fear. Often times
elementary teachers feel inadequate in teaching math, so they choose an activity that helps them over-
come the fear of teaching it. They have created activities such as interactive whiteboard scaffold notes,
Voicethread video notes and Speak into the camera activities where they engaged in public speaking.
What’s true of teachers in terms of their weakness and personal challenges is also often true of stu-
dents in a classroom. When trying to fuse together the purpose of student agency and the practicality
of it within a digital pedagogy in a creative way, it is important to note that there are many skills being
utilized here. Other activities that help bridge the gap to student agency are Project Based Learning ac-
tivities that are genuinely authentic and lead to TTC. Twitter backchannels where the students are able
to engage in conversations that are self-directed also provide a powerful way for teachers to begin the
process of opening the gates of power with her students.
Roadblocks to creativity and student agency are many such as lack of a critical perspective, inability
to take risks, seeing the power that exists in education as a zero-sum game, not fostering and developing
a true authentic understanding of agency, creativity and critical thinking. The following is an example
of a process for student agency represented in stages.
Educators must be aware of the stages for student agency and be willing to be patient as students
navigate through its challenge pathway. In fact, many educators are willing to engage students as part
of developing their student agency, but they fail at going through the whole process because of its chal-
lenging nature. Often times the “loose” nature of how students go about developing their own unique
self-directed voice leaves the teacher out in the cold waiting to see what the student comes up with.
This is why having an understanding of the stages is invaluable. Recognizing that the process is not a
linear one, but one that could take many twists and turns on its way to full actualization is also central
to realizing student agency.

Questions to Consider

1. What are the practical applications of student agency for students in the classroom?
2. Is agency a pathway forward for learning?
3. Does embracing student agency mean less power for the teacher?
4. How does creative digital critical pedagogy change the landscape of education? What are its po-
tential impacts on society?

168

Student Agency

CONCLUSION

The construct of student agency is one that deserves more of educators’ attention. Student Agency is
a way that students can take control over their learning in ways that teacher-centered instruction could
never accomplish. Creativity is also a staple of pedagogy that will assist both students and teachers alike
in realizing the fullness of learning. Critical pedagogy is the glue that holds it all together in that with-
out it, no real self-actualization can take place for either the teacher or the student. Teacher preparation
programs and individual teachers alike owe their students increased levels of support that will “prop
up” and give “new light” to multiple perspectives and diverse ways of thinking. Technology can either
help or hurt the prospect of student agency through how it is used. Utilizing technology in deconstruc-
tive self-edifying ways will empower the students of tomorrow to develop their own “Agency” and as
a result change the landscape of education and improve our future societies as learners begin to direct
their own paths.

Student Agency: A Creatively Focused Digital Critical Pedagogy

Guiding Questions for Reflective Thought

1. How can teachers understand student agency through critical pedagogy?

2. How can we embrace the notion of student agency in our pedagogy?
3. What are the steps one must take to develop a creative digital pedagogy mindset?

Three Standards for Student Agency

1. Critical thought is the basis for critical pedagogy

2. Self-actualization is key for understanding one’s reality
3. Technology helps us create

REFERENCES

Drapeau, P. (2014). Sparking student creativity: Practical ways to promote innovative thinking and
problem solving. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.
Robertson, S. L. (2020). Digital Pedagogy for the 21st Century Educator. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Handbook
of Research on Innovative Pedagogies and Best Practices in Teacher Education (pp. 258–275). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9232-7.ch015
Salmani Nodoushan, M., & Deeson, E. (2015). Teaching for creativity in the common core classroom.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(5).

169
 
Student Agency

Savin-Baden, M. (2016). The impact of transdisciplinary threshold concepts on student engagement in

problem-based learning: A conceptual synthesis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning,
10(2). doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1588
TED TALK Do Schools Kill Creativity. (2006). In YouTube. Retrieved June 10, 2019 from https://www.
ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity?language=en

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Critical Pedagogy: The philosophical theory and practice of deconstructing teaching and learning
through understanding self and society.
Digital Instruction: The utilization of technology in any learning experience.
Student-Centered Learning: Learning experiences that place the student at the core of the experience.

170
 171

Chapter 10
Indigenizing and
Mentoring Technology
Usage in Undergraduate
Teacher Education
Doug Reid
Thompson Rivers University, Canada

ABSTRACT
As a partnership between a teacher education program and a public school, an introductory course
in education was modernized to reflect the current technological and cultural contexts of the teaching
profession. This was done to ensure the course would still be a transfer credit at other universities in the
region and to ensure undergraduate students would receive a current perspective of teaching in Canada.
The result of this initiative was the development of an undergraduate course infused with modeling
technology used in classrooms today designed upon an indigenous pedagogical model. In theory, this
allowed the students to explore the interaction of technology-enabled learning and indigenous pedagogy.
In practice, this allowed the students to learn in a low-risk environment designed to reflect current reali-
ties and advances in educational practices.

INTRODUCTION

This research was initiated as part of an investigation into mentoring in a technology rich classroom
(Reid & Reid, 2015). The University implementation aspect of the research is what will be presented
in greater detail here. The focus of this research project was to explore an implementation of pedagogi-
cal approaches to teaching and learning to pre-service teachers that included technology infusion in an
indigenous-structured undergraduate education course.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch010

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 
Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education

Teacher preparation has attempted to keep up with current societal trends and the attrition rate of
early career teachers (Greiner, & Smith, 2009; Mee, & Haverback, 2014) shows that more innovative
practices need to be developed. In this research, introduction to responsive course design based on digi-
tal technology integration, blended learning, and Indigenous pedagogical approaches within a teacher
education program to attempt to address perceived limitations in recent education graduates to promote
resilience and reduce early career teacher attrition.
Society and teaching environments have continued to change through the years. Early career educators
find themselves in a wide variety of school environments have been identified throughout the literature
and summarized numerous times (Buchanan, 2012). There are a number of environmental factors pre-
sented in the literature that affect early career educators include the cultural & societal transition from
pre-service teacher to early career educator, lack of support from the school district and the community,
working conditions, and feelings of isolation. The literature also identifies factors that impact success for
early career educators including institutional factors like the teacher evaluation process, administrative
burdens, the predominance of teacher educators who have never or have barely been teachers themselves.
More individualized factors include their contract status, their inexperience in school settings, and the
appropriateness of their teacher training (Forret, Fox-Turnbull, Granshaw, Harwood, Miller, O’Sullivan,
& Patterson, 2013). The need for mentorship of early career educators in appropriate pedagogy has been
argued in the literature (Steinke & Putnam, 2011). The case study for this mentorship approach in a
technology and indigenous pedagogy school environment identified factors in three categories including
what the early career teachers were strong with, what they were not prepared for and what they identified
as overwhelming in their first year of teaching (Reid & Reid, 2015). The identified factors were then
integrated into the planning and delivery of a university teacher education program. This is the result of
applying the identified factors in a teacher education program.
The final aspect of the larger research endeavour concerned bringing the experiences of the technol-
ogy, cultural, and mentorship process to the university teacher education program. The research team was
concerned for the high attrition rates that exist in the teaching profession especially in the first five years
of a teachers’ career. It can be argued that it is important that pre-service teachers be able to experience
the unknown and be provided with the opportunities to enable them to make informed decisions about
teaching (Trinidad, Sharplin, Lock, Ledger, Boyd, & Terry, 2010). After the initial phase of the research
concluded which coincided with the end of the school year, the lessons learned and factors identified
were examined. This was done with a view to design a highly practical learning experience particularly
focused on aspects of the teacher education program that needed to be present to help provide resilience
and insight for early career educators to find success.

BACKGROUND

The entire research project took place in a K-12 school and a postsecondary institute in the same com-
munity. The K-12 portion of the research was published previously (Reid & Reid, 2015). The university
setting was an undergraduate teaching institution in a Canadian city. The author taught in an undergraduate
general education course that was an introductory class that potential education majors could complete
for transfer credit to a BEd program at other universities. It was a three-credit course that was based on
a complete/incomplete experiential model that allowed students. The course had a long history at the
institution and had been taught for well over a decade without major revisions. This course existed in

172

Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education

a Department of Psychology and a university transfer program that allowed students to do their initial
education courses at one institution, then transfer to another institution to complete their education degree.
The physical learning environment at the institution was a basic university classroom with an overhead
projector as the only technology beyond white boards and paper. The pre-service teachers were not
initially encouraged to bring their own devices to class and use them to participate in class. A learning
management system was not initially used to provide a repository for files or teaching, not for teaching in
any sort of face-to-face or blended way. This initial offering of the class provided an interesting perspec-
tive to the multiple iterations of the course using digital technology as an add-on and later as an integral
part of the course design. This perspective allowed for the determination that technologically blended
learning design to this course was needed and many initially face-to-face activities were moved out of
the classroom and into other environments. It is in this context, informed by the mentoring experience
in the K-12 classroom, that queries related to teaching practice enabled by technology use emerged.
The findings of the original research were integrated into an introduction to the profession of teaching
class. This class was an introductory class that all education majors and education minors were required to
complete. This course was designed on an experiential model where students engaged with the perceived
realities of being a professional teacher in a K-12 classroom. The course had been taught for many years
and the structure of the learning has not changed a great deal in all that time. For example, the textbooks
for this course were initially published in the early 1990s and were still being published just for this
course. The course content and design was used across a number of sections of the class so the findings
of the K-6 school location were initially interposed into a solitary section of the class. Since the author
originally taught only one section of the course, there was no freedom to make wholesale changes to
the design of the course that would impact other professors teaching their versions of the course. How-
ever, after one year, the department chair responsible for the course was so impressed by the feedback
she received from others regarding the modifications that came out of the initial research study, that
she approached the author and had him make wholesale redevelopments to every section of the course.
The author therefore redeveloped an aged introductory education course to ensure that our partner
institutions would continue to accept the course as a transfer credit. It had been a long time since the
course had undergone a major redevelopment and it was necessary to modernize the course for many
reasons. It was decided that the course would be changing from a second year education course to a first
year course. The course would also need to change from a pass/fail format to a graded course based on
GPA similar to the majority of courses that offer results from A+ to F. There were two key components
to the redevelopment, the use of technology, and the inclusion of indigenous pedagogies.
This research study had a number of people involved with it, including the primary author, one full
time early career teacher, several peripheral early career teachers, several adjunct professors, and twelve
classes of pre-service teachers. Each group will be presented below.
The author is a career educator with K-12 teaching experience and several graduate degrees from
accredited universities. The author was based in a university and was responsible for the design, develop-
ment and delivery of the K-6 research findings into the pre-service teacher education program. The other
researcher was based in the K-6 school environment and was responsible for the mentoring components
of the study. Both professionals spent time in both environments interacting with all the participants to
some extent. The school based author spent time lecturing and instructing the pre-service teachers in the
university class. The university-based author worked with the students and the teachers in the K-6 school
as well. The early career teacher was a newly graduated teacher. The two adjunct professors were hired
to teach the revised undergraduate course after the redevelopment of the course based on the research

173
 
Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education

feedback had taken place. Both adjunct professors had PhDs in education, and both had a great deal of
experience in K-12, post secondary, and instructional design expertise. The pre-service teachers were
all enrolled in an introductory undergraduate education course. The pre-service teachers were university
students had varied including cultural backgrounds, economic backgrounds, and ethnic backgrounds and
were coming into the program with a wide variety of life experiences.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This chapter presents a case study of proven practice strategies and approaches designed to support early
career teachers with not just surviving, but thriving in their chosen career. These practices are more than
supplementary to their experiences in the education programs they recently graduated from. This case
study will provide answers to the following questions:

(a) What successes and challenges are present for pre-service teachers in their undergraduate programs?
(b) How can digital technology modeling by college professors support pre-service teachers find suc-
cess in 21st Century classrooms?
(c) How can pedagogical issues be addressed in teacher education programs to promote indigenous
understandings in industrialized countries?

DESIGN OF THE RESEARCH

A key belief that drove this research was the basic objective to not fail in the teaching of the preservice
teachers, to promote students success and to have the designed teaching be part of the preservice teacher
success. These objectives guided the exploration that technology could play a valuable part of the pre-
service teacher experience.
In previous offerings of this class, students had stated their beliefs regarding the reality of field
experience versus the novelty of technology enabled learning. Students often highlight the novelty of
technology use (Visser, Plomp, Amirault & Kuiper, 2002) and believe the use of technology is a design
principle for the novelty effect rather than designing technology enabled learning activities. Many pre-
service teachers made statements regarding the belief that technology improves learning opportunities
but did not detail how this occurred (Li, 2007). These beliefs may befuddle educators and preservice
teachers from asking fundamental questions that improve student success.
Technology use has often been seen as a cure to fix what ails education. In some circumstances
technology is seen as being able to replace the older models of instruction (Zhao, 2007). Uninformed
technology belief embraces the notion that sparkle breaks through the tedium of daily classroom rou-
tines. It suggests an environment far removed from the stereotypical world of boredom, black and white
answers, and repetitive routine through the creation of an environment for greater research possibilities.
Nevertheless, these uninformed technology beliefs conflicts with the literature that repeatedly argues
that technology will not replace teachers but will assist students if used correctly (Collinson, 2001).

174

Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education

It can be understood why educators continue to embrace such a myth of uninformed technology use in
education. Technology enabled learning in classrooms has been discussed in the academic literature for
well over a century including when Teacher’s Aid published an argument entitled ‘Paper Versus Slate’
(The Education Circular, 1901). This article offered many reasons why paper and pencils were superior
educational technologies compared to chalk and slate. This theme in the literature continues to this day
including a comprehensive report (British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2003)
that maintained that all educators must be trained in the technical and pedagogical aspects of technology
enabled learning and teaching. Other literature of that era argues that teacher education programs need to
incorporate practical training and appropriate modeling of technology enabled learning across the cur-
riculum (Sahin, 2003). This struggle against uninformed technology use in K-12 classrooms continues.
As part of technology enabled learning in teacher education, educators need to critically examine
their modeling of teaching and learning experiences through the filter of their beliefs about and their
usage of educational technologies (Zhao, 2007). It is questionable if reflection of individuals’ technol-
ogy enabled learning professional practice is currently happening on a universal level in K-12 schools
and teacher education atmospheres. If this reflection is not consistently happening, the development of
pedagogies to improve technology enabled learning, including blended learning strategies infused with
indigenous pedagogies may not have occurred yet either.
Changing preservice teacher views were paramount to the research. Many teachers are inclined to
focus on integrating technology simply for transmission of knowledge rather than supporting higher
level learning such as critical analysis or problem solving (Kayler & Sullivan, 2004). The literature (Ar-
chambault and Crippen, 2007) argues that teachers and preservice teachers needed to extend their beliefs
of instruction past simply increasing the amount of technology tools added to an educational offering.
In addition to examining the modeling of digital technology enabled learning, indigenous pedagogi-
cal principles, and modernizing the content was the examination of the institutional structuring of the
course offering to create an optimum learning environment for learners. These influences address the
heart of what the research investigated. Creating an optimum learning environment for students to obtain
the goals they wish to accomplish was vital to the design of the course. This matches with the goal of
broadening of teachers views of the role of educators especially related to technology enabled learning
in university classes and K-12 classes (Archambault & Crippen, 2007). The design of this research es-
tablished that any design or technology innovations would be unable to meet the outcomes of a course
unless they are tested in the context of identified learner-based objectives required for future endeavors.
It is the focus on learner-centered goals and pedagogies that are the basis of indigenous pedagogies
and whether technology supports the outcome that is at the core of the course design process. One key
design concern that was addressed involved ensuring that activities and technology use did not restrict
students from engaging with the challenges of authentic learning required to build an ongoing process
of being an active learner.
The research introduced a mentorship process in a K-6 classroom that was team taught by an expe-
rienced teacher and an early career teacher. The lessons learned from the mentorship process were used
to inform the teaching of pre-service teachers the following academic years. There were a number of
initiatives that were implemented throughout the year and they are organized into three main categories:
Digital technology modeling, Indigenous pedagogy, and Conceptual perspectives. The research findings
from phase one of the study were introduced as addons to an existing course and later formed the basis
of a completely redeveloped class.

175
 
Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education

INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF FINDINGS

The findings of the first phase of the research were integrated into the teaching of an existing introduc-
tion to the profession of teaching class. This course was an introductory class that all students planning
to be education majors and education minors were required to successfully complete. This course was
originally designed on an experiential model where undergraduate students engaged with the realities of
being an educator in a K-12 classroom. The course had been taught for many years and the structure and
content of the learning has not changed markedly in that time. The structure was used across a number
of sections of the class so the results of the first phase of the research of the K- school location were
introduced into the teaching of a solitaire section of the course. The author taught the one section of the
course, therefore there was no freedom to make wholesale changes to the structure of the entire course
including all the other sections being offered.
As designed, the course was heavily focused on lesson planning and the philosophical underpinning
of teaching and learning as perceived by retired school administrators. The research demonstrated that
the teacher education program did a strong job with lesson planning was so little adjustment was needed.
Societal changes were identified as needing a more prominent role in the teacher education program and
this included realities dealing with professionalism, parent communities, legal issues like FIOPP, and
use of social media for professional use.
A change in the focus of the course was to remove as many implicit understandings and overtly state
these understandings to give pre-service teachers an opportunity to discussion and learn from people
with other backgrounds and experiences. Early in the course activities on professionalism and how to
act like a professional were included to ensure opportunities to interact with authentic examples of situ-
ations current teachers faced on a day-to-day basis. The prescribed readings in the syllabus of the course
were supplemented with the findings of the research. Examples of additional readings and resources
came straight from the professional practice of current teachers in the field and included non-academic
sources like professional publications and teacher blogs. A new aspect of teacher professionalism in-
volved communications with colleagues, students, administrators and parents. The parental component
was greatly fleshed out including social media use, parenting magazines impacts, the trends parents are
learning about, and how teachers can preserve a professional persona without being caught by surprise by
parental actions in current school settings. Additionally behaviour, deportment, and professional clothing
choices were presented in an activity to demonstrate how early career teachers sometimes get themselves
into uncomfortable situations with their appearance. Without informing the students beforehand, the
author fundamentally changed his appearance and his clothing choices and had the pre-service teachers
review their reaction to him based on the difference between the two looks. After nearly a full semester
of having long hair, a bushy beard and wearing suits and ties to every class, he cut his hair very short,
shaved his beard and dressed in jeans, Hawaiian shirt, and a baseball cap with the university logo on
it. The reaction of the class was prodigious, as many students though a guest speaker was in class and
other students felt uncomfortable with the radically different appearance. The author did not change his
behaviour, routines and procedures and there were may statements from the students for the rest of the
semester how eye opening that change of appearance was and how it was going to make the students
rethink what they would wear as teachers when they had their own classes.

176

Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education

The realities and practicalities of teacher contracts were also offered from an early career teachers’
point of view. The whole process of getting a teaching contract was presented transparently with bring-
ing human resources professionals in to the class to discuss employment. The pre-service teachers were
also given examples of the teacher evaluation process such as the number of observation sessions, the
paperwork involved, the different between a teaching contract and a teaching license.
School philosophies and school cultures were demonstrated less from the traditional style of the
region and more alternates were presented. This included examples of team teaching and students had
to reflect upon how they could work with a variety of other professionals in their class, be it on a full
time or a part time basis. Another focus was on teachable moments as the students did a great deal of
presentations and mock lessons and were actively encouraged to follow any teachable moments without
fear of being reprimanded for not strictly following the prepared lessons. Different school philosophies
were also discussed and students were able to take the lead with their previous experience if they had
volunteered of been students in one of these settings like Reggio Emilia, Montessori and International
Baccalaureate.
Lastly, an emphasis on new initiatives and technology were added throughout the activities and the
assignments in the course. Technology was basically not used in the course before this research and digital
technology was shunned with students usually being told not to use any electronic technology in class.
For example, cutting and pasting meant actually using scissors and glue as the learning management
system was never used in this course. Another new initiative involved in-class activities, and students
were now expected to use their technology to provide proof of student learning in every class. Some
of the activities in the class now allowed the students to model pedagogical appropriate uses of mobile
technology in educational settings and share them with their peers after modeling from the professor. Less
technologically inclined students were given opportunities for support through peer mentoring support
and scaffolded activities based on their pre-existing understandings. The students were now encouraged
to portray technology initiatives they had experienced as students and reoriented their view to discuss
what that must have been like for the teachers implementing the initiative. This led to dialogues and
explorations regarding the non-technological pedagogical initiatives that were expected from the schools
as well from the school districts and the government. Without the experience of the first phase of the
research regarding how early career teachers can get overwhelmed by the amount they need to learn in
order to flourish in the teaching profession, the university class would not have focused to greatly upon
the initiatives that more experienced teachers’ deal with every year.

REDEVELOPMENT AND MODERNIZATION

The author was approached to redevelop an aged introductory education course to ensure that our partner
institutions would continue to accept the course as a transfer credit. It had been a long time since the
course had undergone a major redevelopment and it was necessary to modernize the course for many
reasons. It was decided that the course would be changing from a second year education course to a first
year course. The course would also need to change from a pass/fail format to a graded course based on
GPA similar to the majority of courses that offer results from A+ to F. There were two key components
to the redevelopment, the use of technology, and the inclusion of indigenous pedagogies.

177
 
Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education

A key component of the redevelopment was the integration of digital technology throughout the
course as it was very paper-based with lots of handouts and activities done only with pens and paper.
The indigenous pedagogical component of the redevelopment came out of a concern for moderniza-
tion of the course. In Canada, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission have released findings that are
beginning to be included in curricula across K-12 and post secondary educational offerings in Canada.
The decision to provide the course in a blended format was seen to promote the underpinning of the
pedagogical beliefs of technology enabled learning and whole student focus of indigenous pedagogies.

Digital Technology Modeling

The concept behind the technology usage in the course was based on several factors. These factors in-
clude the current context of teaching in our province, their growth as learners, pedagogy, and technology
found in classrooms. The initial design of the course was long before current technological literacies
were expected of teachers. Everything was based on the teaching experiences of teachers who had left
the classroom decades ago. The technology use in this course had the basic assumption that pre-service
teachers had some experience with digital technology. There was no expectation that pre-service teach-
ers had ever used technology to teach anything. Therefore, a great deal of understated technology use
was designed to reduce potential stress for the learners. The pedagogy and their growth as learners
were continually emphasized and the technology use was used in a scaffolded way to allow students to
determine how much technology they wanted to us, while ensuring they met a predetermined minimum
level throughout the course.
A practical view was taken on how to design technology use and explaining that decision to the pre-
service teachers in the class. All the technology used in the class is currently used in K-12 classrooms
in local school jurisdictions and its use was mandated that teachers must use it in their teaching practice.
This included interactive white boards, data projectors, word processors, spreadsheets, shared data-
bases, multimedia manipulation, and the like. When challenged about the requirements to using these
digital technologies, class time was provided in the first class to have this discussion. Examples were
provided for each type of digital technology use sorted by its’ functionality and how teachers currently
are required to use it. The interactive data base system was explained through attendance requirements
as to school systems in the region all have digital systems in place to provide attendance information to
the office. For the more intractable Luddite pre-service teachers, the non-optional nature of the digital
technology use was decontextualized to support their appreciation of the current contexts they might
find themselves in when they graduate and get hired as early career teachers. The example was given
involving automobile drivers’ licences and how this could parallel their upcoming teachers licence. All
the students were asked if they had a drivers’ licence and in seven classes, every student had a drivers’
licence. The students were then asked how many used indicator lights (or blinkers) when they operated
a vehicle. Most said they did and the conversation was then guided towards why indicators were used
and how did people feel about drivers that did not use indicators. Eventually, students came around to
the notion that they were necessary for the safety of everyone and that they could be fined and lose their
licence if they were caught not using indicators. The example was then transposed for the pre-service
teachers when then asked to imagine how school administrators and parents would react if the required
technology was not used, students demonstrated an increased understanding of why the technology was
required. This greatly conversation, the provision of learning resources, and the professor modeling the
technology throughout the semester, reduced any complaints on this subject. There were still concerns

178

Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education

by some in the class and this was handled in many ways, including one-to-one tutoring, peer supports,
technology use options in assignments, and learning resources to each technology used in the class. Some
students went far above the designed expectations for technology use and they were treated as technol-
ogy leaders in the class who could help show what was possible, and would assist fellow students less
confident in their technology usage skills.
Every activity and assignment was designed with a digital technology component. Each activity
was designed to scaffold skills, pedagogy and technological familiarity for later parts of the course and
the program. During the first class, students were required to submit a selfie for the professor to help
create a student list that when compiled had everyone’s pictures on it. This was a low risk task that al-
lowed students to master and demonstrate the ability to take electronic images, manage files, navigate
the LMS, and meet deadlines. All these skills were used throughout the course and added to as the se-
mester proceeded. Another example was midway through the course, there was a demographics activity
that involved student discussions, collecting data, graphing, using electronic spreadsheets, and sharing
the files in several ways. There were also practice teaching sessions where students chose curricular
outcomes, planned, and delivered lessons. They were required to use digital technology to address the
K-12 curricular outcome of their choice. There were other activities based on non-technology content
like educational philosophy and classroom layout that students were required to use their choice of im-
age manipulation software or communication apps to demonstrate their increasing fluency with digital
technology. All of the activities lead to the final project.
The final assignment was a cumulative “Journey of Learning” multimedia project presented at the end
of the semester. The project had students use all the professional practice materials, any supplemental
materials from their experiences to demonstrate their journey to become a teacher. They were required to
apply the medicine wheel domains to create categories for their oral presentation. This enabled students
to analyze their learning and understandings through the end of the course. Students had the option to
create PowerPoint presentations, videos, and the like. They also had the option to post an electronic
version of their project online and present virtually, rather than face-to-face.

Indigenous Pedagogy

In Canada the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) has presented their Calls to Action in 2015
that include many that impact education (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). The
redevelopment of the course to include an indigenous pedagogy component was challenging. The move
to include culturally appropriate material was seen by some to ask questions like “What percentage of
the course would be indigenous?” The decision to use indigenous pedagogy rather than indigenous facts
and figures was a radical one at the institution and was quite typical according to the literature (Alfred,
2004). The transformative nature of the approach coincided with suggestions for success in the literature
(Mihesuah & Wilson, 2004; Pidgeon, 2016) concurred with some Calls to Action from the TRC. This
pedagogical design decision was also supported by the Association of Canadian Deans of Education
who acknowledged the roles and responsibilities of educators in addressing cultural shifts through new
approaches to teacher education programs (Pratt & Danyluk, 2017). This led to the emphasis on the
whole student at the centre of the course redevelopment.

179
 
Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education

Figure 1. Provincial first nations, Métis, and Inuit professional learning project medicine wheel

The centre of the design of the course was respecting the journey of all students and allowing preservice
teachers the opportunity to experience modeling of digital technology in a robust contextual framework.
A four-point medicine wheel was used to provide the basis of the course. Indigenous notions of teaching/
learning often have the medicine wheel at their core (Toulouse, 2016). Medicine wheels are sometimes
known as the living teachings and are described as the circle of life. This exhibits that everything is
connected and everything is sacred. Each domain represents aspects of learners that make them whole
balanced beings. Disrupt the balance in any domain and each domain of life is impacted. Medicine wheels
have a direct relationship to quality learning environments that extend beyond typical K-12 curricula.
They are based in holistic learning environments that treat the learner as a whole by valuing the health,
the emotional, the intellectual and the creative aspects of the whole person (Malott, 2008; Toulouse,
2016). Not every medicine wheel uses the same four domains and several will be presented below.
Medicine wheels can have different domains and several were identified for potential use. These
medicine wheels may have mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual domains designed to allow a four-
part person to emerge, as educators learn to pay deeper attention to the interconnectivity of creation in
our educational practices (Latremouille, Bell, Kasamali, Krahn, Tait, & Donald, 2016). This model is
designed to allow each individual’s educational journey to maintain its integrity and distinctive voice as
it travels its path a good way while being wisely aware of how it is progressing. Another medicine wheel
has domains that include respect, relevance, reciprocal relationships, and responsibility which become
the guiding structure for student growth and acceptance (Kirkness and Barnhardt, 1991; Pidgeon, 2016).
Reviewing these medicine wheels lead to the decision to adopt one particular medicine wheel as the
basis for the course and all its activities.

180

Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education

The Provincial First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Professional Learning Project (Alberta Regional Consor-
tia, 2015) created a medicine wheel based on the UNESCO Pillars of Education and Alberta ministerial
order (Figure 1). The four domains were Learning to Relate, Learning to Be, Learning to Know, and
Learning to Do. Every reading, student activity, and discussion was based on this model. This included
every implementation of digital technology and blended learning as an integrated seamless approach to
technology use and pedagogy was adopted.

Conceptual Perspectives

While the research project was underway, the university setting had begun to promote blended learning
and that was initiated with courses that were undergoing major revisions. The concept of a blended learn-
ing course was to incorporate online and non-synchronous learning activities with face-to-face learning
experiences. Reporting of student engagement in post secondary education (Vaughan, 2010) informed
the basis of what type of model of blended learning this research was attempting to implement. The
largest challenge was what to put online and what to instruct in the face-to-face environment to promote
technology enabled learning with the indigenous pedagogy design.
Initially it was clear that blended learning courses were not being received by students. For many
blended learning initiatives students were facing, it was basically an anachronism for “give me more”
subject matter that couldn’t be done in face-to-face courses. There were many stories across the student
body about receiving more quizzes, tests, and assignments and discussion boards being little more than
time sponges offering little deeper or engaging discussions. Some stories denoted that blended learning
courses were merely a ploy for the university to save money and had little to do with learning and student
success. This issue of students being skeptical of the actions of the university is supported throughout
the literature (Harris and Cullent, 2008). Budgets, fads, and administrative decisions have challenged
educators to shape and redirect efforts in accomplishing educational goals (Hauptmann, 2007). Educa-
tors have worked within institutional structures to create peak approaches given the resources they must
work with (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). This presented an important design issue to be overcome.
The design of the blended learning components was explored how to create learning activities that
meshed well with face-to-face and online environments, as well as the indigenous pedagogies. There
were practical limitations to using online components in the course to enhance the learner experience.
The learning management system tools were primarily used to provide integral quality blended activities
rather than being seen an addition or a novelty. Entering into this paradigm shift of indigenous pedagogy
and digital technology enabled learning regarding the blended course initiative required deliberate design
decisions. It was acknowledged that digital technology impacted the place, the time, and the milieu of
learning experiences (Zhang & Zhou, 2003). The key to learner-centered indigenous pedagogy is that
each activity requires that it is designed for a purpose and that it provides adequate time, place, and
communicative aspects to ensure the optimum reflective experience for the learner.
The pre-service teachers needed to get something out of a reflective learning activity rather than it
being merely a time sponge (Shoffner, 2009). To connect this to a learner centered design, the content
of the course was organized to be not be just covered, but to be used to establish a knowledge base for
the preservice teachers (Weimer, 2002). The importance of practice that enriches the experience of the
learner and is authentic to the material of the course (Jay & Johnson, 2002) coincides with the indigenous
pedagogy the course was based on. The reflection components of the course were chosen as the location

181
 
Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education

to explore how a blended learning design could enhance an area of learning that could not be replicated
in the face-to-face classroom experience.
Through a process of scaffolding where the learner builds on previous knowledge a new schema
is supported with the blended learning activities. Reflective thinking was the identified as vital to the
development of the pre-service teachers’ development. It challenged thinking to explore the processes
that influenced the changes and maturing understandings to make sense of how to apply such knowledge
in real world experiences (Piaget, 1970; Vygotsky, 1986). This understanding of reflective practice,
established a learner-centered view that dovetailed with the indigenous pedagogy beliefs of important
aspects of student success and was characterized by the following considerations. Students had to be
provided many things including: time to think, time to evolve ideas, time to connect new information
to field experiences, a personal “location” to think, time to construct new meanings, and time to test
assumptions. This design empowered students to take on more control of the construction of their own
knowledge. Students were now responsible to control the time and place where they felt most produc-
tive and capable of quality reflective thought with the deadlines for this work known well beforehand.
Lastly, the inclusion of blended learning included action research (Mertler, 2008), where ideas and
actions were examined and reviewed over time, as were all the design decisions that were learned from
the initial modification to the previous course offering. The process involved collected data from the
instructors’ own observations, written student feedback, and oral student feedback. The final element
was the ongoing discussion of the experience with colleagues and pre-service teachers where the author
would explore specific issues that bade open dialogue that informed future practice.

DISCUSSION

A key component of the redevelopment was the integration of technology throughout the course as it
was very paper-based with lots of handouts and activities done only with pens and paper. The successful
infusion of technology in the initial course allowed some insights from the research to form the basis of
instructional design to demonstrate strategies for improving and modeling digital technology and literacy
integration in a teacher education course.
The indigenous pedagogical component of the redevelopment came out of a concern for moderniza-
tion of the course. In Canada, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission have released findings that are
beginning to be included in curricula across K-12 and post secondary educational offerings in Canada.
These are not limited to adding an “indigenous piece” but to actually base the design of the entire course
on indigenous pedagogical practice.
The opportunity to develop formerly face-to-face courses into blended learning courses with embed-
ded technology use and structured on inclusive indigenous pedagogies highlight learning hurdles to be
overcome for students. Like many instructors in post secondary institutions, the author initially thought
this an administrative strategy and was purely economic and politically correct in design. There was a
sense that interest for these initiatives had increased, but time for instructors to establish the value of
such practices still remained unclear across the wider institution.
The preservice teachers provided copious evidence that all shifts in education need to be purposeful
and carefully designed and examined. Hoping for results is simply not effective. Overdoing any one
strategy often becomes a time sponge for students that can ruin a learning opportunity because students
are inundated with a plethora of the same old administrative or time wasting thing. If introduced poorly,

182

Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education

technology enabled learning initiatives can recreate very similar barriers that exist in traditional out-
dated face-to-face environments. It became clear that the approach to shift to digital technology enabled
learning required getting guided feedback from the students being designed for. This included asking
questions directed toward the learning requirements of the students in the courses to ensure that engag-
ing and authentic design and observing how the findings of the first phase of the research were being
engaged with by the students.

FINDINGS

It is essential at this point to state that incorporating new technology and new approaches to pedagogy
into a learning environment should not be shunned for any reason. The key to this premise is being chal-
lenged to designing the use of technology for optimum potential into the authentic learning environment
to best ensure student success after they graduate and have to meet the rigorous standards in a K-12
school classroom.
The redeveloped course did indeed improve practice in the initial offerings of the courses that were
included in this chapter. The initial application of the findings was an improvement and the redevelopment
was markedly better as the redevelopment process was scaffolded by both the K-12 mentorship findings
and the action research findings of the initial changes. What was observed was that quality of reflective
pieces of writing the students were producing were of a greater quality than earlier writing. Previously,
students produced a quickly drafted half a page of “I want to get out of here” type of writing, students
after the redevelopment demonstrated deeper thinking. Students demonstrated they were trying to make
sense of their course topics to their present life experiences through shared information about concerns
they had for future employment, career choices, topics of interest and many other topics. They were
reconstructing and demonstrating areas of future interest, how to apply this in their own future teaching
practice, and this was more valuable to them than previous reflective work that did not seem valued.
This redevelopment helped the students in developing their professional trained gaze, and it presented
a challenge to instructors. It challenged university instructors to think about the focus of their teaching
practice, the currency of their teaching practice, and to examine how their course design would benefit
their pre-service teachers. This course redevelopment challenged the instructors to explore their practice
and ask whether the introduction of digital technology enabled learning truly enhanced authentic learn-
ing possibilities in a way that would be of value to students when they were faced with the realities of
a K-12 classroom. Many students commented about the unique perspective of this course, as they had
never engaged with indigenous pedagogy before even if they had indigenous teachers in the past. Many
pre-service teachers commented that this was the first course taught in a truly constructivist format that
utilized digital learning opportunities that enhanced and supported what they had understood construc-
tivist, student-centered courses to be.
The impact of having a truly constructivist learning environment and having the learner be the
center of design was evident in this research and needs to be explored further. There was great value
having students give feedback and have that feedback go right into the course redevelopment process
for the next iteration of the course. Also valuable was having the digital technology learning material
incorporated into the key curricular outcomes of the course rather than be an add-on strengthened to
positive feedback regarding the redevelopment process. The concept of time, it value to the students and
the importance of time was a constant theme throughout the research study especially as it connected

183
 
Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education

with the indigenous pedagogy concepts presented in the course. The pre-service teachers continually
emphasized their preference for their control of the time they spent on activities and control of when
they could do the asynchronous activities because the reflective nature of what was expected of them.
Lastly, the process provided opportunities for insights for the author to better understand how the
technology provided an opportunity for students to build their learning experiences. These specially de-
signed courses offered the autonomy and flexibility of bringing the technology with students, wherever
and when ever they choose to find that place of reflection went well beyond the classroom and scaf-
folded by the belief that the whole student was important and needed to be at the centre of the course.
The students had the freedom and flexibility to dialogue with others, build new connections to current
discussions, and find a common space that offered them a place to test ideas, receive immediate feedback
and test assumptions by offering them in a low risk setting based on respect and inclusion. It was this
control that ensured that these learning opportunities made sense to the pre-service teachers. However,
the course had to be constructed and designed to incorporate the needs of the students and to ensure it
would not impose new barriers, but take barriers away that existed in the older versions of the course.

CONCLUSION

The same issues continue to face instructors of pre-service teachers. While it might not be a piece of
chalk, it might well be an iPad or other form of technology that will appear archaic in the future. The
same challenges to create authentic quality learning experiences for students will always remain regard-
less of technological advances.

REFERENCES

Alberta Regional Consortia. (2015). The Provincial First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Professional Learn-
ing Project. Retrieved from http://fnmied.blogspot.ca/
Alfred, T. (2004). Warrior scholarship: Seeing the university as a ground of contention. Indigenizing the
academy: Transforming scholarship and empowering communities, 88.
Archambault, I., & Crippen, K. (2007). The sites teachers choose: A gauge of classroom Web use. Con-
temporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 7(2), 59–74.
Buchanan, J. (2012). Telling Tales out of school: Exploring why former teachers are not returning to
the classroom. Australian Journal of Education, 56(2), 205–220. doi:10.1177/000494411205600207
Collinson, V. (2001). Intellectual, social, and moral development: Why technology cannot replace teach-
ers. High School Journal, 85(1), 35–44. doi:10.1353/hsj.2001.0015
Forret, M., Fox-Turnbull, W., Granshaw, B., Harwood, C., Miller, A., O’Sullivan, G., & Patterson, M.
(2013, December 4). Towards a pre-service technology teacher education resource for New Zealand.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(Dec), 473–487. doi:10.100710798-011-
9199-8

184

Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education

Greiner, C., & Smith, B. (2009). Analyses of selected specific variables and teacher attrition. Education,
129(4), 579–583.
Harris, M. & Cullen, R. (2008). Observing the learner-centered class. Florida Journal of Educational
Administration & Policy, 1(2).
Hauptman, A. (2007). Strategies for Improving Student Success in Postsecondary Education. Chang-
ing Direction: Integrating Higher Education Financial Aid and Financing Policy. Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education.
Jay, J., & Johnson, K. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher educa-
tion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73–85. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00051-8
Kayler, M. & Sullivan, L. (2004). Integrating Learner-Centered Theory and Technology to Create an
Engaging Pedagogy for K – 12 Students and Teachers. Journal of Technology Integration in the Class-
room, 3(1).
Kirkness, V., & Barnhardt, R. (1991). First Nations and higher education: The four R’s—Respect, rel-
evance, reciprocity, responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 1–15.
Latremouille, J., Bell, A., Kasamali, Z., Krahn, M., Tait, L., & Donald, D. (2016). kistikwânihk êsko
kitêhk: Storying Holistic Understandings in Education. Journal of the Canadian Association for Cur-
riculum Studies, 14(1), 8–22.
Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Nottingham, UK:
National College for School Leadership.
Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities? Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 39(4), 377–397. doi:10.1080/15391523.2007.10782488
Malott, C. (2008). Chapter 4: Critical Pedagogy in Native North America: Western and Indigenous
Philosophy in the Schooling Context. Counterpoints, 324, 117-151.
Mee, M., & Haverback, H. (2014). Commitment, preparation, and early career frustrations: Examining
future attrition of middle school teachers. American Secondary Education, 42(3), 39–51.
Mertler, C. (2008). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom. Sage (Atlanta, Ga.).
Mihesuah, D. A., & Wilson, A. C. (Eds.). (2004). Indigenizing the academy: Transforming scholarship
and empowering communities. U of Nebraska Press.
Paper versus slate. (1901). The Education Circular, 4(1), 172.
Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology. Aca-
demic Press.
Pidgeon, M. (2016). More than a checklist: Meaningful Indigenous inclusion in higher education. Social
Inclusion, 4(1), 77-91.

185
 
Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education

Pratt, Y., & Danyluk, P. (2017). Learning What Schooling Left Out: Making an Indigenous Case for
Critical Service-Learning and Reconciliatory Pedagogy within Teacher Education. Canadian Journal
of Education, 40(1), n1.
Reid, D., & Reid, E. (2015). Mentorship in Technology-rich, 21st Century Classroom. In J. Keengwe,
J. Mbae, & G. Onchwari (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Global Issues in Next-Generation Teacher
Education (pp. 246–259). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Sahin, T. (2003). Student teachers’ perceptions of instructional technology: Developing materials based
on a constructivist approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 67–74. doi:10.1111/1467-
8535.00305
Scully, A. (2012). Decolonization, reinhabitation and reconciliation: Aboriginal and place-based educa-
tion. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 17, 148–158.
Shoffner, M. (2009). Personal attitudes and technology: Implications for preservice teacher reflective
practice. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(2), 143–161.
Simpson, L. (2014). Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation. Decolo-
nization, 3(3).
Steinke, L., & Putnam, A. (2011). Mentoring teachers in technology education: Analyzing the need. The
Journal of Technology Studies, 37(1), 41-49.
Toulouse, P. (2016). What Matters in Indigenous Education. Measuring What Matters.
Trinidad, S., Sharplin, E., Lock, G., Ledger, S., Boyd, D., & Terry, E. (2010). Developing strategies at
the pre-service level to address critical teacher attraction and retention issues in Australian rural, regional
and remote schools. Education in Rural Australia, 21(1), 111–120.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Truth and reconciliation commission of Canada:
Calls to action. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.
Vaughan, N. (2010). A blended community of inquiry approach: Linking student engagement and course
redesign. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 60–65. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.007
Visser, L., Plomp, T., Amirault, R. J., & Kuiper, W. (2002). Motivating students at a distance: The
case of an international audience. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 94–110.
doi:10.1007/BF02504998
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (Rev. Ed). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zhang, D., & Zhou, L. (2003). Enhancing e-learning with interactive multimedia. Information Resources
Management Journal, 16(4), 1–14. doi:10.4018/irmj.2003100101
Zhao, Y. (2007). Social studies teachers’ perspectives of technology integration. Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, 15(3), 311.

186

Indigenizing and Mentoring Technology Usage in Undergraduate Teacher Education

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Blended Learning: Is a formal education program in which a student learns at least in part through
delivery of content and instruction via digital and online media with some element of student control
over time, place, path, or pace. While still attending a “brick-and-mortar” school structure, face-to-face
classroom methods are combined with computer-mediated activities. Blended learning is also used in
professional development and training settings, as it can be used to translate knowledge into a particular
skill that is useful and practical for a specific job.
Early Career Teacher: A teacher in their first 2 years of teaching who does not have a permanent
contract or permanent teaching certification.
Learner-Centered Pedagogy: Learner-centered education, broadly encompasses methods of teach-
ing that shift the focus of instruction from the teacher to the student. In original usage, student-centered
learning aims to develop learner autonomy and independence by putting responsibility for the learning
path in the hands of students. Student-centered instruction focuses on skills and practices that enable
lifelong learning and independent problem-solving. Student-centered learning theory and practice are
based on the constructivist learning theory that emphasizes the learner’s critical role in constructing
meaning from new information and prior experience.
Mentorship Program: A professional developmental program where a more experienced or more
knowledgeable teacher helps to guide a less experienced or less knowledgeable teacher.
Pre-Service Teacher: A student actively enrolled in a teacher education program at a college or
university.
Reflective Practice: The capacity to reflect on action so as to engage in a process of continuous
learning. According to one definition it involves “paying critical attention to the practical values and
theories which inform everyday actions, by examining practice reflectively and reflexively. This leads to
developmental insight”. A key rationale for reflective practice is that experience alone does not neces-
sarily lead to learning; deliberate reflection on experience is essential.
Technology-Rich Classrooms: K-12 classrooms with several types of technology used regularly to
enhance teaching and learning. Examples of the technology include interactive whiteboards, computers,
mobile devices, 3D printers, etc.

187
188

Chapter 11
Access, Opportunity, and
Curriculum Making Through
Multimodal Meaning-Making
and Technology Integration
in Teacher Education
Christi U. Edge
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6968-7790
Northern Michigan University, USA

ABSTRACT
This chapter describes an investigation into exploring meaning making through multimodal literacy
practices and technology integration for teacher education within the context of an online, secondary
reading course for K-12 teachers. Through the use of a collaborative conference protocol, discourse
with cross-disciplinary critical friends, and visual thinking data analysis strategies, a teacher educator
examined existing multimodal literacy practices and then studied course redesign and technology integra-
tion. Results include recognizing opportunities for diverse learners to access and use prior knowledge
in the construction of new knowledge, reframing the course delivery platform as a multimodal “text,”
increasing opportunity for learners to construct and communicate complex understandings through
multimodal texts and technology-infused assessments, and learners’ curriculum making through trans-
mediation mediated by technology.

INTRODUCTION

Existing literature focused on educational research and the study of teacher education practices has
characterized construct of experience as both problematic and promising for growth in the knowledge
and practice of teaching (e.g. Clandinin & Connelly, 1996; Bullough, 1997; Dewey, 1938; Edge, 2015;
Hamilton, 2004; Loughran & Russell, 1997; Munby & Russell, 1994; Nolan, 1982). Tensions between

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch011

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

depictions of experience in education acknowledge that while the “authority of experience” (Munby &
Russell, 1994) honors the knowledge individuals develop from personal experiences, the challenge for
teacher educators is to both value their learners’ experiences while also challenging them to see and “to
interpret their own meaning in ways that they have not had to before and to translate insights into future
teaching” (Loughran & Russell, 1997, p. 164). As Berry (2004) noted, few studies clearly illustrate this
tension in action.
This chapter illustrates a teacher educator’s negotiating the authority of experience within the setting
of teaching, examining, and redesigning a graduate literacy course in response to the teacher educator’s
and learners’ experiences. Results from this multi-phase investigation include recognizing opportunities
for diverse learners to access and use prior knowledge for constructing new knowledge, reframing the
course delivery platform (learning management system) as a multimodal “text,” increasing opportu-
nity for learners to construct and communicate complex understandings through multimodal texts and
technology-infused assessments, and teachers’ curriculum making through transmediation mediated by
technology. Technology integration was not an intentional focus of the investigation; however, incorporat-
ing VoiceThread and Camtasia technologies as ways to facilitate multimodal teaching, learner-learner,
and learner-content, and instructor-learner interactions, and learners’ multimodal assessments resulted
in teachers generating new knowledge for use in their own teaching practices. This chapter focuses on
the process of re-seeing multimodal pedagogy in an online course through collaborative self-study of
teacher education practices (S-STEP) methodology, and then describes course design through technol-
ogy integration intended to foster practicing teachers’ learning experiences, knowledge construction,
and K-12 instruction using technology.

BACKGROUND

In teacher education, meaningful teacher learning is essential; teachers who learn to use technology for
professional learning in meaningful learning contexts and in collaboration with other professionals are
more apt to provide similar agentive learning experiences for their learners (Standerford, Sabin, Ander-
son, Edge, Lubig, & Cameron-Standerford, 2012; National Writing Project, n.d.). If teachers are to help
their K-12 learners to read and make meaning from multimodal texts, this knowledge must be a part of
teacher education (Riddett-Moore & Siegesmund, 2014; Serafini, 2015).

Technology in Knowledge Building

According to Langer (2011), technology is one of the richest spaces for engaging leaners in knowledge
building. Through technology, there is space to explore, generate, and imagine. There are opportunities
to acquire language, modes of thinking, and problem solving. Langer (2011) writes:

From an envisionment-building perspective, the most productive and promising use of technology is its
ability to provide learners with cognitive “playgrounds” that let them take on disciplinary problems
and manipulate ideas in thinking through their understandings and further developing them, with as-
sistance from peers and teachers as well as the wider world. Online interactions with classmates as well
as teachers are important opportunities for learners to learn the vocabulary and modes of presentation
and argument that are appropriate to the discipline. Uses of technology designed to involve learners in

189
 
Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

working through problems as a way to understand how concepts, issues, and data interact and connect (or
might connect) are available or being developed in every discipline. They are dramatically different from
resources that function simply as data sources, although there is certainly a role for these too. (p. 158)

Through teaching, research, and the scholarship of teaching and learning, there is a need to design,
describe, inquire into and critically examine how technology can generate a safe, “playful” space to
interact with ideas and with others. Needed and frequently missing from online teaching and learning
are the kinds of technology experiences that

…let learners manipulate and build from what they know around problems and issues in the disciplines
and to think critically, creatively and reflectively about them. Because technology is becoming the major
worldwide mode in and through which people generate reproduce and communicate about knowledge, it
must be included with reading, writing, and speaking as a tool for higher literacy across the disciplines.
(p. 158)

Teacher educators must provide spaces for teachers to engage in exploratory, multimodal learning
through technology.

Multimodal Learning

Multimodal learning refers to the multiple modes through which people, often simultaneously, communicate
and construct new understandings. Modes are made up of socially and culturally agreed ways through
which humans create meaning linguistically, visually, artistically, auditorially, and spatially, each with
its own grammars (Martens, Martens, Doyle, Loomis, & Agalarov, 2013). Multimodal literacy (Kress &
Jewitt, 2003) refers to meaning making through negotiating and creating (Draper, Broomhead, Jensen,
Nokes, & Siebert, 2010) multimodal texts. In the online environment, “the synchronous functioning of
the modes of image, movement, colour, gesture, 3D objects, music and sound on a digital screen require
a different type of ‘reading’ or ‘writing’, a literacy that entails non-linear and simultaneous processing”
(Walsh, 2009, p. 3). As a teacher educator and program leader for two fully online graduate programs, I
wondered: How might I use multimodal texts and multimodal literacy practices with graduate learners?
What might I learn about my teacher education practices for purposes of improving student learning?

Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices

Self-study of teacher education practices (S-STEP) seeks to understand and to improve the practice of
teaching (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001; Loughran & Northfield, 1998). Self-study researchers engage
in self-study, not just for the sake of theorizing, but out of “pedagogical imperatives, responsibilities to
our current student teachers, as well as their learners” (LaBoskey, 2004, p. 819). Citing Russell (1998),
Laboskey (2004, p. 819) explains,

Self-study is about the learning from experience that is embedded within teachers’ creating new experiences
for themselves and those whom they teach. …Our goal may well be the reinvention of learning to teach,
enabling others to understand learning from experience by showing them how we do it ourselves. (p. 6)

190

Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

The underpinnings of self-study weave the epistemological and practical to generate a guide for the
selection and design of pedagogical strategies and research methods that might be generally character-
ized as student-centered, process-oriented, and inquiry based (Guilfoyle, 1995; Laboskey, 2004). The
pedagogical strategies and research methods self-study researchers employ are “models for what we
hope our learners will do with their learners and they are context sensitive” (LaBoskey, 2004, p. 820).
Self-study researchers, explains Laboskey (2004), characterize their work in ways similar to Robert
Bullough (1994):

My task as a teacher educator is to encourage my learners through a variety of means to identify the
assumptions—many of which are hidden—that compose their implicit theories about teaching and them-
selves as teachers that are embedded in their personal histories. Then, I prompt them to reconstruct these
assumptions in ways that are likely to lead to increased control over future professional development. In
particular, my aim is to help them to develop a kind of understanding of self as teacher that will enable
them to establish a role in a school and within the community of educators that is educationally defen-
sible and personally satisfying, congruent with a desired teaching self.” (p. 108 as cited in LaBoskey,
2004, p. 820)

As a self-study researcher and teacher educator, I sought to examine my own teaching and learn-
ing experiences, in part, because I realize that my ongoing learning experiences have helped to inform
my teaching practices. Identifying my own assumptions, tensions, and transformations about, in, and
through educative experiences, enables me to be purposeful in the pedagogical approaches I employ
with my learners.
In relationship to learning through multimodal means, I have come to realize through prior self-study
research that as a product of the American school system, I have been enculturated to value print-based
texts as the authoritative medium for learning. As a result, I have become skilled at the ability to learn
from and teach through such texts. However, as a teacher educator, I also value the authority of lived
experiences and multimodal meaning making. I recognize that “every instance of making and sharing
meaning is a multimodal event involving many sign systems in addition to language” and “when we limit
ourselves to language, we cut ourselves off from other ways of knowing” (Harste, 2000, p. 4). Therefore,
as a teacher educator leading a fully online graduate reading/literacy program, I wondered what I might
learn about my own teaching by exploring the “pedagogic potentials of multimodal literacy” (Walsh, 2009).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Building from longitudinal collaborative research with critical friends (e.g., Bergh, Edge, & Cameron-
Standerford, 2014; Cameron-Standerford, Edge, & Bergh, 2016; Edge, Cameron-Standerford, & Bergh,
2019) this study was couched in ecological, pragmatist epistemology (e.g., Dewey, 1938; Dewey &
Bentley, 1949), Transactional Reading and Writing Theory (Rosenblatt, 1978/1994; Rosenblatt, 1994;
Rosenblatt, 2005), transactive teaching and learning perspectives (Edge, 2011; Edge, 2017; Purcell-Gates,
Duke, & Stouffer, 2017; Rosenblatt, 1994), feminist communication theory (e.g., Belenky, Clinchy,
Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Belenky, Bond, & Weinstock, 1997; Colflesh, 1996) and adult learning
theory (Knowles, 1984; Knowles, Elwood, & Swanson, 2015). Epistemologically, transactional and
feminist communication theories recognize the dynamic relationship between a knower and their envi-

191
 
Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

ronment, both in what they know, how they know, and implications for why they might communicate
that knowledge. Learning events are experiences through which individuals may inquire, investigate,
apply and adjust understandings, collaborate, and contribute as active generators and meaning-makers.
Practically speaking, teachers and learners, readers and texts, researchers and objects of inquiry condi-
tion and are conditioned by one another—“read” and “compose” each other—within the contexts of
particular sociopolitical environments, cognitive conditions, times, and places. In teacher education
and educational research, these people, objects, and contexts are most often the classroom or, as in this
study, the online courseroom.

METHODS

I am one member in a group of three teacher educators representing literacy, special education, and
educational leadership. Over seven years, we have supported and challenged one another to generate new
understandings of practice as critical friends (Costa & Kallick, 1993; Olan & Edge, 2018; Olan & Edge,
2019) through shared inquiry questions and use of cross-disciplinary collaborative conference protocol
to study our individual teaching practices (e.g., Bergh, Edge, & Cameron-Standerford, 2018; Cameron-
Standerford et al., 2013; Edge, Cameron-Standerford, & Bergh, 2019). This chapter details analysis of
my individual teaching practices contextualized in a specific course setting; the initial inquiry and data
analysis process included collaboration with two cross-disciplinary critical friends.
During phase one, we utilized a collaborative conference protocol and modified visual thinking
strategies (Yenawine, 2013) to study our online courses around the shared question, “How can I/we use
multimodal literacies to re-see our teaching practices?” In phase two, we constructed individual inquiry
questions in light of shared findings from phase one.
Phase two included action research and self-study expanded to include instructor-learner, learner-
content, and learner-learner interactions related to course design (Groenendijk et al., 2013) during the
second and third cycles of teaching same courses. Phase two included attention to actions taken in
response to phase one; however, the methodology was ultimately still a self-study of teacher education
practices. Feldman, Paugh, and Mills (2004) argue that what distinguishes self-study from action re-
search is its methodology rather than the methods used. They suggest three methodological features that
would be present in self-studies: self-study would (1) bring to the forefront the importance or role of self;
(2) utilize the experience of teacher educator as a resource for research; and (3) researchers would be
critical of themselves in their roles as researchers and teacher educators. The question, “How can I use
multimodal literacies to empower diverse learners to construct and to communicate meaning?” guided
action research and course redesign during phase 2. A summary of these phases is outlined below fol-
lowed by additional descriptions.

• Phase 1: Exploratory, collaborative cross-disciplinary self-study of teacher education practices

(Pinnegar, 1998; LaBoskey, 2004; Vanassche & Kletchermans, 2015)
• Question: How can I use multimodal literacies to re-see my teaching practices?
• Phase 2: Action research through extended self-study (Feldman, Paugh, & Mills, 2004;
Groenendijk et al., 2013)
• Question: How can I use multimodal literacies to empower diverse learners to construct and to
communicate meaning?

192

Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices Methodology

Self-study of teacher education practices (S-STEP) was selected as the methodology for the initial ex-
ploratory and descriptive phases of this longitudinal inquiry. Self-study research is rooted in post-modern
and feminist thinking; it is self-initiated and self-focused, improvement aimed, interactive, and utilizes
multiple, often qualitative, research methods (LaBoskey, 2004). As Berry (2007) describes, “Self-study is
an approach to researching teacher education practices that is driven largely by the concerns of teaching
and the development of knowledge about practice and the development of learning” (p. 6). Self-study
research does not aim to prove “answers” to problems of practice, but instead positions the researchers to
explore and challenge their assumptions with the purpose of improving their understanding and practice
of teaching (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001) in order to inform the researchers, improve student learning,
produce contextual understandings, and generate knowledge that can be shared both within and beyond
the professional discourse community.

Data

For this study, I selected a graduate reading course, The Teaching of Reading for Secondary Teachers
(TRST), for analysis. Data included screen shots of the course, instructor-produced and instructor-selected
teaching materials, instructor-produced discussion prompts, assessment descriptions and instructions,
as well as student-produced artifacts such as anonymous survey responses, discussion form responses,
and completed assignments.
The TRST course is part of an online graduate program in which all courses are delivered asynchro-
nously through the university’s Moodle learning management system (LMS). The course was selected, in
part, because I assumed (but did not know) there was an existing relationship between teachers construc-
tion of knowledge and multimodal literacy practices. The course is designed to guide prospective and
practicing teachers to explore theories and methods for teaching content-area reading and disciplinary
literacy to adolescent learners. The course is organized around three essential questions to guide learners
to construct knowledge about the process of reading, to broaden concepts, and to learn about methods for
teaching adolescent learners. TRST is a required course in an online K-12 Reading Specialist graduate
program and an elective course in an online graduate Reading (K-6) program; the course serves as the
only graduate course focused on teaching reading to adolescent learners. Graduate learners are advised
to take this course in the second half of their program, and for many, it is one of their final courses, as it
is offered every-other summer over an accelerated, six-week semester. Prior to phase one of this study,
I had taught the course twice.
Learners enrolled in this course are typically practicing elementary teachers, not secondary teachers
as implied by the course title. Responses on a course entrance survey indicated learners believed they
had little knowledge or professional experience related to secondary (grades 6-12) reading or teaching
adolescent learners. Many respondents even expressed an initial fear in taking a class so far outside the
comfort zone of their existing knowledge and teaching experiences with elementary (grades pre-K-5)
learners. Nevertheless, numerous anonymous written comments from learners on the university’s course
evaluations communicated positive learning experiences that resulted in changed understandings of reading
and reading instruction. One anonymous course evaluation comment, in particular, caught my attention:

193
 
Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

This course was designed in a way that all courses should be—grounded in best practice, engaging,
teaching not telling, and meaningful. The ability to be an active participant in learning, read more about
concepts to solidify learning, and then collaborate with the instructor and classmates in meaningful
ways was so appreciated. I NEVER learned as much as I did this semester. I have also NEVER felt that
my money was worth the time and content of a class as much as I did this semester.

The student’s and repeated use of “NEVER” certainly caught my attention; however, I found myself
reflecting on other words in the comment—seeing oneself as an engaged, active participant who collabo-
rated with me and with coursemates in meaningful ways, whose learning more about concepts resulted
in more solidified learning, and feeling as though the investment of time and money in the course was
beneficial. I thought, “Isn’t this how I want all learners to see themselves, their knowledge, and the course
experience?” What, could I learn from my own course, if I studied, rather than assumed, what was hap-
pening in this course? Wondering and desiring to better understand and purposefully guide all learners
to be confident and competent, I selected this this course for further exploration through collaborative
S-STEP methodology and Visual Thinking Strategies analysis (adapted from Yenawine, 2013).

Data Analysis

To examine a course I designed and had taught, I needed to step back from my own lived experiences
(Langer, 2011) and re-enter the course from a critical vantage point. Prior self-study research with criti-
cal friends (Bergh, Edge, Cameron-Standerford, Imdieke, Standerford, & Reissner, 2013) had tuned my
attention to the way that visuals communicate and construct meaning. Building on this, my co-researchers
and I realized that we needed to grapple with, negotiate, and discover how multimodal texts might be
facilitating learners’ ability to construct their knowledge, professionally grow and guide their own learners.

Visual Thinking Strategies

Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) is a research-based instructional method for teaching visual literacy,
critical thinking, and communication through a protocol for analyzing and discussing art (Yenawine, 2013;
Visual Thinking Strategies, 2018). Through inquiry, the VTS protocol guides individuals to utilize existing
visual and cognitive skills to discover what one knows and does not yet know, and encourages learners
to further explore, either alone or with peers, more complex subject matter and interpretations through
thoughtful discussions which prompt individuals to observe, listen, ask questions, look for evidence,
wonder, make connections, support thinking with details, and be open to an ongoing understanding as
well as identifying what they do not yet know and what they would like to know. Through discussion of
art, transformational learning can be accessible to diverse learners (Visual Thinking Strategies, 2018).
According to Yenawine (2013), the main aspects of VTS teaching practices include three key inquiries:

1. What’s going on in this picture?

2. What do you see what makes you say that?
3. What more can we find?

194

Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

As Yenawine (2013) explains, the VTS approach is a learner-centered discovery process that is
facilitated by a teacher and focused on a selected image. “The teacher is central to the process but not
the authoritative source; instead, the learners drive the discussions, aided by the teacher. As facilitator,
a VTS teacher helps learners to:

• Look carefully at works of art

• Talk about what they observe
• Back up their ideas with evidence
• Listen to and consider the views of others
• Discuss and hold as possible a variety of interpretations.” (pp. 15-16)

The VTS process, as developed by Yenawine and Housen over nearly two decades of working with
adults and children through research and teaching, is meant to help facilitate knowing in action through
“viewing skills—observing, interpreting what one sees, probing and reflecting on first and second
thoughts, considering alternative meanings, and so on” (Yenawine, 2013, p. 12). The act of

…finding meaning in art is a form of problem solving; as we develop skills at viewing, we simultane-
ously learn how to find and solve problems. While the activity of examining art is not so different from a
young person following a line of ants along the sidewalk to see where it leads, it is also how a scientist
studies climate and a historian pieces together the past. (p. 13)

VTS questions can be adapted to subjects other than art and can be used to assess learner thinking
through writing (Yenawine, 2013)
Just as learners might need permission to wonder, to engage in “mind-stretching exploration,” (Yenawine,
2013, p. 13) time to see before they speak, the opportunity to first narrate what they see based on their
prior knowledge, and then to listen and consider other possibilities based on others’ diverse linguistic-
experiential reservoirs (Rosenblatt, 1978), teachers also need time and space to observe the landscape
of their classrooms and courserooms, the opportunity to draw first from their prior knowledge as they
narrate what they see, and to stretch their thinking through the process of considering others’ observa-
tions, diverse knowledge, and wondering their way to additional insights, possibilities, and transforma-
tions of understanding and practice.

Visual Thinking Strategies As Data Analysis In Teacher Education

This section provides some background and transition between using VTS as an instructional strategy
and adapting VTS to analyze online teaching and learning in this study. Prior to this study, I (Christi)
had utilized VTS in my teaching practices and shared this pedagogy with critical friends in our earlier
study of visuals in our teaching. I had taught, modeled, and practiced the protocol with my undergraduate
and graduate learners as a method for teaching reading, critical thinking, and discussion in their K-12
classrooms within the context of broader definitions of text, reading, and literacy in content areas teachers
might guide their learners to read and make sense of visual texts which might include art and also other
visual meaning-making events and settings such as labs, mathematics, music, political cartoons, and
physical performance in education. Additionally, I had informally used these questions with prospective
teachers as a guide to analyze teaching events in face-to-face settings.

195
 
Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

Following a S-STEP inquiry with critical friends (2013-2014) which focused on the use of visuals in
online and face-to-face teacher education classroom settings and an elementary classroom (Cameron-
Standerford et al., 2013; Edge, Cameron-Standerford, & Bergh, 2014), we (Christi, Abby, and Bethney)
began discussing how VTS might guide our cross-disciplinary meaning-making and exploration of
multimodal literacy practices as we continued collaborative self-study of our teaching practices.

Visual Thinking Strategies As Data Analysis Of An Online Teacher Education Course

We adapted the Visual Thinking Strategies approach to explore the visual composition of our online
course design, delivery, and student-produced course artifacts. Each researcher critically analyzed her
selected course by addressing the questions:

1. What is going on here in the online course?

2. What do I see that makes me say that?
3. What more can we find?

The first question, What is going on here? prompted the individual teacher educator researcher to take
a “step back” from her course to textualize (Edge, 2011) it, i.e., distance herself from it and position it
as a multimodal text that she could read, make sense of, and narrate to critical friends. This stage also
directed attention to events happening in the course, to analyze the sense of the whole (e.g., whole course
via the main course page, whole events within modules of instruction, and within specific interactive
events such as discussions). The second question, What do I see that makes me say that? directed our
thinking to details, to elements of design and visual composition, use and placement of visuals, flow,
elements of white space, organization, actions, choices, and events happening in the course. It also
prompted us to explain our interpretations, to communicate inferences, and to connect observations to
our interpretations. The final question, What more can we find? was used in two ways. First, it served as
an open invitation to keep looking, wondering, and to articulate questions. Second, it prompted critical
friends to ask questions or to offer observations as we collaboratively looked again. We independently
asked these questions and prepared notes and visual compositions (screen shots) to share with critical
friends for discussion using a collaborative conference protocol. Throughout, we kept in mind our pur-
pose: to explore and discover opportunities for others to learn through lived experiences and multimodal
literacies in the online environment.
Findings across the disciplines of reading/literacy, special education, and educational leadership result-
ing from our collaborative self-studies have been reported elsewhere (e.g., Edge, Cameron-Standerford,
& Bergh, 2019). This chapter focuses on my (Christi’s) self-study of my teaching practices, aided by
discussion with critical friends (Abby and Bethney), through the adapted VTS strategy and collabora-
tive conference protocol.

Collaborative Conference Protocol

I am fortunate to work in a university that values practitioner research and with faculty who have engaged
in self-study of teacher education practices (S-STEP) methodology. Through collaborative investigations
into our teaching through shared inquiry topics, we have developed, over seven years, a collaborative
conference protocol. This protocol stemmed from existing protocols for collaboration articulated in the

196

Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

Figure 1. Collaborative conference protocol

literature (e.g., Sidel, Walters, Kirby, Olff, Powell, Scripp, & Veenama, 1997) and utilized by colleagues
(Anderson, et al., 2010). Over time, we studied, refined, articulated and depicted the protocol (e.g., Bergh,
Edge, & Cameron-Standerford, 2018; Cameron-Standerford et al., 2013; Edge, Cameron-Standerford,
& Bergh, 2019). In each inquiry, we applied this descriptive, recursive process to both articulate how
we made meaning and also to focus our interactions. In this study, each researcher orally shared her
visual thinking within our established “public homeplace” (Belenky, Bond, & Weinstock, 1997, p.13)
environment using the modified collaborative conference protocol.
Our use of a collaborative conference protocol included (1) beginning with an artifact from a self-
identified critical event. In the context of this study, each selected an online course archived on our
university’s server. We each selected a course in relationship to a shared turning point critical event that
transpired during the second year of our seven years of collaborative self-study. Next, we (2) formulated
a self-study question to guide our inquiry. We (3) textualized the experience (Edge, 2011) of teaching
the course. This step entails distancing oneself from the lived experience by objectifying the archived
course shell as an artifact. In other words, we positioned whole course as an artifact, an object, a text
that can be read, discussed, and from which meaning can be made. In this study, our teaching practices
were textualized. The remaining aspects of our collaborative conference protocol were facilitated through
our use of the adapted Visual Thinking Strategies (Visual Thinking Strategies, 2018; Yenawine, 2013).
This protocol included: (4) actively listening to each individual’s initial observations, analysis and
wonderings related to the contextualized course; (5) taking turns saying what we heard or noticed
while the individual who had shared quietly took notes; (6) taking turns offering speculative com-
ments, connections, and wonderings from our vantage points outside the other’s academic discipline;
(7) inviting the individual back into the conversation to respond to comments or questions offered

197
 
Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

by the group or to offer additional details or insights sparked by listening to the group; and (8) creating
takeaway reflections. Individual take-away artifacts became a way to attend to the themes developing
from our collective work.
Similar to Yenawine’s (2013) description of an individual’s process for initially tapping into their
existing knowledge as they narrate what they see and then growing or modifying that understanding in
light of ongoing discussion as well as others’ observations framed by their knowledge, experience, and
language, examining our individual teaching practices through the lens of one another’s academic cultures
afforded alternative views that disrupted our individual meaning-making and prompted us to question
our assumptions. Through our shared experiences and language derived from SSTEP research experi-
ences and literature, we also generated connections to one another’s academic disciplines. Disruptions
challenged and expanded our thinking while connections deepened our understandings of teaching and
learning in the online environment.

RESULTS

Findings illuminate the relationship between multimodality, technology, and meaning-making for mul-
timodal learning in an online course for practicing and prospective teachers. During phase one of this
study, VTS applied to an online course coupled with a collaborative conference protocol with critical
friends enabled me to take a closer look at the course and to see and re-see what was “going on” in the
course. It was during this phase that I also recognized what wasn’t yet going on in the course, but could,
if reimagined. I began to reframe what was possible through course redesign. The following resulted:
(1) I recognized multimodal texts, multimodal learning, and multimodal literacy practices did and
could also further foster access, opportunity, and ownership of knowledge for learners in online courses
through transmediation and technology. I also (2) reframed the course learning management system
(LMS) as a type of multimodal text that is read and composed through ongoing interactions between
learners, instructor, and in relationship to the content studied and technology utilized. Phase two included
course redesign and continued VTS applied to course changes and the incorporation of technology to
aid learners’ (prospective and practicing teachers’) knowledge construction through multimodal mean-
ing making. During phase two, I realized (3) in my online teacher education course, learners can be/are
curriculum makers.
In the following sections, each theme includes screenshots of multimodal texts from my course as
well as a sample of my visual thinking strategies analysis and summary of new wonderings generated
in response to the VTS question, “What more can I find?” and the collaborative conference protocol.

Phase One Results

During the first phase of the study, I recognized that multimodal text sets facilitated learners’ access to
prior knowledge that they could use to build new understandings. These texts served as opportunities
to learn multimodally with other learners. For instance, in the first segment of the course, learners en-
gaged in multiple exploratory activities. Each activity required learners to read, view, mark, and discuss
a text. In these discussions, learners were able to make and to connections to their previous knowledge,
both within and beyond educational settings. Learners constructed responses to the question, “How do

198

Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

Figure 2. What’s going on here?

we make sense of texts?” and supported their thinking with textual references and references to their
exploratory learning experiences, teaching experiences, and life experiences.

What Is Going On Here?

In this course, multimodal learning is happening. Learners are reconstructing their understandings of
core tenets of reading including the definitions of texts, reading, and literacy. Learners are exploring the
reading and sense-making process through shared experiences, identifying and articulating what they do
to make sense of texts. Student knowledge construction is happening through collaboration and interaction
around multimodal text sets. Multimodal learning is providing learners with multiple opportunities to
experience and to examine their sense-making process in multiple situations. Learners are constructing
meaning about secondary reading instruction by accessing what they know, examining and articulating
that knowledge, and forming a response to an essential question, “What do I do to make sense of texts?”
Multimodal course text sets offer multiple entry points into exploring new possibilities and for con-
structing meaning about a topic outside most learners’ existing knowledge base (and comfort zones). This
construction of meaningful understanding is happening slowly over time, with multiple opportunities
to form responses to essential questions in light of exploratory meaning-making experiences, readings,
and discussions.
Nevertheless, in this course, few opportunities exist for learners to construct multimodal texts or to
communicate using multimodal literacies. In a key, multimodal composition, learners’ learning experi-
ences are not only mediated by the generative act of composing multimodally, experiences are trans-
mediated (Harste, 2000), resulting in deepened understanding and confidence for teaching secondary
reading and adolescent learners.

199
 
Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

Figure 3. What do I see that makes me say that?

What Do I See That Makes Me Think That?

In this course:

• I see choice, space, & expectation to make meaning

• I see mostly written constructions of learners’ understandings
• I see learners using literacy strategies to learn about teaching reading
• In a key assignment, I see the generative power of transmediation—the act of translating meanings
from one sign system to another (Siegel, 1995) to synthesize, to extend meaning, and to create
new understanding.

After my first round of interpreting what was going on in my course and then sharing the details of
my observations with critical friends, I heard myself pointing to mostly print-based opportunities for
learners to communicate the meaning they were making. I did not expect to see this event happening in
my course; however, as I continued to explore and to examine the screenshots of my course, materials
I had curated, learning guides I had prepared, and, in particular, the different ways that learners were
communicating their understanding, I began to realize that, both I and my learners had limited their
possibility for communicating meaningful understanding in an online course to print-based (written)
forms. Realizing this, I felt as if scales had been removed from my eyes-- scales that I didn’t even real-
ize had been there. I had been metaphorically blind to the possibility of learners generating and com-
municating meaning in multimodal ways in the online course platform. In this online graduate course,
I had unknowingly limited how and what my learners could do to construct and to communicate their
understanding. While I had provided multiple entry points for accessing prior knowledge and for gener-
ating connections and opportunities to re-see the teaching of reading to include texts beyond traditional
print-based modalities, I had not paired the reading of multimodal texts with opportunities to generate
multimodal texts or to communicate multimodally. Exploring a single, key, assignment in which learners
had composed multimodally, I became aware of the generative act of transmediation evident happening
in multimodal constructions and communications.

200

Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

What More Can I Find?

In this course, how can I include additional opportunities for learners to generate multimodal texts to
communicate meaning--to create texts and to communicate, not just read and make sense of texts-- in
multiple modalities?
In this course, I realized that for me to purposefully guide learners to make sense of and to create
multimodal representations of their learning, I needed to have deep knowledge of content, methods,
learners’ needs, and pedagogic possibilities for facilitating multimodal communication and composition.
Deep knowledge of content and methods had enabled me to select multimodal texts for learners to make
meaning from, to disrupt and problematize their existing understandings, and to inspire new thinking.
Nevertheless, I lacked a vision for the possibilities of multimodal text generation to provide and inspire
ways for learners to create multimodally.

Phase Two Results

Insights from phase one of the study connected to professional development experiences from an online
teaching fellows program (Edge, 2018). During this program, I learned to use VoiceThread and Cam-
tasia technology. As I studied the design and delivery of online teaching and reflected on phase one of
this study, I began seeing more subtle and overt ways I could communicate with learners. Framing the
course on the LMS platform as a multimodal text with many ways of communicating, even elements
such as white space and images could help guide learners if utilized intentionally. I wondered, “How
can I use multimodal literacies and a multimodal learning environment to empower others to construct
and communicate meaning through multimodal texts and technology tools?” The goal of my course
redesign included:

• Using what I know about educative experience (Dewey, 1938) to develop opportunities for learn-
ing through multimodal means;
• Providing learners with opportunities to access multimodal tools and texts that would help them
to construct and to demonstrate their learning in diverse, multimodal ways; and
• Modeling multimodal literacy in my online course.

With these goals in mind, I began to redesign the course and to integrate VoiceThread and Camtasia
technology as well as other technology tools available within our LMS. Redesigning, teaching, and
analyzing the course illuminated the following phase two findings:

• Shifted focus- I shifted my practice toward purposeful and mindful use of multimodal texts, lit-
eracies, and learning. I framed the online course platform as a multimodal text that learners and I
each read and collaboratively compose as we interact and generate new knowledge together.
• Increased opportunity and access-Through technology integration, I could model how to con-
struct multimodal compositions and to utilize technology for multimodal teaching and learning
resulting in additional opportunities for learners to access pedagogical knowledge and new op-
portunities for learners to communicate their constructed knowledge multimodally.

201
 
Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

Figure 4.

• Multimodal communication- Incorporating technology created space for instructional texts and
learners’ assessments to be communicated multimodally.
• Multimodal curriculum making- Learners’ use of technology to compose multimodal texts as
assessments of their learning enabled them to demonstrate curriculum making through transme-
diation mediated by technology.

The following sections include screenshots from the redesigned course and describe results from
phase two.

Shifted Focus

Course redesign reflected a shifted focus. While course objectives remained the same, the integration of
additional technology and framing the course platform as a kind of multimodal text shifted my attention
to multimodal communication, interaction, and construction of knowledge. For example, as a part of the
course introduction, I created a video designed to guide learners through how to read and make sense
of features in the LMS platform in the context of this course (figure 4). Camtasia allowed for learners
to hear the tone in my voice, detect humor and excitement; it captured my hand gestures as I spoke and
captured my computer screen as I navigated and interacted with the LMS. I could model how to think
about and to use the technology features in the LMS, much as a literacy teacher models how to navigate
and to negotiate text features of a printed text such as an article or a passage from a novel. Learners
could hear, see, and read while considering the strategic thinking I offered about how to think about,
use, and navigate the course platform. This focus was planned and intentional. Keeping course outcomes
in mind as well as insights from phase one, the design and delivery of the course intentionally utilized
technology for multimodal learning.

202

Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Increased Opportunity and Access

While the course still reflected multiple opportunities for diverse learners to access, communicate,
and build upon their prior knowledge, technology served as a medium for multimodal learning. For
example, in the first module of the course, learners participated in an inquiry activity through the use
of VoiceThread (see figure 5). Using this technology as a medium for the activity allowed for me to
model my thinking and to demonstrate explicit teaching and the gradual release of responsibility, two
literacy pedagogical approaches. Learners could choose to type, audio record, or video record their
thinking as they proceeded through the activity rather than only at the end or through a written play-
by-play. Other learners were able to record or post responses to my or coursemates’ comments as they
proceeded through the activity and at the end of the activity, enabling them to capture their in-process
thinking as well as their tentative, collected responses to the essential question I posed for that segment

203
 
Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

Figure 7.

of the course. Learners were able to access and to utilize others’ diverse knowledge, experiences, and
thinking as they learned about course concepts and shaped their thinking to form responses to essential
questions. Communication was multimodally captured, shared, and responded to, positioning learners
as co-constructors of multimodal learning events.

Multimodality For Constructing and Communicating Understandings

The integration of technology also provided space for me, as the instructor, and for learners to use mul-
timodal texts to organize, construct, compose, and communicate understandings to others in the course.
For example, I utilized the image of a tree to metaphorically and visually organize the structure of the
course. In the first segment of the course, I displayed a black and white image of a tree with its roots
visible (see figure 6). Through image, written text, and video, I explained the purpose of this segment of
the course was to examine the theoretical roots of secondary reading instruction. Learners also produced
multimodal texts which utilized images to organize and to communicate their new knowledge. Using
images, text, audio, and video, learners could construct and communicate their understanding of course
concepts multimodally. In addition to these layered compositions, I was able to hear learners thinking
and expression of ideas in their own voice.

New Opportunities to Model and to Practice Teaching

Multimodal Literacies in The Online Course

Through the use of technology, I was able to model how to plan and to teach using the pedagogical,
theoretical, and research-based approaches taught in the course. Through VoiceThread, for example
(see figure 7), I could display images of content-area texts, mark the text, record my thinking, and also
type labels to explicitly communicate what I was doing and why I made instructional decisions during
the modeling process. The layered nature of the instruction provided authentic approaches to teaching
with the affordances of technology to slow down, repeat, replay, ask and answer questions, and interact
over time. Critically, learners could also practice teaching multimodally in ways that demonstrated their
understanding of course concepts through the multimodal formative assessments they designed. The

204

Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

Figure 8.

multimodal composition also provided opportunity to receive feedback from the instructor and other
learners.

Multimodal Curriculum Making

Perhaps most significantly, the incorporation of technology into this teacher education course provided
learners with the ability to create curriculum and to communicate their personal practical knowledge. In
this course, learners practiced creating and received formative assessment feedback from peer learners
and from the instructor. Summative assessments required learners to create instruction. Using technology
to compose and communicate multimodally was an option. Examining projects that utilized technology
to compose and communicate multimodally, it became evident that these practicing or prospective teach-
ers were able to communicate using their “teacher voice,” as numerous students dubbed it, as well as
their learner voice. These teacher-learners directed instruction to their imagined learners, and they also
“stepped back” (Langer, 2011) from their pedagogy to communicate their pedagogical reasoning. They
explained their instructional decisions, connected those decisions to theory and to course concepts, and
identified how the instruction was designed and adapted to meet anticipated or observed past learners’
needs. Technology mediated their dual thinking as teachers and as learners in the online environment.

CONCLUSION

Reframing Teaching Practices

Using multimodal literacies to re-see my teaching practices (phase 1) and then to make changes to course
design and delivery for purposes of empowering learners to construct and to communicate meaning
(phase 2) resulted in reframing teaching and learning in the online environment.

205
 
Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

Phase One:

Through discourse guided by the use of a collaborative conference protocol with critical friends and
Visual Thinking Strategies applied to the online course, I was able to see and re-see how teachers and
teacher educators can learn from reading, analyzing, and discussing multimodal texts and lived experi-
ences in the context online course settings.
In the context of the literacy course I taught, this included recognizing access, opportunity, owner-
ship, and multimodality.
Access. Course texts offered multiple “entry points” into learning. The use of multiple, accessible texts
and non-traditional text sets were designed to facilitate learner’s critical examination of prior knowledge
and to facilitate meaning-making about topics learners perceived to be beyond their existing knowledge
and experience. However, most reading and learning activities utilized print-based texts.
Opportunity. Text sets and course design demonstrated opportunity for learners to consider multiple
perspectives and to construct new knowledge over time. Nevertheless, few opportunities existed for
learners to construct multimodal texts or to communicate using multimodal literacies.
Ownership. In a key, multimodal composition, the generative power of transmediation provided
multimodal ways for learners to construct, communicate, and “own” their understanding. Aside from
this exploratory “Sketch-to-Stretch” (Beers, 2003) multimodal composition, opportunities were limited,
but could be created for future course offerings.
Multimodality. Furthermore, phase one resulted in my seeing the course learning management sys-
tem as a type of multimodal text, read and composed through ongoing interactions between learners,
instructor, and content studied.

Phase Two:

Reflecting on action research and course redesign, I understand:

• Multimodal texts, interaction, and meaning making can provide access to multiple ways of
knowing.
• Learners are curriculum makers (Clandinin & Connelly, 1992)—active agents and generators of
knowledge that others can also access and learn from in the online courseroom.
• Demonstrating learning through multimodal assessments enables learners (practicing or future
teachers) to create authentic texts, to communicate in authentic ways, and to develop and to com-
municate personal practical knowledge (Clandinin, 1985).
• Multimodal meaning making through technology integration in the online course can provide op-
portunities for transmediation– for learners to transform course learning across multiple sign sys-
tems into curriculum which reflects their and knowledge and ability to create texts for multimodal
teaching in their own classrooms.

206

Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

SIGNIFICANCE

The crux of professional learning for educators is to empower others to construct meaningful under-
standing through educative experiences (Dewey, 1938). In order for teachers to use their knowledge to
improve their teaching practice and to create educative experiences for others, they must first construct
an understanding as learners themselves. This process of making meaning, as opposed to getting mean-
ing, is dependent on teachers’ opportunities to interact with texts, and is aided by communication with
and support from a caring community of learners. Technology integration in teacher education can cre-
ate space for prospective and practicing teachers to do more than learn about concepts or pedagogical
approaches; teacher educators and teacher learners can use technology to compose multimodal texts
and to communicate their personal practical knowledge. The layered thinking, decision-making, use
of knowledge, and ability to consider others’ interpretations and responses to their teaching reflect the
authentic ways that teachers-learners read and compose understandings while teaching.
As a result of studying my teaching practices with critical friends, I was able to read and make meaning
from my online course design and delivery. The use of a collaborative conference protocol and Visual
Thinking Strategies applied to the online course platform resulted in realizing that while I had provided
learners with ways to access and use prior knowledge through multimodal learning and interacting with
multimodal texts, I had neglected to create opportunities for my learners to compose and to communicate
their learning through generating multimodal texts in this online course. This gap was eye-opening and
resulted in reframing the course as a multimodal text and to re-seeing my responsibility to model how
to teach and how to use technology using technology and multimodal composition.
Shifting my focus to multimodal texts and multimodal learning, I now see opportunities for pur-
posefully attending to global meaning making (Tierney, 2018). As I analyze the most recent offering
of this course (May-July 2019), I see learners interrogating their prior knowledge and epistemologies
and creating knowledge in a shared “third space” of cross-cultural exchanges that draws from local and
individual knowledge and experiences to generate cross-cultural, global understandings of teaching
reading, multimodally, to all learners.

207
 
Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

REFERENCES

Anderson, D., Imdieke, S., Lubig, J., Reissner, L., Sabin, J., & Standerford, S. (2010). Self-study through
collaborative conference protocol: Studying self through the eyes of colleagues. Teaching and Learning,
2(24), 59–71.
Beers, K. (2003). When Kids Can’t Read: What Teachers Can Do. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Belenky, M. F., Bond, L. A., & Weinstock, J. S. (1997). A tradition that has no name: Nurturing the
development of people, families, and communities. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.
Belenky, M. F., Mc Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing;
The development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.
Bergh, B., Edge, C., Cameron-Standerford, A., Imdieke, S., Standerford, N. S., & Reissner. (2014).
(Re)Seeing our Teacher Education Practices through Visual Literacy. American Reading Forum Annual
Yearbook, 34. Retrieved from http://americanreadingforum.org/yearbook/14_yearbook/documents/Bergh.
ReSeeing_Our_Teacher_Education_Practices.pdf
Berry, A. (2004). Self-study in teaching about teaching. In International Handbook of Self-Study Prac-
tices, Part Two. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6545-3_34
Berry, A. (2007). Tensions in teaching about teaching: Understanding practice as a teacher educator
(Vol. 5). New York, NY: Springer.
Bullough, R. V. (1994). Personal history and teaching metaphors: A self study of teaching as conversa-
tion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21(1), 107–120.
Bullough, R. V. (1997). Practicing theory and theorizing practice in teacher education. In J. Loughran
& T. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about Teaching (pp. 13-31). London: Falmer Press.
Bullough, R. V. Jr, & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study
research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13–21. doi:10.3102/0013189X030003013
Cameron-Standerford, A., Edge, C., & Bergh, B. (2016). Toward a framework for reading lived experi-
ences as texts: A four-year self-study of teacher education practices. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.),
Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 371–377). Herstmonceux, UK: S-STEP.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Hand-
book of research on curriculum (pp. 363–401). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher sto-
ries—stories of teachers—stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24–30.
Clandinin, J. D. (1985). Personal practical knowledge: A study of teachers’ classroom images. Curriculum
Inquiry, 15(4), 361–385. doi:10.1080/03626784.1985.11075976
Colflesh, N. A. (1996). Piece-making: The relationships between women’s lives and the patterns and
variations that emerge in their talk about school leadership (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan
State University, East Lansing, MI.

208

Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51(2),
49–51.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Draper, R. J., Broomhead, P., Jensen, A. P., Nokes, J. D., & Siebert, D. (Eds.). (2010). (Re)Imagining
content-area literacy instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Edge, C. (2011). Making meaning with “readers” and “texts”: A narrative inquiry into two beginning
English teachers’ meaning making from classroom events. Retrieved from Graduate School Theses and
Dissertations: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3722/
Edge, C. (2015). On the nature of experience in the education of prospective teachers: A philosophical
problem. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 13(1), 29-41. Retrieved
from http://commons.nmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1210&context=facwork_journalarticles
Edge, C. (2017). (Mis)Reading the classroom: A two-act ‘play’ on the conflicting roles in student teach-
ing. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 16(1), 38-56. Retrieved
from https://www.ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/view/850
Edge, C. (2018). A teacher educator’s meaning-making from a hybrid “Online Teaching Fellows” profes-
sional learning experience: Toward literacy practices for teaching and learning in multimodal contexts.
In S. Keengwe (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Virtual Training and Mentoring of Online Instructors
(pp. 76–109). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Edge, C., Cameron-Standerford, A., & Bergh, B. (2014). Using Self-Study to Navigate the Changing
Seas of Standards-Based Education. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Changing Practices for Changing
Times: Past, Present and Future Possibilities for Self-Study Research. Proceedings of the Tenth Inter-
national Conference of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex,
England. Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/SIG109/
Conferences/PastCastleProceedings/tabid/15213/Default.aspx
Edge, C., Cameron-Standerford, A., & Bergh, B. (2019). Creating Access, Opportunity, and Ownership
through Cross-Cultural Meaning-Making in Academically Diverse Online Courses. In S. Keengwe &
K. Kungu (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Cross-Cultural Online Learning in Higher Education (pp.
42–65). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8286-1.ch003
Feldman, A., Paugh, P., & Mills, G. (2004). Self-Study through action research. In J. J. Loughran, M. L.
Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and
Teacher Education Practices. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6545-3_24
Groenendijk, R., Kooy, M., Coppen, P. A., Imant, J., & Van de Ven, P. H. (2013). Striving for literary
development in secondary literature learners” A teacher’s self-study. English Teaching, 12(3), 41–64.
Guilfoyle, K. (1995). Constructing the meaning of teacher educator: The struggle to learn the roles.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 11–26.

209
 
Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

Hamilton, M. L. (2004). Professional knowledge, teacher education and self-study. In International Hand-
book of Self-Study Practices, Part One. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-
1-4020-6545-3_10
Harste, J. C. (2000). Six points of departure. In B. Berghoff, K. A. Egawa, J. C. Harste, & B. T. Hoonan
(Eds.), Beyond reading and writing: Inquiry, curriculum, and multiple ways of knowing (pp. 1–16).
Urbana, IL: National Council Teachers of English.
Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Knowles, M. S., Elwood, H. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The adult learner: The definitive classic in
adult education and human resource development (8th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kress, G., & Jewitt, C. (Eds.). (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
LaBoksey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran,
M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching
practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Langer, J. A. (2011). Envisioning knowledge: Building literacy in the academic disciplines. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Loughran, J., & Northfield, J. (1998). A framework for the development of self-study practice. In M. L.
Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self- study in teacher education (pp. 7–18). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Loughran, J. J., & Russell, T. (1997). Meeting student teachers on their own terms: Experience precedes
understanding. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new un-
derstandings (pp. 164–181). London: Falmer Press.
Martens, P., Martens, R., Doyle, M. H., Loomis, J., & Agalarov, S. (2013). “Now it’s getting happier
because it’s more colorful”: First graders read and write picture books multimodally. The Dragon Lode,
31(2), 3–12.
Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1994). The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messages from a
physics methods class. Journal of Teacher Education, 45(2), 86–95. doi:10.1177/0022487194045002002
National Writing Project. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nwp.org/
Nolan, J. F. (1982). Professional laboratory experiences: The missing link in teacher education. Journal
of Teacher Education, 33(4), 49–53. doi:10.1177/002248718203300412
Olan, E. L., & Edge, C. (2018). Critical friends as co-authors: Pushing boundaries and crossing borders
together. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Pushing boundaries and crossing borders: Self-study as a
means for knowing pedagogy (pp. 461-467). Herstmonceux, UK: S-STEP.
Olan, E. L., & Edge, C. (2019). Collaborative meaning-making and dialogic interactions in critical
friends as co-authors. Studying Teacher Education, 15(1), 31–43. doi:10.1080/17425964.2019.1580011
Pinnegar, S. (1998). Introduction to Part II: Methodological perspectives. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.),
Reconceptualizing Teaching Practice: Self-Study in Teacher Education (pp. 31–33). London: Falmer.

210

Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N., & Stouffer, J. (2017). Teaching literacy: Reading. In D. H. Gitomer & C.
A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed.; pp. 1217–1267). Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.
Riddett-Moore, K., & Siegesmund, R. (2014). The visual space of literacy in art education. In P. Sma-
gorinsky (Ed.), Teaching dilemmas & solutions in content-area literacy, grades 6-12. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Rosenblatt, L. (1978/1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Rosenblatt, L. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell & H. Singer
(Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed.; pp. 895–927). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as exploration. New York: MLA. (Original work published 1938)
Rosenblatt, L. (2005). Making meaning with text: Selected essays. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Russell, T. (1998). Introduction to Part 1: Philosophical perspectives. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Recon-
ceptualizing teaching practice: Self-Study in teacher education (pp. 5–6). London: Falmer Press.
Serafini, F. (2015). Multimodal literacy: From theories to practices. Language Arts, 92(6), 412–423.
Sidel, S., Walters, J., Kirby, E., Olff, N., Powell, K., Scripp, L., & Veenama, S. (1997). Portfolio practices:
Thinking through the assessment of children’s work. Washington, DC: National Education Association
Publishing Library.
Standerford, N. S., Sabin, J. M., Anderson, D., Edge, C., Lubig, J., & Cameron-Standerford, A. (2012).
Minding the gap: Navigating chasms of confusion and fogs of frustration—A Problems Court. American
Reading Forum Annual Yearbook, 32. Retrieved from http://americanreadingforum.org/yearbook/12_year-
book/volume12.htm
Tierney, R. J. (2018). Toward a model of global meaning making. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(4),
397–422. doi:10.1177/1086296X18803134
Vanassche, E., & Kelchtermans, G. (2015). The state of the art in self-study of teacher education prac-
tices: A systematic literature review. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(4), 508–528. doi:10.1080/002
20272.2014.995712
Visual Thinking Strategies. (2018). Retrieved from https://vtshome.org
Walsh, M. (2009). Pedagogic potentials of multimodal literacy. In L. W. H. Tan & R. Subramaniam
(Eds.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 level: Issues and challenges (pp. 32–47).
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-120-9.ch003
Yenawine, P. (2013). Visual thinking strategies: Using art to deepen learning across school disciplines.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

211
 
Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

ADDITIONAL READING

Bailey, N. M., & Van Harken, E. M. (2014). Visual images as tools of teacher inquiry. Journal of Teacher
Education, 65(3), 241–260. doi:10.1177/0022487113519130
Garcia, A. (Ed.). (2014). Teaching in the connected learning classroom. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and
Learning Research Hub.
Hattwig, D., Bussert, L., Medaille, A., & Burgess, J. (2013). Visual literacy standards in higher educa-
tion: New opportunities for libraries and student learning. Libraries and the Academy, 13(1), 61–89.
doi:10.1353/pla.2013.0008
Klehm, M. (2014). The effects of teacher beliefs on teaching practices and achievement of learners with
disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(3), 216–240. doi:10.1177/0888406414525050
Knobel, M., & Kalman, J. (2016). New literacies and teacher learning: Professional development and
the digital turn. New York, NY: Peter Lang. doi:10.3726/978-1-4539-1823-4
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., Jewwitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: the
rhetoric of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwan, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Rout-
ledge. doi:10.4324/9780203619728
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning (3rd ed.).
Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Mioduser, D., Nachmias, R., & Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2008). New literacies for the knowledge society.
In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and
Secondary Education (Vol. 20). Boston, MA: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_2
Parsons, A. W., & Hjalmarson, M. A. (2017). Study of self: The self as designer in online teacher educa-
tion. Studying Teacher Education, 13(3), 331–349. doi:10.1080/17425964.2017.1365699
Pithouse-Morgan, K., & Samaras, A. P. (2015). Polyvocal professional learning through self-study
research. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense. doi:10.1007/978-94-6300-220-2
Walsh, M. (2008). Worlds have collided and modes have merged: Classroom evidence of changed literacy
practices. Literacy, 42(2), 102–108. doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2008.00495.x

212

Access, Opportunity, and Curriculum Making Through Multimodal Meaning-Making

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Envisionment: An envisionment is meaning that is in the process of being made; it is meaning-in-

motion.
Event: In this study, event refers to a transactional experience. An event is an experience from which
meaning is made. Meaning-making and event are biconditional terms. Meaning-making presupposes that
a transaction has taken place. Rosenblatt (1978, 1994, 2005) has written that meaning is a transactional
event.
Knowledge: Knowledge is more than facts or the accumulation of information; it is the understanding
of the interrelated information in the context of social and disciplinary conventions.
Making Meaning: Meaning is a transactional event. People make meaning during a transaction.
Readers make meaning during transactional events by drawing upon their linguistic-experiential reservoir
to guide their sense-making (Rosenblatt, 1978, 1994, 2005). In the context of a classroom, meaning is
not located in texts or in lessons or even in people; rather, it is made through dynamic transactions with
people and various texts in various contexts.
Transformative Learning: A revision of conceptions or assumptions and includes a process by
which individual learners construct knowledge through critical reflection.
Transaction: Transaction does not refer to a business exchange; rather, transaction conveys the
ecological relationship between the knower, knowing, and what is known.

213
214

Chapter 12
Coding Across the Curriculum:
How to Integrate Coding
Into Content Areas

Janna Jackson Kellinger

University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA

ABSTRACT
This chapter explores why teacher educators should teach teachers how to integrate coding across con-
tent areas and how to do so by applying concepts of computational thinking such as using algorithms,
flowcharts, and Boolean logic to all fields. Teaching teachers how to teach coding across the content
areas offers opportunities to diversify people in a field where intimidation, discrimination, and lack of
opportunities has effectively kept the field of programming largely white or Asian and male. In addi-
tion, as our lives become more and more infused with technology, Rushkoff warns that we either learn
how to program or become programmed. This means that not everyone needs to become a computer
programmer, but everyone needs to understand how programming computers works. In other words,
coding across content areas would help prepare all students, not just those pursuing the field of computer
science, for the 21st century.

INTRODUCTION

Up until recently with the advent of “Everyone Can Code” movements such as “An Hour of Code” and
“No Fear Coding”, coding has been regarded as the realm of the geeks, relegated to “computer science”
courses that imply that only those in the sciences can comprehend and produce these new languages.
Because of this, most content area teachers have shied away from even considering coding as within
their subject area domain. Indeed, most people have, unless they fit the white or Asian male stereotype
of geeks reified by movies in the 80s like the Breakfast Club and Revenge of the Nerds. Because of
this, the most promising field in the workforce is largely male and white/Asian and rampant sexism has
kept it so (Myers, 2018). When those of us who do not fit this profile dare enter the field, not only do
we face discrimination, but sometimes explicit threats like what happened in GamerGate where female

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch012

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Coding Across the Curriculum

video game designers were harassed and even doxed (Dewey, 2014). This results in a large swath of the
population being iced out of one of the most promising fields. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (2019), “Employment of software developers is projected to grow 21 percent from 2018 to
2028, much faster than the average for all occupations.” In addition, that field is missing out on potential
talent at a time when new, innovative technological solutions are needed to solve the world’s problems,
such as the climate crisis and election interference.
My own history is laced with the sexism emanating from this field. In my very first summer job,
despite being in Advanced Placement (AP) Computer Science, I was assigned to do data entry while the
male students from my high school were assigned to the computer room. When my sister, who is now an
engineer, went to her high school guidance counselor to find out what elective courses were available,
he told her about the gourmet cooking class but not the engineering one and then later discouraged her
from applying to engineering school. When I was the only female in a computer science class in college,
the professor constantly pointed it out by saying things like, “Gentlemen (pause) and lady” and exag-
gerating “Miss” when saying my name. By now, we would hope this atmosphere would have changed,
but statistics about the computer science field speak to the long-term effects of discrimination (Myers,
2018). Because of intimidation, discrimination, and lack of opportunities, the field of programming has
effectively stayed white/Asian and male.
One way to open up the field to a wider audience is to introduce programming across the curriculum
so that content areas traditionally associated with other demographic groups can introduce students to
coding. Since coding is essentially writing a set of decision-making directions, recipes in gourmet cook-
ing are coding; choreography is coding; telling someone how to get from point A to point B is coding;
the list can go on and on. Viewing coding this way allows us to see how coding cuts across all content
areas. The possibilities are endless. In fact, when I was taking that AP computer science class in high
school, the teacher was also the Physical Education teacher. When viewing coding as writing a set of
decision-making directions, you can see how this is a perfect fit. After all, playing sports involves mak-
ing a series of decisions within the confines of the rule set defined for that sport and the referees are the
compilers (programs that translate computer code to basic machine language and send out notifications
when code does not conform to the conventions of the programming language), who call someone out
when they do not conform to the grammar of the sport.

TEACHERS AS CODERS

By expanding coding to a set of decision-making directions, we can also see how teachers are natural cod-
ers. In fact, they write code every day in their lesson plans. They then are the computers that implement
this code, sometimes even changing it up on the spot. Because they are coding humans, or rather creating
conditions for humans to learn optimally, you could argue that their coding is even more complicated
than coding a computer. Larry Cuban (2001) has lamented about teachers being reluctant to dip a toe
into digital technologies. However, introducing coding to teachers in this way and then demonstrating
options for ways in which they can integrate coding into their content areas uses Lee’s (2001) cultural
modeling to allow teachers to see the connections between coding, teaching, and their subject area.

215
 
Coding Across the Curriculum

Teaching elementary teachers how to teach their students coding basics borrowing from the Total
Physical Response (TPR) techniques of World Languages uses Bruner’s (1966) concept of enactive or
kinesthetic learning to teach computational thinking skills. For example, having students “program”
the teacher to go from point A to point B and having the teacher turn around in a circle instead of turn-
ing left or right when the students say “turn” could teach students the importance of being specific,
generate a lot of laughter, and teach students how to debug code. Reverse red light/green light where
saying red light means move and green light means stop immediately after playing traditional red light/
green light not only is a great way to teach impulse control but also the need for systems engineers to
make sure commands are consistent. Writing the TPR “code” so that one word signals a sequence of
actions can teach students about functions. Dance “codes” can use repetition to implement looping and
songs with choruses and refrains provide natural entry ways into coding for all ages, but particularly for
elementary teachers. Designing flowcharts of everyday decisions like what to wear depending on the
weather teaches students about logical decision-making. In these ways and others, elementary teachers
can teach coding basics.

PULLING AWAY THE CURTAIN

Not only would this approach introduce all students to coding, it would also demystify computers so
that people are not so easily manipulated as they were in the 2016 U.S. elections. In 2011, Pariser issued
a warning about how the internet has become a “Filter Bubble” where “the new personalized web is
changing what we read and how we think.” He states, “Democracy requires citizens to see things from
one another’s point of view, but instead we’re more and more enclosed in our own bubbles. Democracy
requires a reliance on shared facts, instead we’re being offered parallel but separate universes” (p. 5).
He goes on to explain how stealth personalization fools people into thinking that what they see on the
web, for example, the results of their google search, is what everyone sees on the web so that it does
not just shape their reality, it fools people into thinking that is reality. Russia’s disinformation campaign
capitalized on this algorithmic manipulation. Rushkoff (2012) issued an even more pointed warning
specifically about Facebook:

[O]ur kids aren’t Facebook’s customers; they’re the product. The real customers are the advertisers and
market researchers paying for their attention and user data. But it’s difficult for them or us to see any
of this and respond appropriately if we don’t know anything about the digital environment in which all
this is taking place. That’s why -- as an educator, media theorist and parent -- I have become dedicated
to getting kids code literate.

While not everyone will take a coding class, at least not at this point in public education in the United
States, everyone takes English, Social Studies, Math, and Science. Integrating coding concepts into these
subject areas removes the mask, allowing the general public to understand how coding works and how
it can be used to influence people.
While only a small slice of the population codes computers, the rest of the population uses computers.
When Massachusetts’ department of education opens their presentation on their new digital literacies
and computer science standards, they begin with a Zits cartoon where the teenager asks what someone
does for a living, the dad responds that he thinks he does something with computers, and the son re-

216

Coding Across the Curriculum

plies, “As opposed to what?” In today’s workforce, every job uses technology. However, there is a big
divide between those who produce the software and those who consume it. In his book Program or Be
Programmed, Rushkoff (2010) points out:

Digital technology is programmed. This makes it biased toward those with the capacity to write the code.
In a digital age, we must learn how to make the software, or risk becoming the software. It is not too
difficult or too late to learn the code behind the things we use—or at least understand that there is code
behind their interfaces. Otherwise we are at the mercy of those who do the programming, the people
paying them, or even the technology itself. (p. 134)

Black technology users found that out first-hand when face-recognition technology had difficulty
identifying their own faces among photographs, not for lack of technological capability, but rather be-
cause the software had been coded to recognize features of white faces (Simonite, 2019). Considering
that technology pervades our personal and professional lives, combining this with the statistics cited
above about the demographic composition of the computer industry, we have a world where a small
homogenous few are controlling the rest of us unless we take back this power.

PROGRAMMING A MINDSET

Teaching coding concepts is not just a way to ward off dangers, it teaches logical ways to approach and
solve problems, what educators call “computational thinking.” While there is a growing movement to
make computer science a required course, educators are realizing that the mindset that coding promotes
also applies to other types of thinking as well: “many educators want to inject coding into all sorts of
courses, from science to art to English. They’re not just out to prepare the next generation of technol-
ogy workers. Their goal is far more expansive. They want to turn coding into a new kind of literacy—a
fundamental applied skill, a mode of inquiry and expression—that everybody should know” (Berdick,
2015). Certainly historical thinking, mathematical thinking, scientific thinking, critical thinking, and
creative thinking all employ coding concepts of analysis, synthesis, systems thinking, iterative testing,
modeling, predicting, hypothesis-testing, and so forth. Often teaching these concepts can be as simple as
explicitly pointing out these connections to make that transfer happen. Teaching teachers how to teach
coding across the curriculum offers opportunities to diversify the field of computer science, get students
to think more logically about their own fields, and helps arm the citizenry to combat cyber warfare.

TEACHING CODING CONCEPTS THROUGH SUBJECT AREAS

Traditionally, coding has been viewed as a science as in “computer science” and loosely associated with
the logic behind mathematics as well as the math behind machine language where ones and zeros are
multiplied by the number associated with their position and then added together. However, coders actu-
ally learn different languages, each with their own set of semantics, syntax, and grammar and therefore
can also be viewed as in the realms of World Languages and English Language Arts (ELA). In addition,
coding has a history of its own. Therefore, coding can cut across all the “core” content areas. However,
this chapter proposes an even more expansive view of coding that applies even to those areas outside of

217
 
Coding Across the Curriculum

traditional core subjects such as gourmet cooking, psychology, and physical education. Expanding the
definition of coding from writing a set of decision-making directions for a computer to follow to simply
writing a set of decision-making directions, changes the focus to the computational skills behind cod-
ing and allows teachers to apply coding to a wider variety of content areas, including areas traditionally
considered electives. To demonstrate, this chapter will explore various ways to do so. However, this
chapter is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather inspirational. The hope is that by enumerating ways
in which to use subject areas to teach various concepts in coding, and coding to teach various subject
areas, teacher educators will take the ball and run with it by making their own connections, applications,
and instructional activities that build these bridges.

Sequencing

Sequencing, as the name implies, is putting items in order and is a key component in computer science.
Sequencing, however, is also essential in all subject areas. For example, in English Language Arts,
students learn the order of typical storylines through the plot arc (exposition, rising action, climax,
falling action, and denouement). In Social Studies, students study and create timelines to order events.
Students follow the steps of experimental design in the sciences. Genome sequencing in science speaks
to the importance of order. This order, however, is not always linear. In math, students learn the order
of operations in PEMDAS—solve the math in parentheses first, then do the multiplication operations,
then division, addition, and lastly subtraction in order to solve the equation. In languages, the different
grammars demand different orders. In English, adjectives come before nouns; in Spanish and French,
adjectives come after nouns. Of course there are also differences in how languages are read—left to right
or right to left or even top to bottom. The fact that there are different orders in languages and that order
does make a difference is important in understanding how computer languages work.
Sequencing is ripe for using enactive (Bruner, 1966), or kinesthetic learning, by having students
sequence themselves. For example, in Social Studies, each student can be given a piece of paper with
a screenshot from a website about a common topic and students can put themselves in order from most
objective to most subjective. Not only is literature full of sequences (e.g. The Old Lady Swallowed a
Fly series), in English Language Arts, students can play “mix-up-itis”, a name taken from the children’s
television show Doc McStuffins, by putting the different parts of a citation in random order on a Smart-
Board and having students put them in the correct order (the modern day version of what I would use
when I was a high school English teacher which was sentence strips with magnets on the chalkboard).
In science, students can each be different plants and animals on a food chain or a different element and
order themselves by the periodic chart (if a classroom has tile floors, you already have the grid laid out
for you). In these ways and others, students can enact sequencing themselves, explore the importance
of order, and see how ordering differs and makes a difference in various “languages” including the
languages of math and science.
In order to sequence items, decomposition, or analysis, i.e. breaking something into its parts, is neces-
sary. For example, studying the hero archetype in ELA involves breaking stories into their component
parts, as well as abstraction—seeing how this sequence of parts applies across stories. Computer scientists
do this all the time—breaking code down into its component parts and putting them back together in
different orders to create something new, i.e. synthesis. Labeling these parts is essential as well. It is in
the labeling that makes them useful tools. Such representation allows for machine language to become
computer code as words are really symbols that tell the computer how to manipulate those ones and zeros.

218

Coding Across the Curriculum

Algorithms

An algorithm is a sequence of steps that produce a result. For example, math expressions result in a
product. In science, combining different molecules create a compound and the experimental method
provides a roadmap to testing hypotheses. The writing process in ELA and the design process in engineer-
ing are algorithms, or a series of steps, to follow to create something new. Different genres in literature
have different formulas they follow. Having students to explore cause and effect can show students the
algorithms of history. Re-writing history as mathematical expressions (cause 1 plus (cause 2 multiplied
by the media) = historical event) can not only undercover patterns in history, but also underscore the
human element that logic cannot always capture.
Assigning a name to an algorithm allows computer programmers to create functions so instead of
having to write out the steps to an algorithm over and over again, coders can simply write the name of
the function and the computer will execute the series of steps, or algorithm, associated with that name.
In this way, computer code can be made much more efficient. The same thing is done by teachers in
various subject areas. When students are told to follow the writing process, do historical analysis, or
follow the experimental method, teachers are asking students to execute a function that students apply
to the different content areas. Oftentimes teachers use functions, commonly in the form of an acronym,
to help students remember the steps, such as DICE in math (dissect, illustrate, compute, and explain) or
SOAPSTone (Speaker, Occasion, Audience, Purpose, Subject, and Tone) in ELA. As these examples
illustrate, the same function can be applied to different topics. Functions are really just schemas that are
executed by computers instead of by people.

Looping

In order to make computer code more efficient, computer scientists use loops—otherwise, they would
have to rewrite the same thing over and over again. The most simple loop is the repeat instruction. In
other words, telling the computer to do the same thing a certain number of times. However, this can
quickly become more complicated by having nested loops. When my children were in kindergarten, they
had a 100-day project where they had to create something that had 100 items for the 100th day of the
school year. In that spirit, I showed them how to create a program that repeated something 100 times.
However, the block programming language I chose only allowed the user to use 2-digit numbers for
the repeat loop. Instead of using 99 times and then adding one time (duh!), I created a ten times repeat
loop within a ten times repeat loop. I’m not quite sure my kids got it as kindergartners, but it felt good
to find a workaround.
Looping exists in all subject areas. Science is full of loops—the water cycle, the life cycle, and so
forth. In fact, these are good to show the difference between endless loops (the water cycle—hopefully!)
and loops that have a clear beginning and end (the life cycle—although both ends are subject to debate!).
Mathematicians study cyclical functions in trigonometry and analytical geometry. A common topic in
Social Studies is studying how history repeats itself and discussing what can be done to disrupt nega-
tive patterns. The Give a Mouse a Cookie series has a looping plot structure. The play Hamlet can be
depicted as an endless loop. Any type of repetition in any subject area lends itself to being represented
with loops in computer code.

219
 
Coding Across the Curriculum

Beyond the simple repeat loop, computer coders also create loops that repeat while a condition is
true or false or until an event happens, i.e. a condition becomes true or false. For, While, and Until loops
run while or until an event happens. This means that within the loop, some change must occur. To do
this numerically, a loop counter is used to determine how many times a repetition has happened. To do
so, computer scientists set a variable such as X to an initial state, e.g. one, and then add one to X every
time to count the number of loops (X=X+1). Time periods and events that take place over time in his-
tory can be used to teach For, While, and Until loops. The same can be said of cultural events studied
in World Languages and plot events in literature.

Attributes and Behaviors

In HTML, or Hyper-Text Mark-up Language, tags are used to tell a browser what and how to display
content on a webpage. For example, <center> This chapter is the best </center> tells the web browser
to display the words, “This chapter is the best” in the middle of the row. Within those tags, attributes can
be defined: <font color=“black”>This text is black</font> as well as behaviors: <a href=“http://www.
cnn.com” target=blank>This links to CNN’s website and does so by opening a new window</a>. The
ending tag indicated by the back slash tells the web browser when to stop displaying that content with
those attributes and behaviors. End users don’t see the HTML tags, just the content that is displayed.
Even web designers do not have to see the HTML that is doing the work behind the scenes as many
HTML editors are WYSIWIG—What You See Is What You Get. Word processing programs work this
same way. As users type, they see what others will see and can control that using the items on the menu
but they do not see the coding that goes on behind the page. When you save a document, you are not just
saving the words that you have typed, the file also contains all the instructions for how to display those
words so it will look the same way when someone else opens that document file.
Stage directions in plays do the same thing for actors, props, and sets. These can be simple like the
opening stage directions for Romeo and Juliet: “Verona. A public place. Enter Sampson and Gregory,
armed with swords and bucklers” or much more detailed such as the opening stage directions in Ibsen’s
A Doll House:

[SCENE.--A room furnished comfortably and tastefully, but not extravagantly. At the back, a door to the
right leads to the entrance-hall, another to the left leads to Helmer’s study. Between the doors stands
a piano. In the middle of the left-hand wall is a door, and beyond it a window. Near the window are a
round table, arm-chairs and a small sofa. …

Theater teacher Meredith Towne notes the connections between coding and stage directions:

“The language in Scratch is very similar to theatre language,” she said. “They call it blocking. There
are a lot of parallels.” She devised an assignment in which students use Scratch to direct staging—that
is, program their fellow-actors. “So they have to perform with the blocking, and it has to match.” (Mo-
rais, 2015)

220

Coding Across the Curriculum

Using stage directions as an analogy can also help students understand how tags work in HTML. In
fact, HTML comes from the world of ELA, specifically, the publishing world. When editors write out
instructions for how pages in a book or magazine are supposed to look, things like margin size, font size,
spacing, and other stylistic elements, they mark up a text. Instead of each publishing company having
their own shorthand set of instructions, editors and typesetters use a common mark-up language to show
what they want. Some of this has even tumbled out into the general public as carets are commonly used
to indicate that a word needs to be inserted into a sentence or a letter into a word. Any kind of notation
used to indicate how something should look can be used to teach about HTML tags.
Computer languages that do more than tell a computer how something should look also use attributes
and behaviors. Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) are types of computing languages where computer
coders define objects, or rather classes of objects, and use different objects to build larger objects. A com-
mon analogy for this is Legos, those small plastic boxes with raised circles used to torture parents when
they step on them barefoot in the middle of the night. In fact, there are several kid-friendly programming
languages that are called block languages because the user drags and drops blocks of code to build a
program. You can take the same set of Legos and build an airplane, a car, a building, or any number of
things. With Legos, you create an object built from smaller objects. A Lego block is the smallest unit
in a Lego construction. Each Lego block has its own attributes, namely size, which can be subdivided
into length, width, and height, and also has color as an attribute, which can vary. They are the variables
that define the properties of an object. Anyone who has played with Legos knows that Legos do not
actually come just in blocks. There are several classes of Legos. Just within the Legos used to construct
people, there are torso Legos, head Legos, pants Legos, hair Legos, along with the props and costumes
such as capes that accessorize the people Legos. While most Legos are static, there are several that are
dynamic. In other words, they have behaviors. Technically they do not have their own behaviors, people
have to make them behave, just like computer programmers have to tell their computer objects what
to do. In the world of Legos, legs can bend, arms can move, cannons can shoot little dot Legos, and so
forth. A Lego that behaves will have an initial state (e.g. legs are straight) and an ending state (e.g. legs
are bent) depending on what behavior it executes just as objects in object-oriented programming have
initial and ending states.
Just like Legos and Object-Oriented Computer Languages, subject areas have their own classification
systems where different classes of objects are defined by their attributes and behaviors. In Social Studies,
there are different types of governments each with their own attributes and behaviors. In English language
arts, there are different genres with their own properties and ways the characters and plot “behave.” The
building blocks of the sciences involve observation and classification—of elements in chemistry, of
plants and animals in biology, of real-world objects in physics, of natural elements in earth science. In
World Languages there are classes of languages each with their own attributes and defined ways they
behave. All these classification systems can be used to teach the basics of object-oriented programming.
In Object Oriented Programming Languages, child objects “inherit” the properties (attributes and
behaviors) of their parent objects, just like offspring inherit characteristics from their parents. In OOP,
inheritance can be single inheritance, or asexual, in other words, with just one parent and thus creating
a clone; or multiple inheritance, inheriting features from more than one parent object, known in biology
as sexual reproduction. We see this in other subject areas as well, such as ELA where genres of litera-
ture have sub-genres that specify undefined attributes of a genre. For example, there are many types of
poetry, but each type of poem “inherits” the attributes of the poetry parent class. There are several types
of “child” verbs within the parent class of verbs. There are general characteristics of Latin American

221
 
Coding Across the Curriculum

cultures but many subcultures within the larger parent culture. Just like classes in OOP languages define
the attributes and potential behaviors of objects within that class, items are classified in subject areas
by their attributes and behaviors.

TEACHING SUBJECT AREAS THROUGH CODING

Just as content areas can be used to teach coding concepts, coding concepts can be used to teach content
areas. In fact, the website “<code_by_math/>” uses coding to teach math. Because so many coding
languages are rooted in English, Stevens and Verschoor argue that teaching coding leads to incidental
language learning for English Language Learners (2017). Just as learning another language teaches stu-
dents about the construction of their own native language, learning how to code can also help students
understand the syntax of their own language.
Using coding can help students understand how texts in various subject areas are “programmed”, how
to modify (mod) those texts by changing the “programming code”, and how to create texts in various
subject areas through using coding tools. Texts encompasses more than just words as maps, political
cartoons, graphs, and anything that carries meaning counts as a text. In fact, in one of my classes, a stu-
dent challenged this expansive definition of texts by arguing that snot cannot be a text. I retorted that at
a recent visit to see my sinus doctor, he asked me what color my nasal mucus was in order to “read”, or
make meaning, from my snot, thus my snot was operating as a text. “Coding” texts allows students to use
the building blocks of various subject areas to dissect, modify, and create their own content area texts.

Conditionals: Writing Content Area Texts as Code

Conditionals are statements that can either be true or false. In addition to being used to determine when
a loop stops running, they can also be used to create decision trees, or flowcharts. While pictorial flow-
charts follow certain conventions (ovals at the beginning and end, steps in rectangles, decisions are in
diamonds, directional arrows to indicate what is next depending on the decision made), you can also use
IF/THEN/ELSE statements to depict a decision-making process. Using Boolean logic by using AND,
OR, or NOT can add to the complexity of IF/THEN/ELSE statements. In addition, IF/THEN/ELSE state-
ments can be nested. For example, IF animal gives live birth AND nurses young, THEN print mammal,
ELSE (IF animal lays eggs AND has feathers, THEN print bird, ELSE (IF animal has six legs, THEN
print insect, ELSE print arachnid)). IF/THEN/ELSE statements can be used to boil historical thinking,
persuasive argumentation, and scientific hypothesis testing down to their essence.
Conditionals such as flowcharts and IF/THEN/ELSE statements can be useful in studying historical
events, the scientific method, and any process requiring decision-making. For example, students in a
Spanish class could create flowcharts to determine how to respond in the target language to different
situations or how to make decisions about where to travel and what to do in different cultures. In health
class, flowcharts can be used to depict medical decisions. In ELA, students could chart decisions made
by characters and how those decisions impact other characters and the direction of the plot. Conditionals
allow us to write down the code behind the WYSIWYG text.

222

Coding Across the Curriculum

Modifying Texts: Variables

Viewing variables as placeholders for data, we can apply variables to any subject. For example, the parts
of speech are variables. As such, diagramming sentences can be seen as dissecting a verbal expression. At
a more macro level, subject plus predicate equals a sentence. Inverting the typical order, or sequence, of
a sentence, in other words object plus noun plus verb instead of noun plus verb plus object, is a common
algorithm in Yodish, the language that Yoda speaks, and also in Shakespearean plays. Teaching students
to recognize the patterns first in Yodish and then in Shakespeare can help students decode Shakespear-
ean plays. The parts of a story are variables. In fact, a common assignment in ELA classes is to rewrite
a story by changing one of its variables, e.g. setting (time and/or place), ending, characters, plot order,
etc. West Side Story is a classic example of story, in this case Romeo and Juliet, with the variable setting
changed from the 1300s in Verona, Italy to 1950s Upper West Side of Manhattan, New York.
You can also argue that humans are variables as well, and often unpredictable ones. Variables vary
and humans can vary in their responses, particularly when making close decisions. Using “What if . . .”
scenarios is a key to counterfactual analysis in history. For example, what if the South had been allowed
to secede without a Civil War to contest its secession? What if the Supreme Court had ruled that Al
Gore should be president? Because flowcharts are decision trees and decisions are variables that can be
YES or NO, or TRUE or FALSE, or any other number of outcomes, systems diagrams which chart what
might happen when variables change can be useful to explore counterfactual analysis or any number of
possibilities in any field.

Creating Texts: Coding

Teaching a content area involves not only teaching students how to read the texts of that content area,
whether those texts be novels or mathematical expressions or graphs or political cartoons or chemical
equations, but also how to produce texts in that content area. Coding can be one way to do this. For ex-
ample, students in psychology can code programs like ELIZA, which fooled some people into thinking
they were interacting with a human by using algorithms to respond to people as a therapist might. English
teachers can use quasi-coding platforms like Twine to have students create branched narratives. Twine
describes itself as: “You don’t need to write any code to create a simple story with Twine, but you can
extend your stories with variables, conditional logic, images, CSS, and JavaScript when you’re ready.”
Graphing calculators have long been used to allow students to “program” math but other programs,
including spreadsheets, offer even more complex mathematical coding.
In any subject area, students can code video games about that subject (Kellinger, 2017). For example,
in Social Studies, major historical events such as wars can be coded as video games. In Science, biologi-
cal, physical, or chemical simulations can be coded. Students can code video games using math such
as probability. Students can code video games about literature where the player has to make decisions
as if they are the protagonist, or even the antagonist or sidekick. Indeed, the process of creating a video
game itself mirrors the writing process as students have to brainstorm, outline the game, tailor it to their
intended audience, debug or proofread the code, test it, and rewrite it.
Students do not have to have great technical skills to do so. Remember, our basic definition of cod-
ing as programming a decision tree. These student-designed video games can be no tech—for example,
different stacks of index cards where the first index card has a decision and tells the player which stack
to pull from next depending on the decision made, much like a Choose Your Own Adventure book which

223
 
Coding Across the Curriculum

directs readers to different pages depending on choices the reader makes. Students can also repurpose
software programs with which they are familiar to code subject area video games such as using a
spreadsheet program to code science or math simulations and powerpoint to create branched narratives
by using its internal linking capabilities which allow the designer to put in links that link to any slide in
the presentation, not just the next slide. Students can learn to code using block programming languages
such as Scratch, Tynker, or Blockly which have different blocks of code in different shapes so that only
the correct type of code can be inserted, much like Legos or chemical receptors, thus acting as their own
compilers by limiting what can be done by the coder to only what is grammatically possible. Many of these
block programming websites have pages devoted to student-created projects in different subject areas.

Programming Socio-Emotional Skills

While this chapter has focused on core subject areas such as English Language Arts, the sciences, social
studies, and math; some electives such as physical education, music, and the arts; as well as incorporat-
ing coding into the elementary school curriculum, there is one growing area of curricular need that cuts
across all aspects of life: socio-emotional learning (SEL). Because coding is about decision-making, it
promotes executive functioning skills such as breaking problems into smaller sub-problems, planning
ahead, making predictions, prioritizing tasks, problem-solving, and perseverance, and thus uses socio-
emotional skills. Debugging programs teaches students how to identify and troubleshoot problems, how
to learn from mistakes, and how to find workarounds. In the realm of computer programming, program-
mers do not work alone but rather work on pieces of code that are then compiled into one larger program.
This means that coders must communicate in order to ensure consistency across code and that all pieces
work together. The image of a lone coder is a myth. Teamwork is an essential coding skill.

HOW TO GET TEACHERS AND TEACHER EDUCATORS ON BOARD

In addition to the fact that most teachers do not have a background in computer science, there is the
“intimidation” factor of doing this work. However, teachers are experts in their content areas and, as
stated earlier, coders of learning. Teaching code literacy through content areas provides a comfort bridge
for teachers and brings teachers into the world of 21st century learning and working where not everyone
is expected to know everything. Instead, a synergistic “collective wisdom” is created, or rather “co-
created”, from putting many heads together (Jenkins, 2009). Karen Brennan calls on teachers to be open
to learning from students and allowing students to learn and solve their problems on their own instead
of feeling the need to constantly be the expert and the problem-solver:

Karen Brennan’s ScratchED is a community of learners and teachers who help each other overcome
such hurdles. She has studied the strategies of a subset of students who work on their own more than they
rely on support from the community to debug their programs. She uses that knowledge to help teachers
with “getting unstuck,” the term Brennan (2014) uses in her talk on the HarvardEducation YouTube
channel, where she assures teachers that “students don’t need you in the way you think they need you.
They don’t need you to solve every problem.” Instead teachers should “embrace the vulnerability of not
knowing” and let students understand the value of learning in collaboration with the teacher.” (Stevens
and Verschoor, 2017).

224

Coding Across the Curriculum

Inverting learner and teacher can create a collective intelligence that benefits us all and can be par-
ticularly useful when learning new technologies.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

When I was a high school English teacher, on career day students got a list of careers and their salary
ranges. I had one student who thought she was going to make a lot of money as a “computer program-
mer” because she knew how to use a spreadsheet as an end-user. Teachers have a responsibility to dis-
pel these kinds of misperceptions. Teaching students the basics of coding not only promotes a coding
mindset, but also shows them that there are people behind the curtain, reveals how their biases impact
technologies, and can lead to deeper understandings of the moral and ethical nature of coding. Even The
Wall Street Journal has promoted this misperception as they published an article titled, “Apollo 11 Had
a Hidden Hero: Software” which belies the fact that it is not the technology, but the people behind the
technology, that make it work. Understanding the nature of coding and how coding works is essential to
protect people from being manipulated whether that be by advertisers or by a hostile foreign government.
Being able to predict the logical consequences of actions, just as coders do, by exploring the “what ifs”
of life can save lives. People have died in a car crashes because a group of teenagers thought it would
be funny if they removed stop signs at an intersection without thinking about what would happen when
two cars arrive at that intersection at the same time. While this is not small scale to those people and
their families, scaling up to the potential consequences of not thinking about the human costs of deci-
sions can do serious damage. Promoting a coding mindset is a literacy that cuts across all content areas,
is essential in a world of increasing technological invention, and is needed in an age when we are facing
many difficult challenges that require diverse and creative solutions.

REFERENCES

Berdick, C. (2015). Reading, writing, ’arithmetic, ’programming: Should every school class be a com-
puter coding class? Slate. Retrieved from https://slate.com/technology/2015/04/building-coding-into-
art-english-and-history-classes.html
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belkapp Press.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Occupational Outlook Handbook, Software
Developers. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-
developers.htm
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Dewey, C. (2014). The only guide to gamergate you will ever need. The Washington Post. Retrieved
from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/14/the-only-guide-to-gamergate-
you-will-ever-need-to-read/

225
 
Coding Across the Curriculum

Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of a participatory culture: Media education for the 21st
century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/8435.001.0001
Kellinger, J. (2017). A guide to designing curricular games: How to “game” the system. Cham, Swit-
zerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42393-7
Lee, C. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving
students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97–141. doi:10.3102/00028312038001097
Morais, B. (2015). Can an English teacher learn to code? The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.
newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/can-an-english-teacher-learn-to-code
Myers, B. (2018). Women and minorities in tech, by the numbers. WIRED. Retrieved from https://www.
wired.com/story/computer-science-graduates-diversity/
Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how
we think. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Rushkoff, D. (2010). Program or be programmed. Ten commands for a digital age. Berkeley, CA: Soft
Skull Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt207g7rj
Rushkoff, D. (2012). Code literacy: A 21st century requirement. Edutopia. Retrieved from https://www.
edutopia.org/blog/code-literacy-21st-century-requirement-douglas-rushkoff
Simonite, T. (2019). The best algorithms struggle to recognize black faces equally. WIRED. Retrieved
from https://www.wired.com/story/best-algorithms-struggle-recognize-black-faces-equally/
Stevens, V., & Verschoor, J. (2017). Coding and English language teaching. The Electronic Journal for
Teaching English as a Second Language, 21(2), 1–15.

ADDITIONAL READING

Bergin, J., Stehlik, M., Roberts, J., & Pattis, R. (1997). Karel++: A gentle introduction to the art of
object-oriented programming. Hoboken, NH: John Wiley & Sons.
Bonfiglio, C. (2018). Coding for kindergarten: 5 basic coding concepts 5-year olds can understand.
Teach Your Kids Code. from https://teachyourkidscode.com/coding-for-kindergarten-5-basic-coding-
concepts-5-year-olds-can-understand/
Card, O. S. (1985). Ender’s game. New York, NY: Tor Books.
Choudhary, P. K. (2016). Types of relationships in object-oriented programming. C#corner. Retrieved from
https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/article/types-of-relationships-in- object-oriented-programming-oops/
Denning, P. J., & Tedre, M. (2019). Computational Thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi:10.7551/
mitpress/11740.001.0001
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K–12: A Review of the state of the field.
Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. doi:10.3102/0013189X12463051

226

Coding Across the Curriculum

Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Murray, J. (1998). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Newton, D. (2019). The way we teach kids to code may be wrong. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.
com/sites/dereknewton/2019/09/11/the-way-we-teach-kids-to-code- may-be-wrong/#358469bf5c75
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Petkov, A. (2018). How to explain object-oriented programming to a six-year old. Free Code Camp. Re-
trieved from https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/object-oriented-programming-concepts-21bb035f7260/
Roland, J. (2013). Integrating programming with core curriculum. THE Journal. Retrieved from https://
thejournal.com/articles/2013/10/03/integrating-programming-with-core-curriculum.aspx?=THEEL
Sweeney, L. B. (2001). When a butterfly sneezes: A guide for helping kids explore interconnections in
our world through favorite stories. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications, Inc.
Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Wing, J. (2006). Computational Thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
doi:10.1145/1118178.1118215

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Algorithm: A sequence of steps that produce a result.

Boolean Logic: Boolean logic uses operators such as AND, OR, and NOT to define certain condi-
tions to determine if something is true or false.
Computational Thinking: A way of approaching problems and situations using logical skills often
employed in computer programming.
Conditional Statements: Conditional statements determine what subsequent actions should take
place depending on whether or not a condition is true or false often by using an IF/THEN/ELSE structure.
Functions: Functions are segments of code that are given a label so that label can be used to execute
that segment of code without having to rewrite the code. Functions often use variables so that function
can be applied to more than one situation.
Inheritance: An object in object-oriented programming can be classified as a type of a class and
thus “inherit” the features of that class.
Looping: In coding, any pattern that repeats itself.
Object-Oriented Programming (OOP): Any computer program that defines objects and their
relationships to other objects.
Variables: Variables are placeholders for data.

227
228

Chapter 13
Strategies for Improving and
Modeling Digital Technology
and Literacy Integration
Wykeshia W. Glass
North Carolina Central University, USA

Desiree G. Hickman
Jackson State University, USA

ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on the suggestions and strategies of technology being utilized in classroom settings.
An emphasis is placed on digital technology and literacy integration. The authors explore the effective-
ness of digital technology and literacy integration and identify external and internal factors limiting
technology integration commonly found within a typical PreK-12th grade classroom setting. In addition
to the authors discussing factors that limit school’s integration, the authors provide solutions and recom-
mendations suggesting resources throughout the chapter to improve and model digital technology and
literacy integration in the classroom.

INTRODUCTION

Many teachers recognize that literacy education is crucial to student success. School education in to-
day’s society is expected to equip students with both domain knowledge and the twenty-first century
skills in order to meet the requirements of a vigorously changing society (Chan, 2010; Gut, 2011). The
emergence and rapid development of digital technologies have prompted significant changes in how
human beings operate, communicate, and interact with one another on a daily basis (Mishra & Koehler,
2006). This fast-paced evolution and advancement of digital technologies has permeated schools and
classrooms around the United States in recent years and how children are growing up in a world that is
progressively commanded by computerized environments (McKenna, Conradi, Young, & Jang, 2013).
These changes have prompted educators and policymakers to re-examine teaching and learning in the

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch013

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration

21st Century (Collins & Halverson, 2009) as children must become proficient in accessing, analyzing,
evaluating, and producing information in both digitized and non-digitized settings (McKenna et al.,
2013). As a result, teachers are being pushed to better prepare students to be college and career ready
with a new set of digital literacy skills, but one of the problems of technology integration in the class-
room is that teachers often do not have sufficient experience in learning and integrating technology
into their classrooms. Hew and Brush (2007) indicated that lack of instruction in programs to prepare
and encourage teacher candidates to learn and use technology in their classrooms is an important factor
that reduces technology integration skills of future teachers. The National Council for Accreditation of
Teacher Education (NCATE) (2010) reported that several teaching institutions were not fully meeting
their responsibility for preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use technology. In addition, only a few teacher
preparation programs provided sufficient knowledge and opportunities for their candidates to learn and
practice integrating technology into their teaching. Most teacher candidates have little technical and
pedagogical knowledge; therefore, have little insight in how to integrate technology into their teach-
ing (Recesso, Wiles, Venn, Campbell, & Padilla, 2002; Willis, 2007). With our increasing reliance on
technology in all aspects of life, it is important for students to develop digital literacy competencies to
be successful in school, productive employees, and empowered citizens in a global world (Kay, 2010,
Hobbs, 2010). Teachers can help by learning how to effectively integrate technology into their practice.
Several ways to enhance teaching and learning in the classroom can assist in the delivery of instructions,
professional growth and/or administrative tasks, and for student learning and collaboration. Throughout
this chapter we seek to provide information on the strategies and suggestions of digital technology and
literacy integration in classroom settings.

TECHNOLOGY AND 21ST CENTURY EDUCATION

Today’s students are growing up in a world where technology is an inescapable key component of daily
life (Ito et al., 2008; Lee & Spires, 2009). According to Newbill and Baum (2013), the way the world
works is being revolutionized by technology. By today’s standards, technology envelops the future for
which schools are charged with preparing their students (Ritzhaupt et al., 2012). With the advance-
ment of technology into mainstream life, technology integration has rapidly become a driving force in
education (Dougherty, 2012; Lowther, Ian, Strahl, & Ross, 2008; Project Tomorrow, 2012). Because
education coexists on a socio-cultural level, there is an expectation and necessity for education to ad-
just to the emergent needs of the progressively digital public (Franciosi, 2012; Jenkin, 2009). Current
research reported implementing computer technology at the classroom level remained top priority of
educational administrators (Crook, 2012; Ian & Lowther, 2009; Kurt, 2013); meanwhile, additional
research reports numerous schools are actively engaged in the integration of technology into the cur-
riculum (Cakir, 2012; Iscioglu, 2011; Lei, 2009). Educational administrators recognize the evolution
of technological integration as a logical step toward educational reform (Berrett, Murphy, & Sullivan,
2012) because students are now born into our currently and rapidly advancing digital world. Researchers
have reported low levels of technology integration and irregular intervals with integration (Gumbo et
al., 2012; McGarr, 2009; Pan & Franklin, 2011; Ritzhaupt et al., 2012). Researchers have advised that
schools are purchasing devices and placing technology equipment in classrooms, libraries, and labs (Ian
& Lowther, 2009: Iscioglu, 2011; Ritzhaupt et al., 2012); nonetheless, teachers are reporting a shortfall

229
 
Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration

in training and lack of competency in using current educational technology (Kusano et al., 2013; Potter
& Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Rana 2012).
Al-Musawi (2011) indicated that technology is changing our ways of learning and has become a critical
component of the educational experience. In the 21st century, technology has become an important part
of learning and teaching in the classroom setting. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, also known as
P21, provides a framework of holistic views in terms of learning and teaching that is needed to thrive in
today’s global economy. In terms of learning, P21 (2011) indicated four essential skills learners in the
21st century need to achieve to be successful in their lives: critical thinking, communication, collabora-
tion, and creativity. The P21 (2011) organization is providing resources and guidance for developing
learning and teaching in the 21st century and indicated that technology is a critical part of learning and
teaching to help learners with essential 21st century skills. In terms of teaching, P21 (2011) pointed out
that technology is an important tool for enhancing learning in the 21st century. The organization sug-
gested that curriculum and instruction in 21st century education should encourage teachers to integrate
supportive technologies to enhance learning, use inquiry and problem–based approaches to strengthen
thinking skills, and also include resources outside the classroom to encourage making connections between
knowledge learned and the community and everyday living. Professional development is an important
aspect for preparing teachers for teaching in the 21st century. The P21 (2011) organization stated that
providing opportunities for teachers to learn and practice integrating 21st century skills, tools, and teach-
ing strategies into their instruction is a useful approach and suggested an instruction curriculum for a
teacher preparation program should balance direct instruction with project– oriented teaching methods.
Furthermore, the curriculum should encourage teachers and preservice teachers to gain experience with
various strategies to reach diverse learners and create a motivated learning environment. In terms of
technology, P21 (2011) pointed out teacher preparation programs should help preservice teachers gain
sufficient technological knowledge. As Smith and Owens (2010) stated, technology becomes an effec-
tive learning tool when teachers have sufficient knowledge and become familiar in using technology. It
is important to not only help teachers and preservice teachers to use technological tools effectively, but
also focus on supporting them in using technology as a tool for motivating learning (McEwen, 2008).
Okojie, Olinzock, and Okojie-Boulder (2006) defined technology in education as a technical device
or tool to enhance instruction and technology integration and a process of using existing tools, equip-
ment, and electronic media for that purpose. When learning and teaching is taking place in classrooms
several types of technologies should be available and widely used. Means (1994) classified technologies
based on their roles in education: tutor, exploration, tool, and communication.

Tutor

Technology used as a tutor refers to the technology teachers’ use for providing information, demonstra-
tion, or simulations within a specific lesson or piece of material. Computer–assisted instruction is an
example and is defined as the use of instructional material for presenting information, filling a tutorial
role, or testing learners for comprehension (“Computer–Assisted Instruction,” 2009). In the 21st century,
computer–assisted instruction is widely used in elementary and secondary school computer laboratories
and in college distance education programs (Kridel, 2010). When thinking about various computer-
assisted instruction technologies one must consider games, tutorials, and simulations to enhance learning.

230

Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration

Exploration

When we use technology for exploration it is typically referred to as open-ended learning facilitated by
teachers. In classroom settings, instructors use technology exploration to help learners discover a fact or
demonstrate procedures within a specific content area, such as laboratory tools or a multimedia system.

Tool

When referring to technology being used as a tool for academia, it alludes to teachers using technology
for accomplishing a task, storing data, or data analysis, such as word processing, desktop publishing
systems, video recordings, or editing. Computer managed instruction is an example of this type of tech-
nology used for branching, storing, and retrieval capabilities to save instructions and maintain tracking
of student progress and records.

Communication

Technology can be used as a tool for effective and efficient communication when teachers want to cre-
ate a sense of community within classrooms. This aids in increasing interaction and collaboration, and
encouraging learners and instructors to exchange information with each other. Communication mediated
by an electronic device increases engagement and interaction between learners and teachers. There are
two types of commonly defined computer mediated within education: asynchronous and synchronous
technologies. Asynchronous technologies allow learners and instructors to share their thoughts at differ-
ent times; therefore, they have the freedom to respond and interact with each other at a time and place
they prefer. In contrast, synchronous communication technologies requires learners and instructors to
collaborate and share their thoughts at the same time; thus, learners and instructors need to be available
at the same time or the same place to interact and discuss with each other (Serce et al., 2010).
While technology is an important tool for enhancing learning and teaching in the 21st century, tech-
nology integration is important for teachers to recognize, as well. Technology integration can be defined
as the combination of goals of curriculum with technology (Dockstader, 1999); it can be described as a
process of using existing tools, equipment, and electronic media for that purpose (Okojie et al., 2006).
Technology integration can also be referred to the use of various types of technology to support meaning-
ful learning in classroom settings. It is a skill that includes teacher motivation, perceptions, and beliefs
about learning and technology (Keengwe et al., 2009). Technology integration is an important aspect
for learning and considered part of the instructional preparation process (Okojie et al., 2006).

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY AND LITERACY INTEGRATION IN CLASSROOMS

Over the past few years, technology has become a major tool used in just about every career field and has
provided educators with a valuable resource to support teaching and learning (Mac Callum, Jeffrey, &
Kinshuk, 2014). Today’s students are extremely tech savvy. It’s more common than not to find a student
plugged into some form of technology. Their day-to-day lives include some type of digital device; they
were born into the age of mobile phones, iPads, smart TV’s and watches. Finding any type of informa-
tion for them is only a simple click away. Schools now have a responsibility to integrate technology into

231
 
Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration

the curriculum and prepare students for 21st Century skills and careers (Cakir, 2012; Luterberbach and
Brown, 2011). The days of students sitting in rows and receiving whole group instruction is no longer
adequate. Schools must incorporate some form of technology to engage students during instruction.
Technology is an essential life skill in the workforce. Students who are technologically savvy often
have a better chance of getting a job and excelling in their careers (Savage & Brown, 2014). However,
the task of integrating technology into classroom instruction in a meaningful and state-of-the-art way
remains challenging (Pittman & Gaines, 2015). “There is a general agreement among leaders in the field
of educational technology that, due to a variety of barriers, teachers often fail to capitalize on the educa-
tional potential offered by technology resources” (Brinkerhoff, 2006, p. 22). Many districts provide their
schools with access to technology initiatives; there are numerous circumstances that affect the proper
implementation of technology in classrooms. The factors are both internal and external. Some of the
external factors include poor infrastructure, inadequate technology and the lack of effective professional
development. The internal factors include may consist of low teacher self-efficacy and teacher percep-
tions. Technology integration is imperative to schools creating global graduates that have the ability to
compete in this society. Integration of instructional technologies must be seen as an ongoing innovative
process designed to meet the instructional needs of teachers and the learning needs of students (Robey,
1992, as cited by Earle, 2002). Additionally, it is crucial from an instructional standpoint to remember
that the integration of technology is not at all about the technology itself, but it is about the content and
instructional practices that can flourish as a result of their merger with appropriate technologies (Earle,
2002).

EXTERNAL FACTORS LIMITING TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION

Poor Infrastructure

There is a new wave of instruction underway in K-12 learning, as school districts and boards adopt a
more relatable style of classroom and pedagogy that is appropriate for the 21st century student. School
districts partner with network and security vendors that prepare classrooms for advancement. Although
these relationships are built to advance schools, many overlook infrastructure when making the decision
to purchase digital tools and their implementation in the learning environment. Collaborative class-
rooms require not only furniture grouped to facilitate clusters of learners, but also a strong Wi-Fi signal
that assures students of anywhere, anytime connectivity for a range of devices (Build the 21st Century
Classroom, 2018). Wi-Fi connections and internet access can be affected by infrastructure. Older and
rural schools must ensure that their buildings have adequate power to support the technology needed.
Only 68% of students say they have Wi-Fi access at school (Pearson, 2015). It is critical for districts to
partner with businesses that are knowledgeable in supporting the needs of their schools.

232

Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration

Inadequate Technology

Technology integration in classrooms serves both constructivist and socio-cultural principles. Construc-
tivists believe learners create knowledge based on happenings alongside interactions in their environ-
ment. Students build from their schema, which is highly dependent on content relevance and activities
related to their own lives. From a socio-cultural perspective, technology provides the platform, and the
tools to engage via numerous media with other individuals and groups beyond the immediate reach of
the learner (Pittman & Gaines, 2015). There is an obvious need for students to be prepared to use tech-
nology. In 2013, 71 percent of the US population age 3 and older used the Internet (Snyder, de Brey, &
Dillow, 2016). However, due to limited funds and budgets schools don’t have the resources to provide
adequate technology for every student. In the Student Mobile Device Survey National Report: Students
Grades 4-12 conducted by Pearson (2015) found that 14% of elementary students attend a school with a
1:1 initiative. However, most students’ access to technology is through a computer lab (37%) or shared
in a classroom (33%). Sixty-two percent of students want to use technology more in the classroom, but
the reality is that the resources are just not available. In schools that implement Bring Your Own Device
(BYOD), it is assumed students will have the devices to fill in gaps where schools lack the resources.
However, only 8% (elementary) and 13% (middle and high) school students bring their own devices to
school for personal use. The opportunity to engage broadly and deeply with virtual environments made
possible by technology continues to lag in education. The practical applications for learners as they
create knowledge for themselves are numerous and growing, as can be evidenced by a simple Internet
search on the subject. As districts continually move toward 21st-century classrooms, it is important to
bridge the gap between utilization and adequate resources.

Lack of Sufficient Effective Professional Development

Although some schools are privy to adequate technology access, effective and professional development
remains as one of the most highly ranked reasons that make it difficult to increase the level of technology
integration in classrooms. However, schools are providing technology-related professional development.
Recent federal legislation and funding initiatives have focused on the provision of professional develop-
ment for in-service teachers as a vehicle for changing teacher practice and improving student achievement.
Professional development is critical to ensuring that teachers keep up with changes in statewide student
performance standards, become familiar with new methods of teaching in the content areas, learn how
to make the most effective instructional use of new technologies for teaching and learning, and adapt
their teaching to shifting school environments and an increasingly diverse student population (Lawless
& Pelligrino, 2007, p. 575). Butler and Sellbom (2002) conducted a study, which sought to identify the
major factors affecting the adoption of instructional technology. They found that “not all faculty are in-
novators when it comes to technology” (p. 25) and that technology staff would need to provide training
to “help faculty determine if learning and using technology are really worth it” (p. 27). Other research
has shown that “wise use of technology takes adequate training, time, planning, support, and teacher
ownership” (Viadero, 1997, p. 16, as cited by Earle, 2002, p. 7) and that the “extent to which teachers
are given time and access to pertinent training to use computers to support learning plays a major role
in determining whether or not technology has a positive impact on student achievement” (Valdez et al.,
2000, p. 6).

233
 
Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration

INTERNAL FACTORS THAT LIMIT TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION

Low Self-Efficacy

The theory of self-efficacy is “that people process, weigh, and integrate diverse sources of information
concerning their capability, and they regulate their choice behavior and effort expenditure according
to that information” (Bandura, 1977). It is an essential concept of Bandura’s social cognitive theory
(1977) that affects how you choose to interact with society and your surroundings. Wang, Ertmer, and
Newby (2004) also concluded, “self-efficacy beliefs do not automatically translate into the actual use of
technology among teachers, they are a necessary condition for technology integration” (p. 242). Stud-
ies have identified technology self-efficacy as a barrier to technology integration, but the relationship
of a teacher’s self-efficacy beliefs and classroom technology integration requires further investigation
(Ertmer, 2005). Additionally, “it is necessary to move beyond examining usage patterns and general
attitudes toward technology in education and toward a better understanding of how self-efficacy beliefs
emerge and what factors will influence these beliefs (Abbitt & Klett, 2007, p. 36). With improving
student’s success, it is imperative that digital classrooms, in which, involve many technological devices
be embedded into school systems.

Teacher Perceptions

Teachers are typically viewed as hesitant users of technology despite the increasing access to advancing
technology. Seasoned teachers are accustomed to the old standard which can create frustration when trying
to shift to a new paradigm leading them to stray away from the use of 21st-century technological devices.
This is consistent with other research that found teacher’s readiness, or lack thereof, had the highest total
effect on whether teachers integrated technology in their classrooms (Inan & Lowther, 2009). Teachers
who are digitally literate, able to understand and use information from a variety of digital sources, will
be the ones who integrate technology into their classroom settings. They perceive the effort needed to
learn the new technology and practicality or value of it as a significant consideration in whether they
use it or not (Mac Callum, Jeffrey, & Kinshuk, 2014). Teachers also perceive technology integration
negatively due to the amount of time it takes to integrate into the curriculum through additional training
and planning. Technology integration requires preparation, classroom management practices, and de-
mands attention that is not normally spent in those areas. It is easier to just remain with the “status quo.”
The integration of technology in the classroom is a multifarious process. One of the greatest challenges
for teachers is the link between educational technology innovations, promising practices for teaching
and learning and integrating technology with increases in student achievement (Middleton & Murray,
1999). Successful student-use of technology in education hinges on knowing how to manage technology
efficiently and overcoming barriers that come with integrating technology. As schools are moving toward
college and career readiness, it is imperative that districts address these barriers, and include them in the
process when developing technology plans for new investments and expansions. As society continues to
grow in its use of technology for social reasons it is expected that education will continue to grow in the
usage of such tools as well. Addressing these barriers is a step in a positive direction in closing this gap.

234

Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In order to meet students where they are, it becomes increasingly important for educators to tap into
students‘ digital world and engage them through one of the numerous technologies available to them
(U.S. Department of Education, 2010). In some areas of the world, school districts may not have access
to such resources, but more and more school districts are seeing the value in finding ways to incorporate
these technologies into their budgets because of the potential positive effects such resources have on
student engagement (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). However, with respect to school districts
that have these resources, there are still computer labs going unused throughout the school year, LCD
projectors and wireless laptop carts that never leave their media storage closets, and other available digital
software that go unnoticed (Littrell, Zagumny, & Zagumny, 2005). Using technology for instructional
purposes may have widespread, positive effects on students as various technologies offer relevant and
engaging opportunities for meaningful learning experiences (Shell et al., 2005). Below we will discuss
foundational literacy and intervention programs that have proven to provide students with meaningful
learning opportunities in classroom settings.

PREK-ELEMENTARY FOUNDATIONAL LITERACY

AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

ABC Mouse is a digital Comprehensive Early Learning Program in which specific learning activities
can be assigned to students based on appropriate learning goals (“ABC Mouse,” n.d.).

• ABC Mouse provides schools with online webinars and digital support for effective and efficient
classroom implementation (“ABC Mouse,” n.d.);
• Students are progress monitored and assessed as they complete instructional modules (“ABC
Mouse,” n.d.);
• The Step-by-Step Learning Path presents the full curriculum in a strategically designed program
of more than 450 lessons in six levels. As a student completes each lesson, he or she is guided to
the next one and is motivated to continue learning (“ABC Mouse,” n.d.).

Renaissance Learning is a technology based educational programs for PK-12th-grade students

in which is designed to assess, monitor, supplement, and enhance traditional classroom activities and
lessons (Meador, 2016). Renaissance’s high-quality professional development is designed to help you:

• Implement program with quality and fidelity

◦◦ Selecting the right solutions for your school or district is only the first step. Implementing
those solutions with quality and fidelity is the essential next step. In fact, a review of 500
studies found a significantly greater effect on student learning with high-fidelity implementa-
tions than with poor implementations (Durlak & DuPre, 2008).
• Support teachers and staff at all levels, from novice to experienced (Renaissance, 2015)
• Achieve your school or district goals; aligned with the Common Core Standards (Renaissance,
2015)
• Connect your student data to instruction to boost growth and achievement (Renaissance, 2015)

235
 
Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration

• Build your teachers’ capacity to help them grow in their profession (Renaissance, 2015)
◦◦ Our professional development is rooted in adult learning strategies, with a job-embedded,
sustained, and ongoing approach that employs a cycle of knowing, doing, and achieving to
close the gap between learning a new strategy and applying it effectively—all while using
data to fuel the cycle (Renaissance, 2015)

MIDDLE/HIGH SCHOOL FOUNDATIONAL LITERACY

AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

Edgenuity is a supplemental program designed to meet students where they are in reading and math and
give them exactly what they need to catch up, keep up, or get ahead. Through assessments, individualized
learning paths, and detailed reports, Edgenuity provides students with age-appropriate online lessons
and gives educators the ability to monitor academic progress easily (“Edgenuity Supporting Personal-
ized Learning,” n.d.) Researchers have pinpointed five hallmarks of effective personalized learning
environments:

• Effective personalized learning environments use initial and ongoing assessments and real time
feedback to inform instruction (“Edgenuity Supporting Personalized Learning,” n.d.);
• Effective personalized learning environments offer customized learning paths based on students’
ability profiles (“Edgenuity Supporting Personalized Learning,” n.d.);
• Effective personalized learning environments provide explicit instruction to help students solidify
concepts and skills (“Edgenuity Supporting Personalized Learning,” n.d.);
• Effective personalized learning environments make instruction accessible for all (“Edgenuity
Supporting Personalized Learning,” n.d.);
• Effective personalized learning environments engage students in interactive activities that pro-
mote critical thinking and learning transfer (“Edgenuity Supporting Personalized Learning,” n.d.)

COLLEGIATE FOUNDATIONAL LITERACY AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM

Digital Literacy Course in today’s society has the potential to be a powerful tool for improving access
to learning for adult learners in classroom settings. According to two recent studies, there is increasing
demand for education technology among adult education program administrators and educators (Partners,
2015). Below we will discuss four factors that contribute to effective implementation of technology and
ways to help realize the potential to provide a quality learning experience for adult learners.

236

Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration

Support Multiple Implementation Models

• When incorporating technology into the learning experience, its imperative to consider whether
the new technology product or tool supports the learning needs (Constantakis, 2016)

Use Data

• Today’s technology products have built in mechanisms that collect a wealth of information on a
learner’s use. Such data can help educators understand how to target and personalize instruction,
and it can help program administrators and instructors understand which products are working
effectively and which are not (Constantakis, 2016).

Support a Rich Technology Infrastructure

• The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Technology lays out four components
to having a robust and flexible infrastructure that supports rich, personalized learning experiences.
In their definition, learners should have persistent connectivity and access to the internet, power-
ful learning devices, high quality digital learning content, and responsible use policies/practices
(Constantakis, 2016)

Support the Evolving Role of the Instructor

• As technology is further adopted in adult education, the role of the instructor will evolve. Educators
in innovative K-12 and postsecondary classrooms have transitioned from being providers of in-
formation and personalizing based on a growing understanding of their students’ needs. This shift
from teacher-centered learning in which the teacher directs the student’s learning through plan-
ning and orderly lessons to student-centered learning in which the student participates in their own
learning process is key to improving support for adult learners (Constantakis, 2016)

CONCLUSION

The integration of digital technology and literacy in classrooms and pre-service learning is no longer a
“futuristic” idea. We are now living in the age of technology. It is time for digital technology and literacy
integration to move beyond the “novel” idea. The field of education is embarking on this exciting new
frontier, and there will be many lessons to learn about effective implementation along the way. Every
stakeholder in education must be willing to embrace and explore new technologies and make a commit-
ment to further developing and advancing their technological skills. Educators should be active partici-
pants in developing the ways that technology can revolutionize effective teaching and learning in a 21st
Century classroom. Technology must become so conventional that it is viewed as a natural part of the
classroom environment. Once districts equip classrooms and teachers with the proper tools to integrate
technology effectively and efficiently allows for us to produce students who are able to compete globally.

237
 
Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration

REFERENCES

Abbitt, J. T., & Klett, M. D. (2007). Identifying influences on attitudes and self-efficacy. Academic Press.
ABCmouse.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.abcmouse.com/programorverview
Al-Musawi, A. S. (2011). Redefining technology role in education. Creative Education, 2(2), 130–135.
doi:10.4236/ce.2011.22018
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84(2), 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 PMID:847061
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational
Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. doi:10.120715326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (2004). Article. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp.
71–81). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Berrett, B., Murphy, J., & Sullivan, J. (2012). Administrator insights and reflections: Technology inte-
gration in schools. Qualitative Report, 17(1), 200–221. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ973041.pdf
Booth, J. (2008). The influence of professional development in technology integration on teacher pedagogy
and student engagement in fourth and fifth grade elementary classrooms in an urban elementary school
in the northeast (Order No. 3315153). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The
Humanities and Social Sciences Collection. (230711652). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.gardnerwebb.
edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/23
Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology
skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. International Society
for Technology in Education, 39(1), 22-43. Retrieved from www.iste.org/jrte
Build the 21st century classroom infrastructure. (2018). T H E Journal, 45(2), 11-12.
Butler, D., & Sellbom, M. (2002). Barriers to Adopting Technology for Teaching and Learning. Educa-
tion Quarterly, 25(2), 22–28.
Cakir, R. (2012). Technology integration and technology leadership in schools as learning organizations.
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology
CAST. (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, Version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
Chan, T. W. (2010). How East Asian classrooms may change over the next 20 years. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 26(1), 28–52. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00342.x
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolu-
tion and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Computer-assisted instruction. (2009). In Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://www.
credoreference.com.source.unco.edu/entry/ebconcise /computer_assisted_intruction

238

Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration

Constantakis, P. (2016). Integrating Digital Tools for Adult Learners: Four Critical Factors. Retrieved
from https://digitalpromise.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/03/dp-integrating_digital_tools.pdf
Cox, S., & Graham, C. (2009). An Elaborated Model of the TPACK Framework. In Proceedings of
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009. Retrieved
from http://www.editlib.org/p/31291
Crook, C. (2012). The “digital native” in context: Tensions associated with importing web 2.0 practices
into the school setting. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 63–80. doi:10.1080/03054985.2011.577946
Dockstader, J. (1999). Teachers of the 21st century know the what, why, and how of technology integra-
tion. Technological Horizons in Education, 26(6), 73–75.
Dougherty, K. J. (2012). Transforming teaching and learning through the virtual classroom. The College
Quarterly, 15(4).
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of
implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 41(3-4), 327–350. doi:10.100710464-008-9165-0 PMID:18322790
Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and
challenges. ET Magazine, 42(1), 5–13.
Edgenuity Supporting Personalized Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.edgenuity.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/Edgenuity-Supporting- Personalized-Learning.pdf
Edutopia. (2014). What is successful technology integration? Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/
technology-integration-guide-description
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology
integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. doi:10.1007/BF02299597
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology inte-
gration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39. doi:10.1007/BF02504683
Franciosi, S. J. (2012). Transformational leadership for education in a digital culture. Digital Culture &
Education, 4(2), 235–247. Retrieved from http://www.digitalcultureandeducation.com/uncategorized/
dce_4001_franciosi/
Gumbo, M., Makgato, M., & Müller, H. (2012). The impact of in-service technology training programs
on technology teachers. Journal of Technology Studies, 38(1), 23–33. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.
vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v38/v38n1/pdf/gumbo.pdf
Gut, D. M. (2011). Integrating 21st century skills into the curriculum. In G. Wan & D. M. Gut
(Eds.), Bringing schools into the 21st Century (pp. 137–157). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0268-4_7
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowl-
edge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development,
55(3), 223–252. doi:10.100711423-006-9022-5

239
 
Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration

Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. Aspen Institute Communications and
Society Program.
Inan, F. & Lowther, D. (2009). Factors affecting technology integration in k-12 classrooms: A path model.
Education Tech Research Development, 58, 137-154. doi:10.100711423- 009-9132-y
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A
path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154. doi:10.100711423-
009-9132-y
Iscioglu, E. (2011). Perceived computer self-efficacy of secondary education teachers. The New Edu-
cational Review, 23(1), 189–198. Retrieved from http://www.educationalrev.us.edu.pl/vol/tner_1_2011.
pdf#page=154
Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittani, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P., & Tripp, L. (2008). Living and
learning with new media: Summary of findings from the digital youth project. Retrieved from http://
digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/files/report/digitalyouth-WhitePaper.pdf
Jenkin, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st
century. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/8435.001.0001
Kay, K. (2010). 21st century skills: Why they matter, what they are, and how we get there. In J. Bellanca
& R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. xiii - xxxi). Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2009). Computer technology integration and student learning:
Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 560–565. doi:10.100710956-
008-9123-5
Koehler, M. (2013). Technological pedagogical and content knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.
tpack.org/
Kridel, C. (Ed.). (2010). Encyclopedia of curriculum studies (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
doi:10.4135/9781412958806
Kurt, S. (2013). Creating technology-enriched classrooms: Implementation challenges in Turkish educa-
tion. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(1), 1–17. doi:10.1080/17439884.2013.776077
Kusano, K., Frederiksen, S., Jones, L., Kobayashi, M., Mukoyama, Y., Yamagishi, T., & Ishizuka, H.
(2013). The effects of ICT environment on teachers’ attitudes and technology integration in Japan and
the U. S. Journal of Information Technology Education, 12(1), 29–43. Retrieved from http://www.
editlib.org/p/111684/
Lai, M. K., & Schildkamp, K. (2012). Data-based decision-making: An overview. In K. Schildkamp, M.
K. Lai, & L. Earl (Eds.), Data-Driven Decision-Making Around the World: Challenges and Opportuni-
ties (pp. 9-21). Springer.
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into
teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of
Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614. doi:10.3102/0034654307309921

240

Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration

Lee, J., & Spires, H. (2009). What students think about technology and academic engagement in school:
Implications for middle grades teaching and learning. AACE Journal, 17(2), 61–81. Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org/p/27007/
Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed? Journal
of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87–97. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ835233.pdf
Lewthwaite, S. (2011). Critical approaches to accessibility for technology‐enhanced learning. Learning,
Media and Technology, 36(1), 85–89. doi:10.1080/17439884.2010.529915
Littrell, A., Zagumny, M., & Zagumny, L. (2005). Contextual and psychological predictors of instruc-
tional technology use in rural classrooms. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(2), 37–47.
Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Strahl, D. J., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology integration “work” when key
barriers are removed? Educational Media International, 45(3), 195–213. doi:10.1080/09523980802284317
Luterbach, K. J., & Brown, C. (2011). Education for the 21-st century. International Journal of Applied
Educational Studies, 10(2), 14–32.
Mac Callum, K., Jeffrey, L., & Na, K. (2014). Factors impacting teachers’ adoption of mobile learning.
Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13, 141–162. doi:10.28945/1970
McEwen, B. C. (2008). Preparing teachers for the 21st century classroom. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal,
L(10), 1–3.
McGarr, O. (2009). Education for sustainable development in technology education in Irish schools:
A curriculum analysis. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(3), 317–332.
doi:10.100710798-009-9087-7
McKenna, M. C., Conradi, K., Young, C. A., & Jang, B. G. (2013). Technology and the common core
standards. In L. M. Morrow, T. Shanahan, & K. K. Wixson (Eds.), Teaching with the common core
standards for English language arts, PreK–2 (pp. 152–169). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Meador, D. (2016). An Overview of Renaissance Learning Programs. Retrieved from https://www.
thoughtco.com/overview-of-renaissance-learning-programs-3194778
Means, B. (1994). Introduction: Using technology to advance educational goals. In B. Means (Ed.), Tech-
nology and education reform: The reality behind the promise (pp. 1–22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Middleton, B. M., & Murray, R. K. (1999). The impact of instructional technology on student academic
achievement in reading and mathematics. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(1), 109.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
National Council for Accreditation for Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming Teacher Education
Through Clinical Practice: A National strategy to prepare effective teachers. Report of the Blue Ribbon
Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for improved student learning. Author.

241
 
Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration

National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and
skills in the 21st century. Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, James Pel-
legrino and Margaret L. Hilton, eds. Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education,
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
Newbill, P., & Baum, L. (2013). Design Creativity. Learning and Leading with Technology, 41(4), 17–19.
Retrieved from http://www.learningandleadingdigital.com/learning_leading/201212#pg19
Oblinger, D. (2004). The Next Generation of Educational Engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in
Education, 8, 1–18.
Okojie, M. C. P. O., Olinzock, A. A., & Okojie-Boulder, T. C. (2006). The pedagogy of technology
integration. The Journal of Technology Studies, 32(2), 66–71. doi:10.21061/jots.v32i2.a.1
Pan, S. C., & Franklin, T. (2011). In-service teachers’ self-efficacy, professional development, and web
2.0 tools for integration. New Horizons in Education, 59(3), 28–40. Retrieved from http://files.eric.
ed.gov/fulltext/EJ955543.pdf
Partners, T. (2015). Learning for life: The opportunity for technology to transform adult education. Part
I: Interest in and aptitude for technology. Retrieved from http://tytonpartners.com/ tyton-wp/wp-content/
uploads/2015/03/Learning-for- Life_The-Oppty-for-Tech-to-TransformAdult-Education_March-20151.
pdf
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://
www.p21.org/overview/skills-framework/352
Pearson. (2015). Student mobile device survey national report: Students in grades 4-12. Retrieved
from https://www.pearsoned.com/wp-content/uploads/2015-Pearson- Student-Mobile-DeviceSurvey-
Grades-4-12.pdf
Pittman, T. T., & Gaines, T. T. (2015). Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth- grade class-
rooms in a Florida school district. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(4), 539–554.
doi:10.100711423-015-9391-8
Potter, S. L., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2012). Technology integration for instructional improvement:
The impact of professional development. Performance Improvement, 51(2), 22–27. doi:10.1002/pfi.21246
Project Tomorrow. (2012). Personalizing the classroom experience: Teachers, Librarians and Admin-
istrators connect the dots with digital learning. In Project Tomorrow: Speak Up (pp. 1–11). Retrieved
from www.tomorrow.org/speakup/
Rana, N. (2012). A study to access teacher educators’ attitudes towards technology integration in class-
rooms. MIER Journal of Educational Studies, Trends & Practices, 2(2), 190–205. Retrieved from http://
mierjs.in/ojs/index.php/mjestp/article/viewFile/74/50
Recesso, A., Wiles, D., Venn, M., Campbell, W. A., Jr., & Padilla, M. (2002). Teacher induction and
technology integration: Is there a critical element missing in existing induction models? Retrieved from
ERIC database. (ED 467502)

242

Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration

Redding, S. (2013). Getting personal: The promise of personalized learning. In M. Murphy, S. Red-
ding, & J. Twyman (Eds.), Handbook on innovations in learning (pp. 113–130). Philadelphia: Center
on Innovations in Learning, Temple University; Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Retrieved
from: http://www.centeril.org/
Ren Learning, . (2015). Special report: Trends in student outcome measures: The role of individu-
alized math practice Wisconsin Rapids. Author. Available online http://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/
R005814992DD18B1.pdf
Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Cavanaugh, C. (2012). An investigation of factors influencing student
use of technology in K-12 classrooms using path analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
46(3), 229–254. doi:10.2190/EC.46.3.b
Robey, E. (1992). Opening the doors: Using technology to improve education for students with disabilities.
Retrieved from http://www.worldcat.org/title/openingthe-doors-using-technology-to-improve- education-
for-students-withdisabilities/oclc/747250825
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age. Alexandria, VA: Associa-
tion for Curriculum Development.
Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(5),
262–268. doi:10.1080/00220671.1995.9941309
Savage, A. J., & Brown, D. S. (2014). Examining past studies of the effects of classroom technology
implementation in terms of student attitude and academic achievement. Global Education Journal, 4,
20–27.
Serce, F. C., Swigger, K., Alpaslan, F. N., Brazile, R., Dafoulas, G., & Lopez, V. (2010). Online col-
laboration: Collaborative behavior patterns and factors affecting globally distributed team performance.
Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 490–503. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.09.017
Shell, D., Husman, J., Turner, J., Cliffel, D., Nath, I., & Sweany, N. (2005). The impact of computer
supported collaborative learning communities on high school students’ knowledge building, strategic
learning, and perceptions of the classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(3), 327–349.
doi:10.2190/787L-BCBQ-20FN-FW6C
Smith, P. A., & Owens, E. W. (2010). Examining barriers to integrate technology in elementary teacher
education programs. Journal of Technology Integration, 2(1), 59–74.
Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2016). Digest of education statistics 2015 (NCES 2016-
014). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education.
Tomlinson, C., & Sousa, D. (2011). Differentiation and the Brain: How Neuroscience Supports the
Learner-Friendly Classroom. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American
education: Learning powered by technology (National Education Technology Plan 2010). Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf

243
 
Strategies for Improving and Modeling Digital Technology and Literacy Integration

Valdez, G., McNabb, M., Foertsch, M., Anderson, M., Hawkes, M., & Raack, L. (2000). Computer-
based technology and learning: Evolving uses and expectations. Retrieved from http://www.ncrel.org/
tplan/cbtl/toc.htm
Viadero, D. (1997). A tool for learning: In technology counts. Education Week, 17(11), 12–18.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. In The development of higher psychological processes. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self- efficacy beliefs for
technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 231–250. doi:10.1080
/15391523.2004.10782414
Willis, J. (2007). Creating a working model for technology integration through a lesson planning Web-
Quest. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 5, 25–33.

244
 245

Chapter 14
Understanding Web-
Based Peer Assessment
in Teacher Education
Xiongyi Liu
Cleveland State University, USA

Lan Li
Bowling Green State University, USA

Patrick Wachira
Cleveland State University, USA

ABSTRACT
With the development of technology, web-based peer assessment has been increasingly used as an alter-
native, formative assessment strategy with great potential for student learning benefits. The purpose of
this chapter is to synthesize a series of empirical research studies conducted by the authors to examine
factors that can influence the effectiveness of web-based peer assessment with teacher education stu-
dents. The findings of these studies are discussed within the larger context of general research in peer
assessment. Implications are provided to better inform researchers and teacher educators about the use
of web-based peer assessment and how it relates to teacher education students’ ability to apply assess-
ment criteria and their ability to take advantage of peer feedback.

INTRODUCTION

Web-based peer assessment is a topic that has been steadily growing in interest among researchers and
practitioners in education. A literature search through ERIC database results in more than 600 journal
articles that have been published on the topics of either “web-based” or “online” peer assessment. Most
educators use web-based peer assessment as a formative assessment (i.e., assessment for learning) instead
of summative assessment strategy, allowing students to actively engage in the learning process by tak-

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch014

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 
Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education

ing the roles of both assessors and assessees (Cheng & Warren, 1999; Davies, 2000; Li, Steckelberg, &
Srinivasan, 2008; Prins, Sluijsmans, Kirschner, & Strijbos, 2005). Reviews of research on formative peer
assessment (e.g., Topping, 2008; Topping, Smith, Swanson, & Elliot, 2000) indicate that it can benefit
student learning in many aspects, such as content knowledge, higher order thinking skills, assessment
skills, learner autonomy, and motivation. Compared with peer assessment in face-to-face settings, web-
based peer assessment has obvious advantages (Sung, Chang, Chiou, & Hou, 2005), which include but not
limited to a) availability and accessibility anytime from anywhere, b) digital and automatic distribution
of student work and peer review-no need to print or copy, and c) easiness in managing the assessment
and review process (e.g., deadlines, random assignment, anonymity, etc) (Kwok & Ma, 1999; Lin, Liu,
& Yuan; vanden Berg, Admiraal, & Pilot, 2006).
In spite of the increasing popularity of web-based peer assessment as a research topic, the student
populations involved in previous research vary to a great extent, from K-12 students to doctoral candidates,
and the target knowledge and skills being taught in the course where web-based peer assessment is imple-
mented also varies substantially, from general writing ability, presentation skills, scientific knowledge,
to research competency. Few researchers have consistently and systematically examined the use of web-
based peer assessment in teacher education. If we want web-based peer assessment to be implemented
appropriately and benefit more students, we must first introduce it as an effective instructional strategy
to preservice and in-service teachers. The purpose of this book chapter is to provide a synthesis of six
studies that we have conducted to examine different aspects of web-based peer assessment in teacher
education in 2009-2017. We also discuss our interventions and findings in the context of the general
research in web-based peer assessment and peer assessment in order to offer teacher educators with more
and better ideas regarding specific approaches to enhance the effectiveness of web-based peer assessment.

BACKGROUND

Much teacher education research has been published regarding web-based peer assessment systems. Some
studies presented standalone web-based peer assessment system for pre-service and in-service teach-
ers. Li and Steckelberg (2005) developed Peer Assessment Support System (PASS), a database-driven
website with a student interface and an instructor interface, at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Using
PASS, undergraduate students taking an instructional technology course were able to anonymously rate
and comment on two randomly assigned peers’ projects as well as viewing ratings and comments from
their peers on their own project, while the instructor was able to monitor the peer assessment process
with “a substantial reduction of management workload (p. 84)”. Tsai and his collaborators (Tsai, Liu,
Lin, & Yuan, 2001; Tsai, Lin, & Yuan, 2002) developed a similar networked peer assessment system for
secondary science education students to submit, review, and revise a science homework design project
at the National Chiao Tung University in Taiwan. Their system is somewhat different from PASS in that
it used a Vee heuristic based interface for guiding the design process, allowed submission of multiple,
linked files for one project, and involved more than one rounds of peer assessment and revision.
Web-based peer assessment in teacher education has increasingly been integrated into more compre-
hensive e-assessment and e-learning systems. Gogoulou, Gouli, Grigoriadou, Samarakou, and Chinou
(2007) developed the Supporting Collaboration and Adaptation in a Learning Environment (SCALE)
system for students taking “Informatics in Education” and “Distance Education and Learning” courses
at the University of Athens. The assessment component of SCALE allowed students to engage in self-

246

Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education

and peer-assessment of a variety of artifacts such as concept maps and instructional events, as well as
the evaluation of peer feedback. Welsh (2012) presented the evaluation of an e-portfolio system named
PebblePad that supported ubiquitous self- and peer-assessment of group and individual tasks among
elementary education undergraduate students in Scotland. Hudson, Hudson, and Steel (2006) illustrated
the development of an international master’s program in e-learning multimedia and consultancy that
uses web-based peer assessment to foster collaborative problem solving and critical thinking among
international teams and create an international learning community.
In recent years, there have been more innovations in web-based peer assessment practice in teacher
education. For example, Evans, Williams and Metcalf (2010) introduced a web-based system for peer
assessment of recorded teaching videos by pre-service special education teachers. Wu and Kao (2008)
developed a more sophisticated system where peer assessment process was synchronized with view-
ing of the teaching videos so that “comments could be linked to the relevant position on the video (p.
45).” Chen (2010) developed a mobile self- and peer-assessment system (MAPS), arguing that it allows
“more flexible assessment arrangement, more efficient use of time, and more opportunities for student
reflection (p. 229)”.
Most studies seem to present positive findings regarding student perception of the web-based peer
assessment system. In Chen’s (2010) study, the teacher education students largely acknowledged the
efficiency and convenience of the MAPS system. Li and Steckelberg (2005) asked teacher education
majors to rate various aspects of the web-based peer assessment activity and found that student perception
was generally positive. On a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), average rating was 4.19
on the statement “I benefited from peers’ comments”, 3.84 on the statement “I benefited from marking
peers’ work”, and 4.06 on the statement “Peer assessment is a worthwhile activity.” Similar findings
have been reported in other studies (e.g., Ross & Welsh, 2007). Welsh (2012) reported that 67.5% of
their participants agreed or strongly agreed that peer feedback on PebblePad was useful. Sluijsmans,
Brand-Gruwel, and Van Merrie¨nborer (2002) redesigned a teacher education course by implementing
web-based peer assessment and found that students taking the redesigned course were significantly more
satisfied with their course than those taking the original course.
However, there have also been doubts about the effectiveness of web-based peer assessment. In many
cases both the students and the instructor have serious concerns about the accuracy of peer feedback.
Students in particular may have difficulty viewing their involvement in web-based peer assessment
as worthwhile and some even develop anxiety and resistance towards it (McGarr & Clifford, 2013;
Topping, Smith, Swanson, & Elliot, 2000; Vu & Dall’Alba, 2007). Li and Steckelberg (2005) reported
that students found it confusing when two peers gave them conflicting comments. Two thirds of the
participants in Chen’s (2010) study expressed some doubts regarding getting unbiased, fair judgment
from their peers. The finding of low to no correlation between peer and instructor ratings indicates that
such concerns were not unfounded. Loureiro, Pombo, and Moreira (2012) examined peer assessment by
teams of doctoral students (mostly in-service teachers) in education in a wiki-based online environment
and found that few teams provided enough constructive feedback or applied the negotiated evaluation
criteria. Wen and Tsai (2008) found that, after three rounds of web-based peer assessment followed by
revision, in-service teachers in a math and science education course showed significantly less positive
attitudes toward peer assessment.

247
 
Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education

While there have been many studies testing and evaluating increasingly advanced web-based peer
assessment systems, a gap exists regarding empirical evidence supporting the learning benefits of using
such systems. Peer assessment research in teacher education tends to rely on student perception data to
a great extent.

WEB-BASED PEER ASSESSMENT IN TEACHER EDUCATION: SIX STUDIES

In an attempt to address this research deficit, we conducted a series of six research studies with under-
graduate education majors who were enrolled in an educational technology course at a mid-western uni-
versity. These studies had similar participants but approached the question of effectiveness of web-based
peer assessment from different angles: (1) an analysis of quality of peer feedback, (2) a correlational
study of the relationships among quality of peer feedback provided, quality of peer feedback received,
and final project performance, (3) a re-analysis of data in the second study to examine the relationship
among quality of peer feedback provided, critical implementation of peer feedback received, and final
project performance, (4) an experimental study with a two-way factorial design to examine whether low,
medium or high ability students benefit the same from the peer assessment process, (5) an examination
of the validity of peer marks and the impact of instructor-provided assessment training on the validity,
and (6) a study of both the effect of assessment training and anonymity in web-based peer assessment.
While the findings from each of the six studies have been analyzed and shared, it became apparent that
a larger picture connecting their results could better inform researchers and teacher educators about
the use of web-based peer assessment and how it relates to teacher education students’ ability to apply
assessment criteria and their ability to take advantage of peer feedback. This review adds to our under-
standing of how web-based peer assessment relates to various aspects of student learning process by
synthesizing the studies’ findings.
Although research questions were often built upon previous studies, each of the six studies has
contributed to our understanding of web-based peer assessment in a unique way. Following is a brief
description of each of the studies.

Quality of Peer Feedback in Web-based Peer

Assessment (Li, Liu, & Steckelberg, 2009)

Thirty-nine undergraduate students ranging from sophomore to senior standing participated in this study.
Participants built a WebQuest project and submitted it on a discussion forum on Blackboard. After a
training session on the grading rubric, they reviewed a randomly assigned peer project posted by the
instructor on the same forum under their own submission. In the review, they not only rated the peer
project with the rubric but also identified the issues with the project and provided suggestions for improv-
ing it. Upon receiving peer feedback, they revised and resubmitted their own project. The researchers
coded peer feedback by the type of issues (correctly identified vs. incorrectly identified vs. missed) and
the type of suggestions (good vs. trivial vs. misleading). The results indicate that the students identified
about the same number of issues as the instructor, with most of them missing or misidentifying none or
only one of the issues. Typically, students provided one suggestion for each identified issue. While only
two students provided all good suggestions, most students provided more good suggestions than trivial

248

Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education

ones and more trivial ones than misleading ones. The findings suggest that most students, after training
on the rubric, were able to recognize most critical issues and provide constructive feedback.

Differentiating the Roles of Assessor and Assessee in Web-

based Peer Assessment (Li, Liu, & Steckelberg, 2010)

Forty-three undergraduate student participants completed a WebQuest project. They then anonymously
rated and commented on two randomly assigned peers’ projects. Based on the feedback they received,
they revised and resubmitted their own project. Two independent raters graded student initial and final
projects with a grading rubric and coded peer feedback. A multiple regression was carried out to inves-
tigate which type of feedback (feedback students provided as assessor versus feedback students received
as assessee) would best predict the quality of students’ final projects. The results indicated that, when
controlling for the quality of students’ initially submitted projects before they participated in peer assess-
ment, the quality of peer feedback students provided was a significant predictor of the quality of their
own final projects, while the quality of peer feedback students received was not. The findings provide
support for the benefit of playing the role of assessor but not of playing the role of assessee.

Critical Thinking Matters for Effective Assessees in Web-

based Peer Assessment (Li, Liu, & Zhou, 2012)

Data from the previous study (Li, et al., 2010) was recoded and re-analyzed to better understand the
roles students played as assessor versus assessee in peer assessment. Different from the previous study
(Li, et al., 2010) that used quality of peer feedback students received to examine the role of assessee, the
evaluation of the assessee’s role in this study was based on their ability to critically judge and act upon
peer feedback received. The results of a regression analysis suggested that the way students responded
to peer feedback received, as indicated by the number of good versus poor or misleading suggestions
that students incorporated into revisions, significantly predicted the quality of students’ final projects.
The findings of both studies (Li et al., 2010, Li et al., 2012) support the importance of actively engaging
students in both assessor’s and assessee’s roles in web-based peer assessment.

Students’ Ability Level in Web-based Peer Assessment (Li & Gao, 2016)

This study examined how students’ ability level interacts with web-based peer assessment in their effect
on students’ task performance. In this quasi-experimental study, the researchers used a 2 (web-based
peer assessment vs. group discussion) × 3 (low, average, or high ability levels) factorial design. The
participants included 130 undergraduate students recruited from teacher education majors enrolled in a
technology application course at a midwestern university. Both the experimental and the control groups
completed a draft lesson plan project and then a revision after either peer assessment or peer discussion.
The experimental group engaged in an anonymous rubric-based peer assessment process online using
the Self and Peer Assessment Building Block (SPABB) on Blackboard, while the control group engaged
in a forum-based asynchronous discussion. Students’ ability level was defined by the quality of their
draft projects. The results showed significant effects of web-based peer assessment, ability level, and
the interaction between the two factors. Students of low- or average-ability levels benefited more from
the web-based peer assessment process than those of the high-ability level did.

249
 
Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education

Assessment Training in Web-based Peer Assessment (Liu & Li, 2014)

Seventy-eight undergraduate students took an assessment training before participating in a web-based

peer-assessment activity. The training module provided opportunities for students to review content
learned, examine and discuss the project rubric, practice grading example projects, and compared their
gradings with the instructor’s. Data analysis suggested two interesting findings. One, the assessment
training had positive influence on reducing the discrepancy between student ratings and instructor ratings
of example projects. Two, the degree of rating discrepancy between students versus instructor was highly
predictive of the value of feedback that students provided to their peers and the quality of revisions that
they made to their own projects. More specifically, smaller rating discrepancies were accompanied by
higher quality peer feedback students provided as assessor and better revised projects upon peer feedback
received. The findings support the integration of an assessment-training component in web-based peer
assessment models. Students systematically trained in the assessment criteria and the rubric are better
peer assessors who can both contribute more to and gain more from peer assessment experience.

Anonymity in Web-based Peer Assessment (Li, 2017)

In this relatively recent study, the researchers investigated the effect of assessment training and anonymity
on students’ performance and motivation in a web-based peer assessment project. Sections of a technology
application course (N=77) were randomly assigned to three conditions of web-based peer assessment:
non-anonymous, anonymous, or non-anonymous with assessment training provided. Findings indicated
that both the anonymity and the assessment training groups performed better than the non-anonymity
group. Assessment training was also associated with more positive perception of the web-based peer
assessment, including higher task value and lower pressure.

Synthesizing Themes Across Study Findings

There are many facets of web-based peer assessment, in understanding how students play different roles
and engage in different phases in this process, as well as how instructors can support different roles
to facilitate student learning gains in each phase. Several themes emerge from the findings of the four
studies above. First, students are capable of providing relatively valid ratings on their peers’ work, when
training on the assessment criteria and the rubric is provided prior to engaging them in web-based peer
assessment. Students who are not trained are still able to provide some useful feedback to their peers,
but their feedback often consists of both useful and misleading information. Assessment training also
helps the students to appreciate the value of peer assessment more and experience less stress during
the process. Second, students play the roles of assessor and assesse in web-based peer assessment and
both roles are important for them to obtain learning gains. While being an effective assessor is largely
related to mastery of assessment criteria through training, critical thinking is a much more important
skill for playing the role of an effective assesse. An effective assessee can accurately judge the validity
of peer feedback that she receives and incorporates the good suggestions while ignoring the misleading
ones in their revisions. Third, learning gains from web-based peer assessment are not equal among the
students. High-achieving students do not benefit as much as the low- and medium-achieving students
from engaging in the peer assessment process. Nevertheless, there may be some motivational benefits
for high-achieving students who enjoy providing useful feedback to their lower-achieving peers.

250

Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education

Effective Approaches to Web-based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education

Web-based peer assessment is an effective assessment and instructional strategy that is gaining popu-
larity; and researchers are still exploring new ways to use it for maximum benefits for the instructor
and the students. Whether from the perspective of educational designers and developers or from the
perspective of instructors, the four studies reviewed here exemplified teaching practices that may allow
web-based peer assessment to be effectively used in teacher education. In the following, we will discuss
major implications that the four studies have for teacher educators to use web-based peer assessment in
their own class.

Pedagogical Foundation

Knowing the pedagogical principles underlying and guiding the use of web-based peer assessment is
extremely important. Web-based peer assessment falls under the constructivism paradigm. Tsai, Liu, Lin,
and Yuan (2001) argued that web-based peer assessment “allows students to learn or construct knowledge
by submitting homework and receiving comments from peers to improve their work (p. 220).” Wu and
Zhao (2008) integrated web-based peer assessment with video-based pedagogy, a widely adopted peda-
gogy in teacher education. It was argued that peer evaluation of video-recorded microteaching instances
allows pre-service teachers to share their experiences and provides impetus for them to critically analyze
dilemmas of teaching practices, reflect on their own teaching practices, engage in dialogues about good/
bad teaching practices, and improve future teaching practices.
In our studies, we took the constructive approach and formulated our hypotheses with the assumption
that students learn when they identify the gaps in their understanding and fill in such gaps by gaining
different perspectives from their peers and their instructor and reflecting on similarities and differences
among various perspectives. As a result, we are not only strongly convinced of the value of peer assess-
ment but also profoundly interested in the cognitive processes that students may have gone through in
order to produce the final products that they submit. When we design our interventions, we put in more
efforts in sustaining student engagement in constructing knowledge on their own and co-constructing
knowledge in a group. Even our requirement for peer feedback clearly tells the students that they need
to provide explanation and justification for their ratings as well as their suggestions for their peers. In
Liu and Li (2014), we also required students to engage in group and class discussions to clarify and
negotiate meaning and reach consensus. Based on our experience and a review of relevant research in
teacher education, we strongly recommend educators who are interested in using web-based peer as-
sessment as an instructional strategy to first decide whether web-based peer assessment activities they
want to implement have a solid pedagogical foundation and whether such activities are compatible with
their own pedagogical beliefs.

Course Contents

Since peer assessment usually involves students judging the quality of a product of their peers, the in-
structor needs to take into consideration of the course contents when selecting the specific tasks (i.e.,
products) in the process of implementing peer assessment. Most peer assessment researchers in teacher
education choose a task that aligns well with the course objectives and requires the application of knowl-
edge and skills taught prior to peer assessment. For example, when developing their networked peer

251
 
Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education

assessment system for teacher education students in science education, Tsai, Liu, Lin, and Yuan (2001)
chose the task of designing an inquiry-oriented science activity for secondary students and adopted a Vee
heuristic that scaffolded the participants to coordinate between “thinking” about scientific philosophies,
theories, principles, conceptual structures, and concepts and “doing” the practice of science through
records of events/objects, transformation, interpretations, knowledge claims, and value claim. Li and
Steckelberg (2005) designed their web-based peer assessment system for teacher education students in
an undergraduate technology course. They chose the construction of an instructional activity named
WebQuest as the assignment for the participants to submit and assess. WebQuests as used in education
are teacher-created webpages or websites that have five key components-Introduction, Task, Process,
Evaluation, and Conclusion (“WebQuest”, n. d.). Wu and Kao (2008) implemented their web-based peer
assessment with pre-service computer teachers in a teaching practicum course. They chose microteaching
and field teaching sessions as the assignments to be peer evaluated and included not only video clips of
each session but also lesson plans, handouts, and reflective journals related to each session. Sluijsmans,
Brand-Gruwel, and Van Merrie¨nborer’s (2002) implemented their peer assessment in a course named
“Designing Creative Lessons” and chose the task of designing a creative lesson in the domains of Art,
Dutch Language and Music. Their assessment criteria also followed the redefined course objectives with
decomposition of specific skills involved in completing such a task.

Evaluation Rubric

If possible, a rubric should be provided for students in web-based peer assessment. Andrade (2005)
defined a rubric as an assessment tool that “lists the criteria for a piece of work or what counts … and
articulates gradations of quality for each criterion, from excellent to poor (p. 27).” The gradation of
quality and associated description represents a crucial characteristic of rubrics that distinguish them
from other assessment tools and make it a better choice in peer assessment. Rubrics can be used either
to assign grades (summative assessment) or to provide feedback (formative assessment). When students
provide, receive, and act upon feedback based on a rubric in peer assessment, it becomes an instructional
rubric and a teaching tool. Although it has been noted that assessment criteria for academic tasks in
higher education are often complex, multidimensional and difficult to articulate, providing a rubric is
an effective way to clarify task requirements and reduce the mismatch between the instructor’s and the
students’ understanding of assessment criteria.
In all of our studies and most of the other studies on web-based peer assessment in teacher education,
a rubric is used - sometimes provided by the instructor and sometimes developed collaboratively by
the students and the instructor. The rubrics used in our studies was originally developed by researchers
at San Diego State University to align with the five components of a WebQuest product (Introduction,
Task, Process, Evaluation, and Conclusion). As a result, it contains multiple items (the number of items
on each criterion varies), each with three levels of performance indicators (beginning, developmental,
and accomplished). This rubric has gone through revisions and improvements since it was conceived.
The first version of the rubric that we used contained 8 items for a maximum of 16 points (Li, Liu, &
Steckelberg, 2009). The number of points assigned to an item was exactly 2 for all items (beginning = 0,
developmental = 1, accomplished = 2). The second version of this rubric (Li, Liu, & Steckelberg, 2010;
Li, Liu, & Zhou, 2012) was more extensive with a new dimension added to evaluate overall aesthetics of
the WebQuest and a weighing mechanism was incorporated (http://webquest.sdsu.edu/webquestrubric.
html). This rubric contained 13 items with a maximum of 50 points. Depending on the importance of

252

Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education

an item, the number of points assigned to it can be 2, 4, or 6. The revised rubric has consistently dem-
onstrated satisfactory inter-rater reliability, with the correlation between two independent expert raters
in the .80-.83 range. However, students reported more confusion with understanding and grading on the
items related to overall aesthetics. Thus, in a following study (Liu & Li, 2014), we removed the items on
overall aesthetics and the new rubric consists of 8 items with a maximum of 40 points. The inter-rater
reliability between expert raters remained robust and students reported less confusions with the rubric.

Training and Support

A noticeable pattern in our research in web-based peer assessment is that we provide more training and
support on not only technology skills but also assessment skills that students need in order to engage in
and benefit from web-based peer assessment. Assessment training is widely recommended by leading
researchers in peer assessment (e.g., Sluijsmans, 2002; Gillies, 2007). Compared to technical support,
training of assessment skills is more difficult. Although instructional rubrics can clarify the instructor’s
assessment criteria and expectations to a great extent, they are not entirely self-explanatory and additional
training is often needed to help students understand a rubric. Findings from our earlier studies clearly
indicate that while students benefit from applying the rubric and providing feedback to peers regardless
of the quality of peer feedback that they receive, there remains a considerable amount of discrepancies
between instructor rating and student ratings and peer feedback consists of a sizable portion of misleading
suggestions (Li, Liu, & Steckelberg, 2009). As we found in another study (Li, Liu, & Zhou, 2012), with
re-analysis of student data, the quality of peer feedback still matters-students receiving higher quality
peer feedback improved more in their revision of WebQuest. Unsurprisingly, in the subsequent study
(Liu & Li, 2014), intensive and elaborative training in assessment criteria led to less discrepancy between
student and instructor ratings, higher quality peer feedback, and eventually higher quality final project.
There are many approaches to train teacher education students in assessment skills. A typical ap-
proach to provide the training is through direct instruction on the grading criteria from the teacher.
However, such a didactic approach often proves ineffective in promoting the assessment skills required
for peer assessment and leads to little improvement in student task performance (Topping, 2010). Peer
assessment is a complex process that requires students to take the roles of both assessor and assesse,
which puts a demand on a range of higher order thinking skills, including conceptual understanding
of grading criteria, critical thinking about the application of grading criteria to the grading of peers’
work, and decision making regarding how to respond to peer’s feedback on one’s own work (Li, Liu, &
Steckelberg, 2009). Topping (2010) suggests that better training for peer assessment needs to be pro-
vided with a peer interaction component, where students have the opportunity to articulate and negotiate
their understanding of the assessment criteria. While peer interaction can take various forms, assigning
students to discuss issues or problems in small groups has been recognized as one of the most effective
instructional strategies in the acquisition of conceptual understanding and critical thinking (Smith &
MacGregor, 1992). From a cognitive perspective, peers working in small groups are more likely to fill
in gaps in their understanding when they are exposed to conflicting viewpoints or ideas and have to
resolve their differences through discussion (Ames & Murray, 1982).

253
 
Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education

We followed the suggestions by Topping (2010) and other researchers, by increasingly adding
peer interaction components to web-based peer assessment process. In our earlier studies (Li, Liu, &
Steckelberg, 2009; Li, Liu, & Steckelberg, 2010; Li, Liu, & Zhou, 2012), training in assessment skills
was provided primarily via lectures to introduce the contents and the rubric. In Liu and Li (2014) and
Li (2017), however, training was highly emphasized and consisted of a variety of activities that ranged
from lecture presentations, videos, grading of example projects, small group and whole class discussion,
etc. There are a few other researchers in peer assessment who have examined the effect of training with
more student interactions, with more or less success in terms of student attitudes and performance (e.g.,
Sluijsmans, Brand-Gruwel, Van Merrie¨nboer, & Martens, 2004; Smith, Cooper, & Lancaster, 2002;
Sung, Lin, Lee, & Chang, 2003). There is still a gap in the research conducted by us and other research-
ers, however. While web-based peer assessment is increasingly utilized and there is growing consensus
among researchers that training should be provided with a peer interaction component, we are yet to
see an empirical study where such interactive training is provided online instead of face-to-face. Thus a
recommendation for future researchers is to develop web-based platforms that allow educators to move
the training phase in web-based peer assessment online.

Phases of Evaluation and Revision

It is necessary, in the design of any web-based peer assessment system or model, to decide how many
phases of evaluation and revision will be included and how students can transition from one phase to the
next. There needs to be a reasonable and clear timeline. In most of our studies, students went through
one round of peer assessment and revision and followed a simple sequence of instruction → draft project
submission → web-based peer assessment → final project submission. With more intensive, elaborate,
and prolonged training in assessment skills, our last study (Liu & Li, 2014) incorporated more phases in
the web-based peer assessment process. Specifically, between draft project submission and web-based
peer assessment, students engaged in a few additional steps: grading an example project with the rubric
→ discussing the assigned grades in small groups → discussing the grades in whole class with teacher
scaffolding and feedback → re-grading the first example project and grading a second example project.
The additional training phase has proven worthwhile, since we found strong evidence showing decreased
discrepancy between instructor and student ratings on most of the rubric criteria. Such decreased dis-
crepancy indicated improved validity of student ratings and was a significant predictor of not only the
quality of peer feedback but also the amount of improvement in one’s own revised project.
Existing research on peer assessment suggests that a variety of phases can be potentially incorporated
in the web-based peer assessment process, in varying sequences. For example, Sluijsmans, Brand-Gruwel,
Van Merrie¨nboer, and Martens (2004) included in their study a phase where students collaboratively
defined grading criteria of lesson plans. Smith, Cooper and Lancaster (2002) also included a rubric
development phase in their study of peer assessment of student poster presentations, followed by an
assessment training phase similar to the one implemented by us in Liu and Li (2014). Althauser and
Darnall (2001) had students engage in web-based peer assessment of a series of short take-home es-
says throughout the semester, instead of focusing on a single, more extensive course assignment. Sung,
Lin, Lee and Chang’s (2005) took an interesting approach by having students form permanent teams in
web-based peer assessment. First, each team prepared a draft team research proposal and submitted it
online. Second, individual students then posted their reviews on all team proposals anonymously, with
a summary of their ratings and comments generated by the website and made available to the whole

254

Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education

class. Third, the teams then met several times to discuss peer feedback, revise their ratings and comments
accordingly, discuss new peer feedback, and revise their ratings and comments again. Lastly, the teams
assessed their own proposal and revised their proposal with teacher feedback. While instructors who plan
to use web-based peer assessment can adopt or adapt any of the phases discussed for their own students,
they must be cautioned that more phases do not always lead to more learning gains and incorporating the
right phases in the wrong sequence can have a negative impact on student experience. When not planned
well, web-based peer assessment can run into many barriers and be perceived as pure busy work by the
students. A general recommendation is that each phase should lead to student learning gains directly
or indirectly and the arrangement of the phases needs to be compatible with course objectives, course
schedule, nature of the assignment to be peer reviewed, student needs and preferences, student previous
experience with peer assessment, etc.

Anonymity of Assessment

In traditional face-to-face peer assessment, maintaining the anonymity of assessors and assessees
requires significant efforts of the instructor to remove the identity of the assessors before assigning
student work to peers and to remove the identity of the assessees before returning peer feedback to each
student. Web-based peer assessment platforms automate this whole process and allow the instructor to
manage anonymity level at each phase of peer assessment with ease. Many researchers argue that due
to concerns related to friendship, ego, gender stereotypes, and self-esteem, students may feel reluctant
to give honest or critical feedback to their peers when anonymity is not provided (e.g., Anderson, 1998;
Falchikov 1986; Freeman, 1995; Papinczak, Young, & Groves, 2007). Hiding students’ real identity by
assigning codes/numbers or pseudo names helps to create a safe environment for students to comfortably
assess peer work without peer pressure (Davies, 2000, 2002; Robinson, 1999) and with more validity
(Zhao, 1998). While most of our studies of web-based peer assessment chose a design with anonymity
provided for both assessors and assessees, one study (Li, 2017) specifically compared a condition with
anonymity and another condition with identity revealed. As hypothesized, students showed more learn-
ing gains when anonymity was provided.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

The six studies summarized here, when considered together and in the context of existing research con-
ducted by other researchers, enable us to gain a better understanding of the web-based peer assessment
process in teacher education. They also provide important implications for teacher educators on how
to effectively use web-based peer assessment as an innovative, formative, and alternative assessment
technique to train future teachers in the digital age. It is thus the researchers’ hope that more teacher
education students trained this way will be better prepared for teaching the younger generation in the
21st century when they start teaching in K-12 classrooms.

255
 
Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education

REFERENCES

Althauser, R., & Darnall, K. (2001). Enhancing critical reading and writing through peer reviews: An
exploration of assisted performance. Teaching Sociology, 29(1), 23–35. doi:10.2307/1318780
Anderson, R. S. (1998). Why talk about different ways to grade? The shift from traditional assessment
to alternative assessment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 74, 5–16. doi:10.1002/tl.7401
Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1),
27–30. doi:10.3200/CTCH.53.1.27-31
Chen, C. (2010). The implementation and evaluation of a mobile self- and peer-assessment system.
Computers & Education, 55(1), 229–236. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.008
Chen, Y., & Tsai, C. (2009). An educational research course facilitated by online peer assessment. In-
novations in Education and Teaching International, 46(1), 105–117. doi:10.1080/14703290802646297
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1999). Peer and teacher assessment of the oral and written tasks of a group
project. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(3), 301–314. doi:10.1080/0260293990240304
Davies, P. (2000). Computerized peer assessment. Innovations in Education & Training International,
37(4), 346–354. doi:10.1080/135580000750052955
Davies, P. (2002). Using student reflective self-assessment for awarding degree classifications. Innova-
tions in Education & Training International, 39(4), 307–319. doi:10.1080/13558000210161034
Evans, C., Williams, J., & Metcalf, D. (2010). Using high- and low-technology tools to enhance self-
and peer assessment and feedback for preservice teachers. Journal of Special Education Technology,
25(4), 55–60.
Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self as-
sessments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 11(2), 46–66. doi:10.1080/0260293860110206
Freeman, M. (1995). Peer assessment by groups of group work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 20(3), 289–300. doi:10.1080/0260293950200305
Gillies, R. M. (2007). Cooperative learning: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
doi:10.4135/9781483329598
Gogoulou, A., Gouli, E., Grigoriadou, M., Samarakou, M., & Chinou, D. (2007). A web-based edu-
cational setting supporting individualized learning, collaborative learning and assessment. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 242–256.
Hudson, B., Hudson, A., & Steel, J. (2006). Orchestrating interdependence in an international online
learning community. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 733–748. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2006.00552.x
Kwok, R. C. W., & Ma, J. (1999). Use of a group support system for collaborative assessment. Comput-
ers & Education, 32(2), 109–125. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(98)00059-1

256

Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education

Li, L. (2017). The role of anonymity in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
42(4), 645–656. doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1174766
Li, L., & Gao, F. (2016). The effect of peer assessment on project performance of students at different
learning levels. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(6), 885–900. doi:10.1080/0260293
8.2015.1048185
Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. (2009). Analyzing peer feedback in a technology-facilitated peer as-
sessment. In C. D. Maddux (Ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp.
213-222). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving
and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525–536. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-8535.2009.00968.x
Li, L., Liu, X., & Zhou, Y. (2012). Give and take: A re-analysis of assessor and assessee roles in
technology-facilitated peer assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 376–384.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01180.x
Li, L., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2005). Peer Assessment Support System (PASS). TechTrends, 49(4), 80–84.
doi:10.1007/BF02824115
Li, L., Steckelberg, A. L., & Srinivasan, S. (2008). Utilizing peer interactions to promote learning
through a computer-assisted peer assessment system. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology,
34(2), 133–148.
Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with
various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420–432. doi:10.1046/j.0266-
4909.2001.00198.x
Liu, X., & Li, L. (2014). Assessment training effects on student assessment skills and task performance in
a technology-facilitated peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(3), 275-292.
Loureiro, M., Pombo, L., & Moreira, A. (2012). The quality of peer assessment in a wiki-based online
context: A qualitative study. Educational Media International, 49(2), 139–149. doi:10.1080/0952398
7.2012.703426
McGarr, O., & Clifford, A. M. (2013). ‘Just enough to make you take it seriously’: Exploring students’
attitudes toward peer assessment. Higher Education, 65(6), 677–693. doi:10.100710734-012-9570-z
Papinczak, T., Young, L., & Groves, M. (2007). Peer assessment in problem-based learning: A qualitative
study. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 12(2), 169–186. doi:10.100710459-
005-5046-6 PMID:17072771
Prins, F., Sluijsmans, D., Kirschner, P., & Strijbos, J. W. (2005). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL
environment: A case study. Assessment, 30(4), 417–444.
Robinson, J. (1999). Computer-assisted peer review. In S. Brown, J. Bull, & P. Race (Eds.), Computer-
assisted assessment in higher education (pp. 95–102). London: Kogan Page.

257
 
Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education

Ross, M. B., & Welsh, M. P. (2007). Formative Feedback to Improve Learning on a Teacher Education
Degree using a Personal Learning Environment. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in
Learning, 2(3), 34–39.
Sluijsmans, D. (2002). Establishing learning effects with integrated peer assessment tasks. Retrieved
from http://78.158.56.101/archive/palatine/files/930.pdf
Sluijsmans, D., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Martens, R. L. (2004). Training teach-
ers in peer-assessment skills: Effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 41(1), 59–78. doi:10.1080/1470329032000172720
Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer assessment training
in teacher education: effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & evaluation in higher educa-
tion, 27(5), 443–454. doi:10.1080/0260293022000009311
Smith, B., & MacGregor, J. (1992). What is collaborative learning? In A. Goodsell, M. Maher, V. Tinto,
B. Smith, & J. MacGregor (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp.
9–22). University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment,
Pennsylvania State University.
Smith, H., Cooper, A., & Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment:
A case for student and staff development. Innovations in education and teaching international, 39(1),
71–81. doi:10.1080/13558000110102904
Sung, Y., Chang, K., Chiou, S., & Hou, H. (2005). The design and application of a web-based self- and
peer-assessment system. Computers & Education, 45(2), 187–202. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.002
Sung, Y., Chen-Shan Lin, J., Chi-Lung Lee, J., & Chang, K. (2003). Evaluating proposals for experi-
ments: An application of web-based self-assessment and peer assessment. Teaching of Psychology, 30(4),
331–333. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP3004_06
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational
Research, 68(3), 249–276. doi:10.3102/00346543068003249
Topping, K. (2010). Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment.
Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 339–343. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.003
Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic
writing between postgraduate Students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169.
doi:10.1080/713611428
Tsai, C., Lin, S. J., & Yuan, S. (2002). Developing science activities through a networked peer assessment
system. Computers & Education, 38(1/3), 241–252. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00069-0
Tsai, C., Liu, E., Lin, S. J., & Yuan, S. (2001). A networked peer assessment system based on a vee heuristic.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(3), 220–230. doi:10.1080/14703290110051415
van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Designing student peer assessment in higher edu-
cation: Analysis of written and oral peer feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(2), 135–147.
doi:10.1080/13562510500527685

258

Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education

Vu, T., & Dall’Alba, G. (2007). Students’ experience of peer assessment in a professional course. As-
sessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(5), 541–556. doi:10.1080/02602930601116896
WebQuest. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebQuest
Welsh, M. (2012). Student perceptions of using the PebblePad e-portfolio system to support self- and
peer-based formative assessment. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(1), 57–83. doi:10.1080/14
75939X.2012.659884
Wen, M., & Tsai, C. (2008). Online peer assessment in an in-service science and mathematics teacher
education course. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(1), 55–67. doi:10.1080/13562510701794050
Wu, C., & Kao, H. (2008). Streaming videos in peer assessment to support training pre-service teachers.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 45–55.
Zhao, Y. (1998). The effects of anonymity on computer-mediated peer review. International Journal of
Educational Telecommunications, 4(4), 311–345.

ADDITIONAL READING

Andrade, H., & Cizek, G. (2010). Handbook of formative assessment. Florence, KY: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203874851
Bangert, A. W. (2001). Peer assessment: A win-win instructional strategy for both students and teachers.
Journal of Cooperation and Collaboration in College Teaching, 10(2), 77–84.
Falchikov, N. (2013). Improving assessment through student involvement: Practical solutions for aiding
learning in higher and further education. Florence, KY: Routledge.
Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002). Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large
classes using an action research process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 427–441.
doi:10.1080/0260293022000009302
Sluijismans, D., & Prins, F. (2006). A conceptual framework for integrating peer assessment in teacher
education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(1), 6–22. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2006.01.005

259
 
Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Anonymity in Peer Assessment: Concealing the identity of assessors and/or assesses in one or more
phases of the peer assessment process.
Constructive/Critical Feedback: Feedback that identifies specific issues and provides helpful sug-
gestions for the improvement of the quality of a product or service.
Formative Assessment: A range of assessment approaches that focus on providing ongoing, infor-
mative feedback to be used for the purpose of improving teaching, learning, or practices.
Peer Assessment: The process of students evaluating each other’s work using performance criteria.
Peer Pressure: Pressure that one feels as a member of social groups to behave in a certain way or
believe in certain things in order to be accepted by peers in the same group.
Rubric-Based Assessment: A tool used to judge performance according to a list of explicit criteria
and standards and a grading scale, often developed in the form of matrix.
Teacher Education: Any formal program that provides training for prospective and in-service teach-
ers and practitioners to perform various roles at the elementary and secondary school levels.
Validity of Assessment: The degree to which an assessment truly and accurately measures what it
claims to measure.
Web-Based Peer Assessment: Peer assessment implemented in a web-based environment, typically
through an integrated database system that automatically distributes and collects peer assessment tasks.

260
 261

Chapter 15
Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk:
A Standards and Competency Matrix Using
ISTE Educator Standards With Teacher
Educator Technology Competencies

Susan A. Elwood
Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, USA

Kelli Bippert
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5077-4886
Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, USA

ABSTRACT
Faculty integration of the technology standards and competencies remain a concern in higher educa-
tion, especially in the movement toward competency-based education and portfolio development. The
“CRABwalk within the Crosswalk” occurs as both ISTE educator standards and TETC competencies
are collaboratively reviewed and worked. This protocol is designed to help align a team’s multiple
standards and competencies within one collaborative assessment tool. It provides a cognitive tool to
facilitate partnership collaboration that can result in greater individual and team growth and develop-
ment. This chapter provides a literature review of K-12 teacher education and university faculty percep-
tions as a cultural models base to the presented Crosswalk to Rubric Alignment (CRABwalk) protocol.
Professional standard or competency needs are of focus and therefore meet the needs of each educator
group: preservice, inservice, and teacher educator.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch015

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 
Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

INTRODUCTION

One way to help faculty build self-efficacy through experiences with technology, application, and support
of the use of technology is through communities of inquiry. The professional teacher education team of
teacher candidate, cooperating teacher, and site professor may find the ISTE Ed and TETC Crosswalk
Dance helpful in collaboratively planning and designing learning environments while addressing their
individual professional development needs. Such processes can greatly facilitate and support such de-
velopmental initiatives as competency-based education.

SUPPORTIVE THEORETICAL FRAMES

The most supportive theoretical frameworks for the developed competency-based crosswalk were deemed
to be those of situated learning and cultural models. More specifically, situated learning will be focused
upon communities of inquiry. K12 teacher and university faculty perceptions will also be reviewed. K12
teacher perceptions of a) value of technology, b) teacher access, c) teacher efficacy, and d) training and
support will be reviewed. University faculty perceptions related to technology use include self-efficacy,
technical support, and generational factors.

Theoretical Frame of Situated Learning: Communities of Inquiry

Faculty integration of the technology standards and competencies remain a concern in higher educa-
tion. Teachers experience a variety of challenges that interfere in their developing positive perceptions,
or cultural models, related to technology integration. For this reason, one way to help faculty build
self-efficacy through experiences with technology, application, and support of the use of technology is
through communities of inquiry.
One strand of inquiry study (Kozan, 2016) was “to investigate the predictive validity of teaching
presence, cognitive presence, and social presence from a cognitive load perspective” (p.11). It was found
that a statistically significant and predictable connection exists between the presences and intrinsic,
extraneous, and total cognitive load. Specifically, cognitive presence was the best predictor for intrinsic
load, and teaching presence was the best predictor for extraneous and total loads. While social presence
does not directly predict cognitive loads, it has a strong connection with perceived learning satisfaction.
This finding also impacts faculty, their students, and cooperating K-12 teachers working as a professional
team for individual and collective professional development needs. Co-teaching and cognitive presences
are needed and lead to greater social presence satisfaction within professional development teams.
Communities of inquiry is a concept derived from literature on situated learning. Situated learning
(Lave & Wenger, 1991) refers to learning that occurs through interaction and collaboration within groups
who share a common goal or purpose. Each participant engages socio-culturally with shared goals to de-
velop a set of needed skills. Learning in this sense is seen as connected to all aspects of the social activity
related to the skills being learned. For the purposes of this paper, learning to integrate technology in the
teacher education classroom would involve active engagement with technology, social interactions with
colleagues and/ or students, and learning and teaching occurring between both the perceived expert and
learner. Research on faculty professional learning has shown the preference for feedback from a variety
of sources, including colleagues and students, a supportive peer network (Saroyan, 2015).

262

Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

Studies ranging from 2015 to 2019 reinforce the need for learning in this socially constructive way.
Studies on faculty technology support for use in online or blended learning have supported the need
for communities of inquiry. For example, Wicks (2015) used the communities of inquiry framework to
investigate faculty’s implementation of blended learning. This case study determined that participants
agreed or strongly agreed peer support played an important role in developing these courses. Terosky’s
(2015) qualitative study of the effects of community support on faculty development of online courses
found that faculty desired support beyond technical aspects of tool use, and requested more collaboration
in the areas of teaching and learning philosophies as related to online instruction. In Baran’s (2016) study
of a faculty mentoring program, with twelve pairs of faculty and graduate students, analysis identified
motivation and meeting challenges as two important factors that supported the participants.
Addressing faculty technology integration issues using communities of inquiry as a frame shows
promise for supporting technology standards and competencies; especially in investigating blended
learning, a desire for greater collaboration related to online instruction, and greater supportive in meeting
challenges. This professional development team of teacher educator faculty, preservice teacher candidates,
and inservice cooperating teachers thrive if supported and provide collective support as a professional
development team. Such support is better informed through deeper probing into the culture within the
professional development team.

Theoretical Frame Addition of Cultural Models

Cultural models are defined as the every-day, commonly held beliefs of a particular social group (Hol-
land & Quinn, 1987). Culture is made up not only of a group’s traditions and customs, but their “shared
knowledge” as well (Holland & Quinn, 1987, p. 4). Cultural models can be expressed not only by what an
individual says, but the actions observed by these individuals, respectively referred to as the explanatory
model and the representational model. While the explanatory and representational models frequently
contradict one another, it is important to take both into consideration when attempting to identify and
support the beliefs held by individual social groups. A cultural model is a simplified way of viewing
the world through an individual’s experiences (Gee, 2000) is internalized, and shapes the individual’s
sense of reality. These models are shared across specific cultural groups, and are constantly changing
over the course of time (Gee & Green, 1998), and shape how individuals identify themselves and others
in particular contexts.
Factors that affect the value that an individual has for technology as compared to others can be very
specific to their unique ideology or belief system. Faculty may also find that once they enter the classroom,
their attitudes toward technology become shaped by their identity as a university instructor. Gee defines
identity as “being recognized as a certain ‘kind of person,’ in a given context…In this sense of the term,
all people have multiple identities connected not to their ‘internal states’ but to their performances in
society” (Gee, 2000, p. 99). Teachers develop expectations for what it looks like, sounds like, and feels
like to be a university faculty member.
Using cultural models as a foundation, inferences can be drawn from an individual’s perceptions or
thoughts, to their feelings, and subsequently their actions (Holland & Quinn, 1987, p. 162). The beliefs
and attitudes related to these cultural models, held by people within a common social group, reflect
their perceptions of the value and usefulness of certain actions or behaviors such as technology applica-
tions. Looking more closely at the perceptions can help us understand how cultural models play a role
in technology integration and adoption.

263
 
Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

K-12 Teacher Perceptions of Technology Use

To support pre-service teachers in their development of technology skills for use in their future class-
room, it is important for the teacher educator to model such practices. Concerns of teachers’ perceptions
of technology in the K-12 classroom has led to a number of studies, typically through survey research.
Students are in increasing need of technology experiences within the curriculum. In many ways, schools
have made efforts to provide the necessary technology; however, often even the more well-equipped
schools are still seeing teachers not utilizing technology within classroom instruction (Cuban, Kirkpat-
rick, & Peck, 2001).

Value of Technology

Several studies used a technology acceptance model survey to try and predict teachers’ attitudes toward
technology use. Results across surveys revealed similar findings. One study conducted by Teo (2009)
involved 285 pre-service teachers from a teacher training institution in Singapore. Teacher value of
technology and ease of use were shown as having a 62% variable, with teacher value of technology
showing the strongest relationship to predicting teachers’ attitudes toward technology use. A survey of
592 teachers in Singapore (Teo, 2011), found that usefulness, ease of use, and technology training and
support were shown to help predict a teacher’s intention to use technology. In a study conducted in Que-
bec, 764 elementary and secondary teachers from public and private schools were surveyed (Wozney,
Venkatesh, & Abrami, 2006). Findings indicated that the value of technology and self-efficacy were the
most important factors in predicting the teacher’s attitude toward computer use with instruction.

Teacher Access

Another common barrier to technology use in the classroom is teachers’ access to technology and on-
line resources. Studies conducted to measure teachers’ perceived reasons for their use of technology
often addressed access to technology as one important factor. Equal access to technology resources is
a concern, especially in respect to schools that lack adequate funding opportunities to provide the most
up to date technology equipment to teachers and students. In California, five low-resource schools and
one high-resource school were chosen to compare how teachers reported their technology and Internet
access, and found that teachers from the high-resource school reported greater access to technology and
Internet access (Valadez & Durán, 2007). These schools reported to use technology more frequently and
in more creative ways within instruction (Valadez & Durán, 2007). In a survey study of Miami-Dade
County Public high schools teachers’ intentions to use Web 2.0 technologies for instructional purposes,
the researchers found that regardless of access to technology, teachers’ intentions to use the technology
were most strongly predicted by perceived usefulness and the compatibility of Web 2.0 tools to their
content (Capo & Orellana, 2012).

264

Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

Teacher Efficacy

Self-efficacy is another important factor that can predict whether a teacher will or will not attempt to
use technology with instruction in the classroom. In a study conducted in Tennessee which intended to
measured teacher self-efficacy, surveys were given to 1,382 teachers who were part of the Tennessee
EdTech Launch One and Two programs (Inan & Lowther, 2010). Results indicated that teacher age and
years of teaching directly affected their computer proficiency and indirectly affected technology use. A
study conducted in the United Arab Emirates measuring pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy for technology
integration found that student teachers’ experiences during student teaching showed a significant posi-
tive effect on their self-efficacy toward using technology with instruction in the classroom (Al-Awidi &
Alghazo, 2012). The studies conducted by both Inan & Lowther and Al-Awidi & Alghazo indicated the
need for teacher training in the use of educational technologies in an effort to improve teacher self-efficacy.

Training & Support

Teachers who may have adequate access to the technology that would enable them to use this within
classroom instruction still find that they are unable to do so. Even in technology rich areas of the United
States, such as Silicon Valley, lack of teacher training and support play important roles in enabling or
disabling teachers in using technology (Ramos, 2005). In Tennessee 168 elementary, middle, and high
school teachers were surveyed to measure teachers’ frequency of technology use and the ways in which
it was used within their classrooms (Littrell, Zagumny, & Zagumny, 2005), and found that teachers were
using technology primarily for classroom management tasks rather than instructional purposes and lacked
support for use for instructional purposes. A survey from 292 teachers and 107 administrators from
primary schools located in Elazig, Turkey (Kazu, 2011) found that while teachers had positive feelings
toward using technology within the curriculum, they reported that they were in need of training in the
use of technology in the classroom for effective use with students.

University Faculty Perceptions of Technology

Addressing university faculty perceptions of technology use and integration informs their cultural mod-
els as well. University faculty perceptions of technology have been found to be similar to those of K-12
teachers. Consequently, the adoption of the technology standards and competencies remains a challenge
at many institutions. A review of faculty perceptions reveals similar findings related to faculty use and
non-use of technology tools. Because of the ever-changing nature of technology applications used by
higher education faculty, this review included studies conducted from 2015 to 2019.

Self-Efficacy

As with K-12 teachers, faculty efficacy with technology was a recurring factor attributed to their inte-
gration of technology. Reid (2017) agrees that it is important to support university faculty in improving
efficacy with technology if we expect its use with students. Studies that measure issues that attribute to
faculty use or non-use technology support this. For example, in a study of 560 faculty members from
two universities, efficacy with technology arose as one of three factors inhibiting faculty from utilizing
technology (Fathema, Shannon, & Ross, 2015). Questionnaire responses from 261 faculty members from

265
 
Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

universities across Asia revealed that self-efficacy rated as one of the greatest contributors to technology
integration, and suggested that universities work to improve this to encourage technology integration
(John, 2015). Similarly, based on a survey of 379 faculty members, analysis determined that supporting
self-efficacy with learning management systems was one area that should be addressed to improve faculty
perceptions of the benefits of these systems (Zheng, Wang, Doll, Deng, & Williams, 2018). Experience,
or lack thereof, with the use of computers or technology applications can affect faculty’s willingness to
use technology in the classroom. Studies have found that the more experience that the individual has
with a tool, the more willing that individual is to implement them. John (2015) surveyed 261 full-time
faculty, and found that prior experience with technology as one of the factors related to faculty use of
educational technologies. The researcher concluded that faculty who had more experience in technolo-
gies in turn had higher degrees of self-efficacy.

Technical Support

Another common factor related to university faculty use of technology was technical support with these
tools. Surveys conducted by Fathema, Shannon & Ross (2015) and by Zheng and colleagues (2018)
indicated that providing faculty with technical support with learning management systems would im-
prove faculty’s perceptions of technology’s benefits, as well as the likelihood that they would utilize
technology in the university courses. Studying faculty perceptions of learning management systems,
Zeng and colleagues suggested that the more confident the faculty member is with technology, the more
willing they are to implement more tools within the online platform. Fathema and colleagues (2018),
in their study of faculty attitudes toward learning management systems, found a positive correlation of
facilitating conditions, technical support being one, on faculty’s stances toward technology. In a smaller
sample of 47 faculty (Loague, Caldwell, & Balam, 2018), researchers found that while faculty perceived
technology use as positive, they noted a lack of technology support as one barrier. Faculty in this study
suggested support focusing on using technology for instructional purposes.

Generational Factors

Another factor attributed to implementation and adoption of technology standards is the generational
factors that the teacher educator aligns with: digital native vs. digital immigrant. Digital natives is a term
used to describe people who have known digital technology their entire lives (Prensky, 2001). It is usually
assumed that these digital natives are also equipped with adequate skills in the use of emerging technolo-
gies. While this designation has been challenged by research that points out the over-generalizations of
their technology skills and experiences, there is evidence that perceptions of technology are in some
ways generational. In Watty, McKay, & Ngo’s (2016) qualitative study, college faculty were interviewed
regarding their perceptions of the use of technology. A theme that emerged centered on generational
factors attributing to faculty members’ reluctance to utilize technology, including responses related
to discomfort with tools, age factors, and reluctance to try new instructional methods (p. 8). In John’s
(2015) survey, age was another factor found to contribute to faculty’s implementation. Respondents in
this survey fell in one of three age groups: less than 30, between 30 and 50, and more than 50 years of
age; faculty between the ages of 30 and 50 responded more positively in relation to ease of technology
implementation. A survey conducted by Nelson, Voithofer, and Cheng (2019) investigating the mediating
factors contributing to teacher educator implementation of TPACK and ISTE standards provided mixed

266

Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

Figure 1. The ISTE Educator and TETC Crosswalk Dance Framework

results in relation to teacher educator experience. Analysis of the survey found that teacher educators
with more experience in the field reported to have a significantly higher ISTE adoption rate. However,
this group of educators also reported to have lower technology knowledge. Overall, however, the re-
searchers in this study concluded that based on their results experience as a teacher educator was not a
major factor for ISTE implementation. While findings were mixed, age continues to play a role among
studies conducted since 2015.
Faculty perceptions focusing on self-efficacy, technical support, as well as generational factors influ-
ence the likelihood of utilizing technology. These perceptions reveal faculty’s beliefs about the ways that
technology is, and should be, used. These cultural models related to their attitudes toward technology
integration and use illustrate challenges faced by universities in addressing the ISTE standards and TETC
competencies. Universities need to address the factors that can help improve these perceptions, thereby
reshaping faculty’s cultural model of technology use.

RESULTING FRAMEWORK: TETC & ISTE EDUCATOR CROSSWALK DANCE

The professional teacher education team of teacher candidate, cooperating teacher, and site professor
may find the ISTE Ed and TETC Crosswalk Dance (Figure 1) helpful in collaboratively planning and
designing learning environments while addressing their individual professional development needs.
The primary cultural model components of value, support, and efficacy inform the communities
of inquiry presences and influences within the presented theoretical framework. Peacock and Cowan’s
(2016) Communities of Inquiry model including Presences and Influences are deemed more useful in
providing design depth. The Presences include trusting, meaning-making, and deepening understand-
ing and are chosen to present “as accurately as possible the rigor of contributions expected from each
interweaving of Presences” (p. 272). The Influences include meaning-making in supporting discourse,
trusting in setting climate, and deepening understanding in selecting content. Both the cultural model
components and the Communities of Inquiry Presences and Influences provide the theoretical base and
drive the creation of the two proposed promising practice tools, including the ISTE Educator and TETC
Crosswalk and the Crosswalk to Rubric Alignment Blending protocol. The protocol includes inquiry-

267
 
Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

Table 1. The intended co-coaching, inquiry-based learning questions derived from the theoretical framework

Cultural Models Communities of Inquiry

Co-Coaching IBL Questions
Components Presences and Influences
How are you currently integrating technology within your lessons? Some
Self-efficacy factor Teaching Presence
strengths I see are… How would you like to move forward with these tools?
Generational
Trusting in Setting Climate My one top, creative, fun contribution that can help shape this collaborative
reluctance with tools
Influence learning and development opportunity is…
factor
Technical support What I hear each of you saying your key need(s) and outcome(s) for your
Social Presence
factor professional development within this lesson are…
Meaning-Making in
Ease/ discomfort with I think your desired learning outcomes and my desired outcomes could best
Supporting Discourse
tools factor complement each other by…
Influence
Technical support How can I help you move forward with these tools?
Cognitive Presence
factor How can we share our best network support tools?
What are my top 1-3 professional development standards/competencies,
Teaching/ instructor Deepening Understanding in
supporting learner objectives, and resulting outcomes I would like to
experience factor Selecting Content Influence
contribute to the professional educator collaborative?

based learning co-coaching questions, as driven by the Crosswalk Dance framework. Each of these three
artifacts will be presented in greater detail next.
Key inquiry-based questions to help guide the professional educator team of preservice teacher edu-
cator, inservice cooperating teacher, and teacher educator were formed by positing the questions from
within the theoretical framework. The resulting questions are shown below in Table 1.

TETC and ISTE Educator Standards Crosswalks

A crosswalk is a “term deployed to describe a mechanism or approach to translating, comparing or moving

between meta-data standards or converting skills or content from one discipline to another… to showcase
how to move from the old to the new” (Gross, 2012). Examples of crosswalks include a progression from
high school to college, that when created and shared widely, would help with greater college success.
Another example is for the purpose in this document: a crosswalk that translates for teacher candidates
and teacher educators to illuminate a larger systemic thinking alignment between educator (pre-service
and in-service) standards and teacher educator competencies for better technologically prepared and
supported learning environments. The Future Ready Librarians Crosswalk (South, Sykora, Stoeckl,
Liesch, Malespinna, 2018) served as the crosswalk model for this document.
The following crosswalks provide interconnections between the International Society for Technology
in Education (ISTE) Educator Standards (ISTE, 2013) and the Teacher Educator Technology Competen-
cies (TETCs) (Foulger, Graziano, Schmidt-Crawford, Slykhuis, 2017). These two frameworks support
and complement each other in that they share the goals of preparing educators who embrace, support,
and are supported by the intentional design within each of the frameworks. The ISTE Educator Standards
have core concepts of educators as learners, leaders, digital citizens, designers, facilitators, and analysts.
The TETCs have core concepts of instructional design; pedagogical approaches; knowledge, skills, and
attitudes; online tools; differentiated instruction; technology tools for assessment; effective strategies;

268

Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

Table 2. Crosswalk overview:

technology to connect cultures; legal, ethical, and socially-responsible use; professional development
and networking; leadership and advocacy; and troubleshooting skills.
Use of these crosswalks may assist teacher educators to guide and deepen their personal growth and
development. Simultaneously, teacher educators will help prepare and support teacher candidates’ compe-
tencies and personal growth within an ever-changing technological learning environment. As well, these
crosswalks will also help teacher candidates see a more comprehensive overview of aspiring learning
environments that include educator and teacher educator standards and competencies. Mentoring and
reverse-mentoring outcomes are possible, and will be supported through the use of these crosswalks.
These crosswalk views may also be valuable for educational leaders, cooperating teachers, technol-
ogy specialists, and other personnel who participate in and support teacher education collaboratives.
Such collaboratives could include Future Teachers of America high school groups looking to teaching,
higher education as focused upon certification, higher education as focused upon graduate research and
development, community partnerships between universities and schools, administrative policy groups,
just to name a few possibilities. Therefore, these bi-directional crosswalks allow the reader an initial
perspective approach to the multi-faceted learning environment based upon their professional knowledge
base and/or focal point.
An overview of the ISTE Educator Standards to the Teacher Educator Technology Competencies
will be presented next (Table 2). Preservice teacher candidates and inservice cooperating teachers will
find this orientation to the crosswalk most beneficial in seeing how the teacher educator’s competencies
align with their standards. The full version ISTE to TETC crosswalk is available in Appendix A.
Teacher educator roles vary and include such titles as college professor, clinical instructor, adjunct
educator, etc. Teacher educators will find the TETC to ISTE crosswalk most beneficial in understanding
how their competencies more directly align with teacher candidate and cooperating teacher standards.
The crosswalk overview is shown below (Table 3). Greater detail of the completed table is found in
Appendix B.

Crosswalk to Rubric Alignment Blending (CRAB) Walk: Alignment Needs

Aligning standards or competencies to rubrics is a recommended process for several levels of educators’
and trainers’ collaborative professional development needs. Those working in collaborative environments
with multiple educator levels and roles can be easily overwhelmed in trying to weave complementary, but
not directly aligned standards and competencies. Well thought out educator team alignment processes could
provide greater efficiency toward accountability reports while supporting collaborative creativity. Such
processes can greatly facilitate and support such developmental initiatives as competency-based educa-
tion. Multiple models of such processes are possible. This article provides one such proposed protocol.

269
 
Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

ISTE Educator Standards to Teacher Educator Technology Competencies (TETCs)

ISTE Educator Standards Teacher Educator Technology Competencies (TETCs)

10. Teacher educators will engage in ongoing professional development and
Learner - Educators continually improve their practice
networking activities to improve the integration of technology in teaching.
by learning from and with others and exploring proven
3. Teacher educators will support the development of the knowledge, skills,
and promising practices that leverage technology to
and attitudes or teacher candidates as related to teaching with technology in
improve student learning.
their content area.
11. Teacher educator will engage in leadership and advocacy for using
technology.
Leader - Educators seek out opportunities for leadership 5. Teacher educators will use technology to differentiate instruction to meet
to support student empowerment and success and to diverse learning needs.
improve teaching and learning. 4. Teacher educators will use online tools to enhance teaching and learning.
7. Teacher educators will use effective strategies for teaching online and/or
blended/hybrid learning environments.
Citizen - Educators inspire students to positively
9. Teacher educators will address the legal, ethical, and socially responsible
contribute to and responsibly participate in the digital
use of technology in education.
world.
Collaborator - Educators dedicate time to collaborate
with both colleagues and students to improve practice, 8. Teacher educators will use technology to connect globally with a variety of
discover and share resources and ideas, and solve regions and cultures.
problems.
Designer - Educators design authentic, learner-
1. Teacher educators will design instruction that utilizes content-specific
driven activities and environments that recognize and
technologies to enhance teaching and learning.
accommodate learner variability.
2. Teacher educators will incorporate pedagogical approaches that prepare
Facilitator - Educators facilitate learning with
teacher candidates to effectively use technology.
technology to support student achievement of the ISTE
7. Teacher educators will use effective strategies for teaching online and/or
Standards for Students.
blended/hybrid learning environments.
Analyst - Educators understand and use data to drive
their instruction and support students in achieving their 6. Teacher educators will use appropriate technology tools for assessment.
learning goals.

The proposed “CRABwalk” protocol is designed to help align a team’s multiple standards / com-
petencies within one assessment. Measurable outcomes, when incorporating key words and phrases
from the requisite standards or competencies, greatly facilitates future learning artifact to standards and
competencies alignments. Such alignments could ease efficiency in developing accountability reports
to accrediting and licensing agencies.

The CRABwalk within the Crosswalk

A promising practice for transitioning from a crosswalk to a standards-aligned rubric with high account-
ability can be processed through the use of the Crosswalk to Rubric Alignment Blending (CRAB)walk
(Table 4).
This Crosswalk CRABwalk provides a cognitive tool to facilitate partnership collaboration that can
result in greater individual and team growth and development. Professional standard or competency
needs are of focus and therefore meet the needs of each educator (preservice, inservice, and teacher
educator). The “CRABwalk within the Crosswalk” occurs as both ISTE Educator standards and TETC
competencies are collaboratively reviewed and worked. The process is much like a team of crabs mov-

270

Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

Table 3. Crosswalk Overview: Teacher Educator Technology Competencies (TETCs) to ISTE Educator
Standards

Teacher Educator Technology Competencies (TETCs) ISTE Educator Standards

1. Teacher educators will design instruction that utilizes content-
specific technologies to enhance teaching and learning.
2. Teacher educators will incorporate pedagogical approaches that
prepare teacher candidates to effectively use technology.
3. Teacher educators will support the development of the knowledge,
skills, and attitudes or teacher candidates as related to teaching with
technology in their content area.
4. Teacher educators will use online tools to enhance teaching and
learning.
5. Teacher educators will use technology to differentiate instruction
to meet diverse learning needs.
6. Teacher educators will use appropriate technology tools for
assessment.
7. Teacher educators will use effective strategies for teaching online
and/or blended/hybrid learning environments.
8. Teacher educators will use technology to connect globally with a
variety of regions and cultures.
9. Teacher educators will address the legal, ethical, and socially
responsible use of technology in education.
10. Teacher educators will engage in ongoing professional
development and networking activities to improve the integration of
technology in teaching.
11. Teacher educator will engage in leadership and advocacy for
using technology.
Designer - Educators design authentic, learner-driven activities
and environments that recognize and accommodate learner
variability.
Facilitator - Educators facilitate learning with technology to
support student achievement of the ISTE Standards for Students.
Learner - Educators continually improve their practice by
learning from and with others and exploring proven and
promising practices that leverage technology to improve student
learning.
Leader - Educators seek out opportunities for leadership to
support student empowerment and success and to improve
teaching and learning.
Leader - Educators seek out opportunities for leadership to
support student empowerment and success and to improve
teaching and learning.
Analyst - Educators understand and use data to drive their
instruction and support students in achieving their learning
goals.
Leader - Educators seek out opportunities for leadership to
support student empowerment and success and to improve
teaching and learning.
Facilitator - Educators facilitate learning with technology to
support student achievement of the ISTE Standards for Students.
Collaborator - Educators dedicate time to collaborate with both
colleagues and students to improve practice, discover and share
resources and ideas, and solve problems.
Citizen - Educators inspire students to contribute and
responsibly participate in the digital world.
Learner - Educators continually improve their practice by
learning from and with others and exploring proven and
promising practices that leverage technology to improve student
learning.
Leader - Educators seek out opportunities for leadership to
support student empowerment and success and to improve
teaching and learning.

ing simultaneously along a beach to provide greater support and strength as a unit seeking survival and
growth, rather than single members traversing alone.
The Crosswalk CRABwalk process involves three process steps, which include inquiry-based ques-
tion prompts to facilitate the process:

271
 
Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

Table 4. Template Guide for ISTE Educator with TETC Crosswalk CRABwalk

Collective Team Rubric

ISTE Ed ISTE Ed ISTE Ed TETC TETC TETC
Criteria

Individual Role Rubric ISTE Ed OR ISTE Ed OR ISTE Ed OR

Criteria TETC TETC TETC
Key CRABwalk Outcome:

1) Collective review the K-12 learner standard needs, including any learner outcome products:
a. Rubric Keyword Generation. What are the key words and phrases of the specific K-12 learner
standards?
b. Process Needs. What are the requisite learner processes toward achieving the learning
outcome(s) for the lesson?
c. Outcomes. What are the learner outcome products and rubrics?
d. Note: It is important at this stage that the collaborative review maintain focus upon reviewing
the existing K-12 items. This meeting can occur synchronously or asynchronously and need
not take more than 5 minutes. Do not share any educator needs or ideas for involvement at
this step. Allow ample time for the next step of individual educator analysis.
2) Individual educator analysis:
a. Brainstorming. What are fun, creative ideas I could contribute to these learning process and
outcome needs?
b. Learner Outcome Formation. How can my top creative, fun contribution align to my requisite
(ISTE educator standards or TETC competencies) in multiple ways?
c. Personal Learning Objectives and Outcomes. What are my top 1-3 professional development
standards/competencies, supporting learner objectives, and resulting outcomes I would like
to contribute to the professional educator collaborative?
d. Note: It is important at this stage that individual, solitary analysis be conducted. Reasons
include a) desire for best individual, reflective creativity time without group think or loud
voice domination; b) empowerment of navigating multiple standards that can be applied to
creative thought; c) empowerment of resulting professional development standard to outcome
contribution potential to a professional collaborative.

272

Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

Table 5. Completed Sample of ISTE Educator with TETC Crosswalk CRABwalk

Collective Team Rubric Criteria ISTE Ed TETC

Goal Setting L.a. 10.a.
Key CRABwalk Outcome:
10.b. Share an improved pedagogical approach using creative
Networking L.b.
10.c. and collaborative technologies gained through both face
to face and online networking and learning goals.
Pedagogical approaches L.a. 10.b.

3) Collaborative educator design personal and team reflections:

a. 1 Minute Overview Shared Passions. My one top, creative, fun contribution that can help
shape this collaborative learning and development opportunity is…
b. 5 Minute Sharing of Individual Analysis. My personal learning objectives and outcomes for
this collaborative are…
c. 1 Minute Needs/ Outcomes Statements Reflection. What I hear each of you saying your key
need(s) and outcome(s) for your professional development within this lesson are…
d. 2 Minute Complement. I think your outcomes and my outcomes could complement each other
best by/through …(list ways).
4) Finalizing the associations for rubric development.
a. Title ISTE Educator / TETC columns
i. How can we equally merge our most passionate, professional learning outcomes within
this ISTE Educator and TETC collaborative lesson?
ii. Which of our individual, supporting ISTE Educator and TETC standards/ competencies
are to be included in the Crosswalk CRABwalk?

Note: Add these alpha-numeric column title references to standards and competencies.

b. Determine standards / competencies keywords and phrases

i. What are the key words or phrases from each of the ISTE Educator (italicized) and TETC
(underlined) standards/ competencies?
ii. How can these be combined into criteria for our collaborative product rubric?
c. Remaining individual educator needs not met by the Crosswalk Rubric and recommended to be
included are added with a definite dividing line to the existing rubric.

A completed sample of this process focusing upon the K-12 student’s “Empowered Learner” 1a ISTE
Standard pertaining to setting learning goals is provide below (Table 5). The “ISTE Ed” section contains
references to the “Learner” (L) specific standards. The ISTE Educator Learner “a” standard of “Set
professional learning goals to explore and apply pedagogical approaches made possible by technology
and reflect on their effectiveness” and the 10.a. and 10.b. Teacher Educator Technology Competencies
of “Define goals for personal growth in using technology,” and “Support teacher candidates’ continu-
ous participation in networking activities to increase their knowledge of technology” were used for this
example.

273
 
Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

Table 6. Sample rubric containing ISTE Educator standards and TET Competencies

Collective Team Rubric

Exemplary Proficient Needs Improvement
Criteria
Goals or technology Greater collaboration
Technology learning
Goal Setting explorations need greater needed to set learning and/or
goals were set and defined.
definition. technology exploration goals.
Professional technology
Professional technology Greater effort needed in
interest learning and possibly
interest learning demonstrated. terms of accessing local and
Networking contributions demonstrated
Contributions and/or global global networks focused upon
through local and global
networks needed. greater technology learning.
networks.
New technology- Greater efforts in
infused pedagogical Either technology or learning and applying
Pedagogical Approaches
approaches demonstrated and pedagogy needs improvement. technological approached to
shared. pedagogy needed.

The “Key CRABwalk Outcome” section contains a sample collective outcome for everyone, includ-
ing the preservice teacher candidate, inservice cooperating teacher, and higher education educator. No
additional individual criteria were deemed necessary in this example.

ISTE Educator with TETC Rubric Finalization and Sample

The finalization of the above ISTE Educator with TETC Rubric process steps result in a usable rubric to
be used in learning management systems for future learning outcome standards-based alignments. This
article assumes educators’ previous learning and development experiences related to rubric development.
A completed sample is seen in Table 6 below.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

In an effort to change teacher educators’ attitudes and beliefs and ultimately their cultural models toward
technology implementation, it is important to address the main challenges and obstacles they face: self-
efficacy with technology, support with technology tools, and possible generational factors. This ISTE
Ed / TETC Crosswalk Dance and the CRABwalk protocol are an approach for addressing the multiple
standards and competencies through collaboration across all educator groups. The coaching and inquiry-
based design provides educators a support network that can help alleviate the barriers that impede the
implementation of these important 21st century skills.

274

Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

REFERENCES

Al-Awidi, H. M., & Alghazo, I. M. (2012). The effect of student teaching experience on preservice el-
ementary teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration in the UAE. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 60(5), 923–941. doi:10.100711423-012-9239-4
Baran, E. (2016). Investigating faculty technology mentoring as a university-wide professional develop-
ment model. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(1), 45–71. doi:10.100712528-015-9104-7
Capo, B. H., & Orellana, A. (2012). Web 2.0 technologies for classroom instruction: High school teach-
ers’ perceptions and adoption factors. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(4), 235.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school
classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.
doi:10.3102/00028312038004813
Fathema, N., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2015). Expanding the technology acceptance model (TAM) to
examine faculty use of learning management systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. MERLOT
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 210–232.
Foulger, T. S., Graziano, K. J., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Slykhuis, D. A. (2017). Teacher Educator
Technology Competencies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(4), 413–448.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Com-
puter conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. doi:10.1016/
S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Educa-
tion, 25, 99–125.
Gee, J. P., & Green, J. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning and social practice: A methodological study.
Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169.
Gross, K. (2012, May 1). Crosswalks. Retrieved February 19, 2019, from https://sites.ed.gov/ous/2012/05/
crosswalks/
Higher Education Academy. (n.d.). Communities of Practice. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.
ac.uk/knowledge-hub/communities-practice
Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (1987). Culture and cognition. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural
Models in Language & Thought (pp. 3–40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511607660
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A
path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154. doi:10.100711423-
009-9132-y
ISTE Standards for Educators. (2013). Retrieved February 19, 2019, from https://www.iste.org/standards/
for-educators

275
 
Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

John, S. P. (2015). The integration of information technology in higher education: A study of faculty’s
attitude towards IT adoption in the teaching process. Contaduría y Administración, 60(1), 230–252.
doi:10.1016/j.cya.2015.08.004
Kazu, I. Y. (2011). An Investigation of Factors Affecting the Use of Educational Technology in Turkish
Primary Schools. Education, 131(3), 510–524.
Kozan, K. (2016). The incremental predictive validity of teaching, cognitive and social presence on
cognitive load. Internet and Higher Education, 31, 11–19. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.003
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Littrell, A. B., Zagumny, M. J., & Zagumny, L. L. (2005). Contextual and Psychological Predictors of
Instructional Technology Use in Rural Classrooms. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(2), 37–47.
Loague, A., Caldwell, N., & Balam, E. (2018). Professors’ attitudes and perceptions about technology
use in the classroom. Alabama Journal of Educational Leadership, 5, 1–11.
Nelson, M. J., Voithofer, R., & Cheng, S. (2019). Mediating factors that influence the technology
integration practices of teacher educators. Computers & Education, 128, 330–344. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2018.09.023
Peacock, S., & Cowan, J. (2016). From presences to linked influences within communities of inquiry.
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5), 267–283. doi:10.19173/
irrodl.v17i5.2602
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
Ramos, P. H. (2005). If Not Here, Where? Understanding Teachers Use Of Technology In Silicon Val-
ley Schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 39–64. doi:10.1080/15391523.2
005.10782449
Reid, P. (2017). Supporting instructors in overcoming self-efficacy and background barriers to adoption.
Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 369–382. doi:10.100710639-015-9449-6
Saroyan, A., & Trigwell, K. (2015). Higher education teachers’ professional learning: Process and out-
come. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 92–101. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.03.008
South, J., Sykora, C., Stoeckl, S., Liesch, J., & Malespinna, E. (2018, September). Crosswalk: Future
ready librarians framework and ISTE standards for educators. Retrieved from the International Society
for Technology in Education on November 19, 2018, from https://www.iste.org/docs/isteu-docs/iste-
standards-e_frl-crosswalk_6-2018_v7-2.pdf
Teo, T. (2009). The impact of subjective norm and facilitating conditions on pre-service teachers’ atti-
tude toward computer use: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(1), 89–109. doi:10.2190/EC.40.1.d

276
Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test.
Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008
Terosky, A. L., & Heasley, C. (2015). Supporting online faculty through a sense of community and col-
legiality. Online Learning, 19(3), 147–161.
Valadez, J. R., & Durán, R. P. (2007). Redefining the digital divide: Beyond access to computers and
the Internet. High School Journal, 90(3), 31–44. doi:10.1353/hsj.2007.0013
Watty, K., McKay, J., & Ngo, L. (2016). Innovators or inhibitors? Accounting faculty resistance to new
educational technologies in higher education. Journal of Accounting Education, 36, 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.
jaccedu.2016.03.003
Wicks, D., Craft, B. B., Mason, G. N., Gritter, K., & Bolding, K. (2015). An investigation into the com-
munity of inquiry of blended classrooms by faculty learning community. Internet and Higher Education,
25, 53–62. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.12.001
Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ per-
ceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173–207.
Zheng, Y., Wang, J., Doll, W., Deng, X., & Williams, M. (2018). The impact of organisational support,
technical support, and self-efficacy on faculty perceived benefits of using learning management systems.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(4), 311–319. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2018.1436590

277
 Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

APPENDIX 1

Table 7. ISTE Educator Standards to Teacher Educator Technology Competencies (TETCs) Crosswalk

ISTE EDUCATOR STANDARDS Teacher Educator Technology Competencies

#10. Teacher educators will engage in ongoing professional development and

Learner
networking activities to improve the integration of technology in teaching.
Educators continually improve their practice by learning from and with others and exploring
#3. Teacher educators will support the development of the knowledge, skills, and
proven and promising practices that leverage technology to improve student learning.
attitudes or teacher candidates as related to teaching with technology in their content
Educators:
area.

a. Set professional learning goals to explore and apply pedagogical approaches made possible by technology and reflect on their effectiveness. 10.a. Define goals for personal growth
in using technology.
10.c. Support teacher candidates’ continuous participation in networking activities to increase their knowledge of technology.
b. Pursue professional interests by creating and actively participating in local and global learning networks. 10.b. Engage in continuous professional development and networking
activities promoting technology knowledge and skills.
c. Stay current with research that supports improved student learning outcomes, including findings from the learning sciences. 3.a. Support teacher candidates’ alignment of content
with pedagogy and appropriate
technology.
3.b. Provide opportunities for teacher candidates to reflect on their attitudes about using technology for teaching and for their own learning.
3.c. Provide opportunities to develop teacher candidates’ efficacy about using technology in teaching.

#11. Teacher educator will engage in leadership and advocacy for using technology.
#5. Teacher educators will use technology to differentiate instruction to meet diverse
Leader
learning needs.
Educators seek out opportunities for leadership to support student empowerment and success
#4. Teacher educators will use online tools to enhance teaching and learning.
and to improve teaching and learning. Educators:
#7. Teacher educators will use effective strategies for teaching online and/or blended/
hybrid learning environments.

a. Shape, advance and accelerate a shared vision for empowered learning with technology by engaging with education stakeholders. 11.a. Share a vision for teaching and learning with
technology
11.b. Engage with professional organizations that advocate technology use in education.
11.c. Seek to influence the opinions and decisions of others regarding technology integration.
11.d. Assist teacher candidates in becoming advocates for using technology to enhance teaching and learning.
11.e. Support teacher candidates in understanding local, state, and national technology policies in education.
b. Advocate for equitable access to educational technology, digital content and learning opportunities to meet the diverse needs of all students. 5.a. Design instruction using technology
to meet the needs of diverse learners.
5.b. Demonstrate using assistive technologies to maximize learning for individual student needs.
5.c. Model using technology to differentiate learning in teaching and learning.
5.d. Provide opportunities for teacher candidates to create learning activities using technology to differentiate instruction.
1.a. Evaluate content-specific technology for teaching and learning.
2.b. Assist teacher candidates with evaluating the affordances of content-specific technologies to support student learning.
c. Model for colleagues the identification, exploration, evaluation, curation and adoption of new digital resources and tools for learning. 4.a. Communicate using online tools.
4.b. Collaborate using online tools.
4.c. Design instruction using online tools.
4.d. Assess teacher candidates using online tools.
7.a. Model online and blended learning methods and strategies.

Citizen
#9. Teacher educators will address the legal, ethical, and socially responsible use of
Educators inspire students to positively contribute to and responsibly participate in the digital
technology in education.
world. Educators:

a. Create experiences for learners to make positive, socially responsible contributions and exhibit empathetic behavior online that build relationships and community. 9.c. Provide
opportunities for teacher candidates to design curriculum following legal, ethical, and socially-responsible uses of technology.
b. Establish a learning culture that promotes curiosity and critical examination of online resources and fosters digital literacy and media fluency. 9.a. Model the legal, ethical, and
socially-responsible use of technology for teaching and learning.
c. Mentor students in safe, legal and ethical practices with digital tools and the protection of intellectual rights and property. 9.b. Guide teacher candidates’ use of technology in legal,
ethical, and socially-responsible ways.
d. Model and promote management of personal data and digital identity and protect student data privacy. 9.a. Model the legal, ethical, and socially-responsible use of technology for
teaching and learning.

Collaborator
#8. Teacher educators will use technology to connect globally with a variety of
Educators dedicate time to collaborate with both colleagues and students to improve practice,
regions and cultures.
discover and share resources and ideas, and solve problems. Educators:

continued on following page

278
Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

Table 7. Continued
ISTE EDUCATOR STANDARDS Teacher Educator Technology Competencies

a. Dedicate planning time to collaborate with colleagues to create authentic learning experiences that leverage technology. 8.a. Model global engagement using technologies to connect
teacher candidates with other cultures and locations.
b. Collaborate and co-learn with students to discover and use new digital resources and diagnose and troubleshoot technology issues. 12.Teacher educators will apply basic
troubleshooting skills to resolve technology issues.
a. Configure digital devices for teaching.
b. Operate digital devices during teaching.
c. Model basic troubleshooting skills during teaching.
d. Find solutions to problems related to technology using a variety of resources.
c. Use collaborative tools to expand students’ authentic, real-world learning experiences by engaging virtually with experts, teams and students, locally and globally. 8.b. Design
instruction in which teacher candidates use technology to collaborate with learners from a variety of backgrounds and cultures.
d. Demonstrate cultural competency when communicating with students, parents and colleagues and interact with them as co-collaborators in student learning. 8.c. Address strategies
needed for cultures and regions having different levels of technological connectivity.

Designer
#1. Teacher educators will design instruction that utilizes content-specific
Educators design authentic, learner-driven activities and environments that recognize and
technologies to enhance teaching and learning.
accommodate learner variability. Educators:

a. Use technology to create, adapt and personalize learning experiences that foster independent learning and accommodate learner differences and needs. #5. Teacher educators will use
technology to differentiate instruction to meet diverse learning needs.
5.a. Design instruction using technology to meet the needs of diverse learners.
5.b. Demonstrate using assistive technologies to maximize learning for individual student needs.
5.c. Model using technology to differentiate learning in teaching and learning.
5.d. Provide opportunities for teacher candidates to create learning activities using technology to differentiate instruction.
b. Design authentic learning activities that align with content area standards and use digital tools and resources to maximize active, deep learning. 1.a. Evaluate content-specific
technology for teaching and learning.
1.b. Align content with pedagogical approaches and appropriate technology.
c. Explore and apply instructional design principles to create innovative digital learning environments that engage and support learning. 1.c. Model approaches for aligning the content
being taught with appropriate pedagogy and technology.

#2. Teacher educators will incorporate pedagogical approaches that prepare teacher
Facilitator
candidates to effectively use technology.
Educators facilitate learning with technology to support student achievement of the ISTE
#7. Teacher educators will use effective strategies for teaching online and/or blended/
Standards for Students. Educators:
hybrid learning environments.

a. Foster a culture where students take ownership of their learning goals and outcomes in both independent and group settings. 2.c. Assist teacher candidates with the selection and use
of content-specific technologies to support student learning.
b. Manage the use of technology and student learning strategies in digital platforms, virtual environments, hands-on makerspaces or in the field. 2.d. Facilitate opportunities for teacher
candidates to practice teaching with technology.
7.b. Provide opportunities for teacher candidates to practice teaching online and/or in blended/hybrid learning environments.
c. Create learning opportunities that challenge students to use a design process and computational thinking to innovate and solve problems. 2.a. Model using technology for accessing,
analyzing, creating, and evaluating information.
d. Model and nurture creativity and creative expression to communicate ideas, knowledge or connections. 2.d. Facilitate opportunities for teacher candidates to practice teaching with
technology.

Analyst
Educators understand and use data to drive their instruction and support students in achieving #6. Teacher educators will use appropriate technology tools for assessment.
their learning goals. Educators:

a. Provide alternative ways for students to demonstrate competency and reflect on their learning using technology. 6.a. Use technology to assess teacher candidates’ competence and
knowledge.
b. Use technology to design and implement a variety of formative and summative assessments that accommodate learner needs, provide timely feedback to students and inform
instruction. 6.b. Model a variety of assessment practices that use technology.
c. Use assessment data to guide progress and communicate with students, parents and education stakeholders to build student self-direction. 6.c. Provide opportunities for teacher
candidates to use appropriate technology for assessment.

279
 Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

APPENDIX 2
Table 8. Teacher Educator Technology Competencies (TETCs) to ISTE Educator Standards Crosswalk

Teacher Educator Technology Competencies ISTE Educator Standards

1. Teacher educators will design instruction that utilizes content-specific Designer - Educators design authentic, learner-driven activities and environments that
technologies to enhance teaching and learning. recognize and accommodate learner variability. Educators:

a. Evaluate content-specific technology for teaching and learning. b. Design authentic learning activities that align with content area standards and use digital tools and resources to
maximize active, deep learning.
Learner b. Advocate for equitable access to educational technology, digital content and learning opportunities to meet the diverse needs of all students.
b. Align content with pedagogical approaches and appropriate technology.
c. Model approaches for aligning the content being taught with appropriate pedagogy and technology. c. Explore and apply instructional design principles to create innovative digital
learning environments that engage and support learning.

2. Teacher educators will incorporate pedagogical approaches that prepare teacher Facilitator - Educators facilitate learning with technology to support student achievement of
candidates to effectively use technology. the ISTE Standards for Students. Educators:

a. Model using technology for accessing, analyzing, creating, and evaluating information. c. Create learning opportunities that challenge students to use a design process and
computational thinking to innovate and solve problems.
b. Assist teacher candidates with evaluating the affordances of content-specific technologies to support student learning. Designer b. Design authentic learning activities that align with
content area standards and use digital tools and resources to maximize active, deep learning.
c. Assist teacher candidates with the selection and use of content-specific technologies to support student learning. a. Foster a culture where students take ownership of their learning
goals and outcomes in both independent and group settings.
d. Facilitate opportunities for teacher candidates to practice teaching with technology b. Manage the use of technology and student learning strategies in digital platforms, virtual
environments, hands-on makerspaces or in the field.
Facilitator d. Model and nurture creativity and creative expression to communicate ideas, knowledge or connections.

3. Teacher educators will support the development of the knowledge, skills, and Learner - Educators continually improve their practice by learning from and with others
attitudes of teacher candidates as related to teaching with technology in their content and exploring proven and promising practices that leverage technology to improve student
area. learning. Educators:

a. Support teacher candidates’ alignment of content with pedagogy and appropriate technology. c. Stay current with research that supports improved student learning outcomes,
including findings from the learning sciences.
b. Provide opportunities for teacher candidates to reflect on their attitudes about using technology for teaching and for their own learning.
c. Provide opportunities to develop teacher candidates’ efficacy about using technology in teaching.

Leader - Educators seek out opportunities for leadership to support student empowerment
4. Teacher educators will use online tools to enhance teaching and learning.
and success and to improve teaching and learning. Educators:

a. Communicate using online tools. c. Model for colleagues the identification, exploration, evaluation, curation and adoption of new digital resources and tools for learning.
b. Collaborate using online tools.
c. Design instruction using online tools.
d. Assess teacher candidates using online tools.

Leader - Educators seek out opportunities for leadership to support student empowerment
5. Teacher educators will use technology to differentiate instruction to meet diverse and success and to improve teaching and learning. Educators:
learning needs. Designer - Educators design authentic, learner-driven activities and environments that
recognize and accommodate learner variability. Educators:

a. Design instruction using technology to meet the needs of diverse learners. Leader b. Advocate for equitable access to educational technology, digital content and learning
opportunities to meet the diverse needs of all students.
Designer a. Use technology to create, adapt and personalize learning experiences that foster independent learning and accommodate learner differences and needs.
b. Demonstrate using assistive technologies to maximize learning for individual student needs.
c. Model using technology to differentiate learning in teaching and learning.
d. Provide opportunities for teacher candidates to create learning activities using technology to differentiate instruction.

Analyst - Educators understand and use data to drive their instruction and support students in
6. Teacher educators will use appropriate technology tools for assessment.
achieving their learning goals.

a. Use technology to assess teacher candidates’ competence and knowledge. a. Provide alternative ways for students to demonstrate competency and reflect on their learning using
technology.
b. Model a variety of assessment practices that use technology. b. Use technology to design and implement a variety of formative and summative assessments that accommodate
learner needs, provide timely feedback to students and inform instruction.
c. Provide opportunities for teacher candidates to use appropriate technology for assessment. c. Use assessment data to guide progress and communicate with students, parents and
education stakeholders to build student self-direction.

continued on following page

280
Crab-Walking in the Crosswalk

Table 8. Continued
Teacher Educator Technology Competencies ISTE Educator Standards

Leader - Educators seek out opportunities for leadership to support student empowerment
7. Teacher educators will use effective strategies for teaching online and/or blended/ and success and to improve teaching and learning. Educators:
hybrid learning environments. Facilitator - Educators facilitate learning with technology to support student achievement of
the ISTE Standards for Students. Educators:

a. Model online and blended learning methods and strategies. Leader c. Model for colleagues the identification, exploration, evaluation, curation and adoption of new digital resources
and tools for learning.
b. Provide opportunities for teacher candidates to practice teaching online and/or in blended/hybrid learning environments. Facilitator b. Manage the use of technology and student
learning strategies in digital platforms, virtual environments, hands-on makerspaces or in the field.

8. Teacher educators will use technology to connect globally with a variety of Collaborator- Educators dedicate time to collaborate with both colleagues and students to
regions and cultures. improve practice, discover and share resources and ideas, and solve problems. Educators:

a. Model global engagement using technologies to connect teacher candidates with other cultures and locations. a. Dedicate planning time to collaborate with colleagues to create
authentic learning experiences that leverage technology.
b. Design instruction in which teacher candidates use technology to collaborate with learners from a variety of backgrounds and cultures. c. Use collaborative tools to expand students’
authentic, real-world learning experiences by engaging virtually with experts, teams and students, locally and globally.
c. Address strategies needed for cultures and regions having different levels of technological connectivity. d. Demonstrate cultural competency when communicating with students,
parents, and colleagues and interact with them as co-collaborators in student learning.

9. Teacher educators will address the legal, ethical, and socially-responsible use of Citizen - Educators inspire students to positively contribute to and responsibly participate in
technology in education. the digital world. Educators:

a. Model the legal, ethical, and socially-responsible use of technology for teaching and learning. b. Establish a learning culture that promotes curiosity and critical examination of
online resources and fosters digital literacy and media fluency.
d. Model and promote management of personal data and digital identity and protect student data privacy.
b. Guide teacher candidates’ use of technology in legal, ethical, and socially-responsible ways. c. Mentor students in safe, legal and ethical practices with digital tools and the
protection of intellectual rights and property.
c. Provide opportunities for teacher candidates to design curriculum following legal, ethical, and socially-responsible uses of technology. a. Create experiences for learners to make
positive, socially responsible contributions and exhibit empathetic behavior online that build relationships and community.

Learner
10. Teacher educators will engage in ongoing professional development and Educators continually improve their practice by learning from and with others and exploring
networking activities to improve the integration of technology in teaching. proven and promising practices that leverage technology to improve student learning.
Educators:

a. Define goals for personal growth in using technology. a. Set professional learning goals to explore and apply pedagogical approaches made possible by technology and reflect on
their effectiveness.
b. Engage in continuous professional development and networking activities promoting technology knowledge and skills. b. Pursue professional interests by creating and actively
participating in local and global learning networks.
c. Support teacher candidates’ continuous participation in networking activities to increase their knowledge of technology. a. Set professional learning goals to explore and apply
pedagogical approaches made possible by technology and reflect on their effectiveness.

Leader - Educators seek out opportunities for leadership to support student empowerment
11. Teacher educators will engage in leadership and advocacy for using technology.
and success and to improve teaching and learning. Educators:

a. Share a vision for teaching and learning with technology. a. Shape, advance and accelerate a shared vision for empowered learning with technology by engaging with education
stakeholders.
b. Engage with professional organizations that advocate technology use in education.
c. Seek to influence the opinions and decisions of others regarding technology integration.
d. Assist teacher candidates in becoming advocates for using technology to enhance teaching and learning.
e. Support teacher candidates in understanding local, state, and national technology policies in education.

12. Teacher educators will apply basic troubleshooting skills to resolve technology Collaborator - Educators dedicate time to collaborate with both colleagues and students to
issues. improve practice, discover and share resources and ideas, and solve problems. Educators:

a. Configure digital devices for teaching. b. Collaborate and co-learn with students to discover and use new digital resources and diagnose and troubleshoot technology issues.
b. Operate digital devices during teaching.
c. Model basic troubleshooting skills during teaching.
d. Find solutions to problems related to technology using a variety of resources.

Note: List of current Teacher Educator Technology Competencies (TETCs) can be found at http://site.aace.org/tetc

281
282

Chapter 16
Technology Integration
in Teacher Education:
Implications for Policy and
Curriculum Reform

Charity Mukiri Limboro

Kenyatta University, Kenya

Ephantus Micheni Kaugi

Kenyatta University, Kenya

ABSTRACT
This study examined the availability of computers and internet in the classroom or elsewhere at teacher
colleges, teacher preparation and training in technology integration, as well as trainers’ use of technol-
ogy in classroom instruction. A survey questionnaire was distributed randomly to 63 teacher trainers
from three public and one private teacher training college in Kenya. The data was analyzed descriptively
using SPSS software. The results indicated that technology integration at the classroom level was too
low due to lack of computers and internet access in the classrooms. Teacher trainers were inadequately
trained in information and communication technology integration and therefore poorly equipped to
integrate technology in the classroom. The study concludes that teacher colleges were not adequately
prepared for ICT integration in teaching and learning. It is recommended that teacher colleges’ ICT
infrastructure be improved and teacher trainers’ capacity on ICT integration be developed for the suc-
cess of the current curriculum reforms.

INTRODUCTION

In the 21st century availability of computers and the Internet in learning institutions have improved and
this has led to shift of focus from availability of the technology infrastructure to technology integration
in classroom instruction. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) integration in teaching
and learning refers to use of technology tools in general content area in classroom instruction in order
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch016

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Technology Integration in Teacher Education

to enhance students learning and problem solving skills. However, availability and access to technology
is intertwined with technology integration in the sense that, trainers are more likely to integrate com-
puters and the Internet into classroom instruction if they have access to adequate tools and connections
(Smerton et al, 2000). Globally, many governments have heavily invested in ICTto improve teaching
and learning in schools. In spite of all these investments on ICT infrastructure and teachers capacity
building to improve quality of education, integration of technology in teaching and learning have been
limited(Buabeng-Andoh, 2012; Hinostroza, 2018).
More than ever before, teachers are expected to integrate technology in the classroom instruction
so as to facilitate students to learn better. Empirical evidence attests that appropriate use of technology
makes learning more meaningful and fun. It also improves learners’ engagement, knowledge and reten-
tion of content. ICT- aided education has the potential to develop students’ decision-making and problem
solving skills, data processing skills, and communication capabilities (Whitworth & Berson 2002). We
are in the digital age where technology is virtually everywhere including our homes, places of work,
and social places making it indispensable. Digital devices such as mobile phones are affordable across
the social divides which have gone a long way to support access to current and real time information
and knowledge which can be used appropriately to enhance learning (Apkan, 2002; Bork, 2002; Dwyer,
Ringstaff, and Sandholtz, 1990; Kian-Sam Hong, Abang Ahmad Ridzuan and Ming-Koon Kuek, 2003;
Lee and Dziuban, 2002; Thompson, 2003). As a result, learners are already ahead of the teachers in
regard to use of technology and this makes it imperative that pre-service teacher training courses should
incorporate technology integration in teacher training to empower teachers.
Generally, technology has changed the way we do things because with technology information is
now accessible by a click of a button. One key benefit of digital literacy and technological integration is
the cultivation of the 21st century skills which are collaboration, communication, creativity and critical
thinking. Furthermore, we are in knowledge-based economy that necessitates a workforce that is skilled
in the use of technology to gain the necessary competitive edge at the global level. However, technology
integration in education requires substantial resource investments and proper planning.

Teacher Preparation

In the digital age, there is need to embrace technology integration in order to prepare teachers for the
digital workplace. According to ISTE (2000a) a successful school provides integrated technology ex-
periences for the students in order to:(i)increase their technological capabilities; (ii) seek, analyse and
evaluate new information; (iii) become problem-solvers and decision-makers; (iv) use tools creatively
and effectively to assist them in decisions; and (v) become communicators, collaborators, publishers
and producers.
Technology should be an integral part of teacher preparation programs. This will support teachers to
design learning environments and experiences that leverage digital tools and resources that maximize
students’ learning outcomes (Atheya et. al 2016). If well trained in ICT integration, teachers can play a key
role in meaningful use of technology in their teaching to enhance learning because teachers tend to teach
the way that they were trained (Ball, 1990, Lortie, 1975). Consequently, teacher preparation programs
should not simply offer a course in educational technology, but also model effective use of technology
in teaching of other courses so as to prepare teachers to integrate technology in the world of work.

283
 
Technology Integration in Teacher Education

Planning for Technology Integration in Education

Technology integration in educational setting requires effective planning. An effective plan should re-
flect the real needs of education institutions to enhance quality learning environments. Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) comprises computers, internet, and electronic delivery systems such
as the radio, television, and projectors that are used today in teaching and learning (Jo Shan Fu, 2013).
Provision of adequate ICT infrastructure that includes tools for teacher trainers and teacher trainees/stu-
dents is critical for effective integration of technology in the school curriculum. In this study technology
includes the computer system, Internet, networks and communication devices, software infrastructural and
financial resources. These infrastructure and the ICT tools are necessary for use by the teacher trainers
and trainees to give them hands on experience –how to use the ICT tools which is critical for the field
of work (Mishra & Koehler, 2008).
A computer is a multipurpose instrument that can be used to store, manipulate, and retrieve informa-
tion, while at the same time having the capability to not only engage students in instructional activities
but to increase their learning (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996) cited in Afshari, et al (2009). This underscores
the need for teacher trainers to have adequate competences on how to use them. This is supported by
.Beggs, T.A. (2000) and Brzycki, D. & Dudt, K. (2005) who argue that for teacher trainers to require
incentives such as training, administrative support, personal comfort to be as buy-in to support the use
of teaching in teaching and learning.

Integration of ICT in Subject Areas

Technology integration is the use of technology tools such as in general content areas in education in order
to allow learners to apply skills to learning and problem-solving. Teacher trainers, especially facilitators
of teaching method courses in various content areas, need to be able to use and model appropriate uses of
the latest technology available. Hands on experience –how to use the ICT tools is critical for modelling
the world of work (CAEP, 2015). 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 to an authentic audience. In the 21st century technology should
become an integral part of how the classroom functions—it should be accessible like all other classroom
tools. Nonetheless the focus in each lesson or unit is the curriculum outcome, not the technology. This
calls for appropriate use of technology to enhance learning.

Problem Statement

Teachers need relevant knowledge and skills in relation to ICT integration in teaching learning processes.
This will empower them to embrace change in the face of the new paradigm shift in teaching and learn-
ing brought about by the demands of ICT tools. With emergence of the most recent global movement
dabbed the 21st skills, whose main focus is integration of technology in education, it is essential that
teachers are digital literate and well- grounded on integration of technology in the teaching learning
process. Despite the growth and explosion of ICT globally, developing economies are lagging behind in
the adoption and implementation of technology in education. Digital literacy is perceived as the ability to
use ICTs to evaluate, create and communicate information requiring both cognitive and technical skills
(Viser, 2012). Digital literacy competence will help teachers guide students in the process of sieving

284

Technology Integration in Teacher Education

relevant or appropriate information for their consumption. It is for this reason that this study intended
to examine the level of ICT integration in teacher training colleges.

The objectives of this study were to:

a. Examine the preparedness of teacher trainers on ICT integration in teaching and learning.
b. Examine teacher training colleges’ provision of relevant infrastructure to support ICT integration
in teaching and learning.
c. Find out the extent to which teacher trainers are integrating ICT in teaching and learning.

METHOD

The target population consisted of 22 public and 10 private primary school teacher colleges in Kenya,
32 Deans of curriculum and 320 teacher trainers. Three public and one private teacher colleges were
purposely sampled while stratified random sampling based on broad curricular areas was used to select
63 teacher trainers from the four colleges. The study employed a survey for data collection.
A questionnaire was administered to 63 teacher trainers drawn from three public and one private
teacher training colleges in Kenya. According to Gay & Airasian (2003) a survey allows the researcher
to collect data from participants of a population with respect to one or more variables.
A research permit was obtained from National Commission for Science and Technology and Inno-
vation (NACOSTI) and introduction letters from the relevant government officers before commencing
data collection. Consent was sought from the respondents before data collection and respondents were
assured of confidentiality in handling of the information they provided. After obtaining the necessary
approvals from the university and ministry of education the research visited the primary teacher colleges
and administered the questionnaires. After the field data collection the questionnaires were checked for
completeness and then the data was coded and analysed through use of SPSS version 21.

FINDINGS

Teacher Trainers Preparedness on ICT Integration

The study sought to find out how well teacher trainers were prepared to use computers and the internet
for classroom instruction. On a four point scale (very well prepared; well prepared; somewhat prepared;
not at all prepared) the teacher trainers were asked to rate what they felt about their preparedness in ICT
integration in teaching and learning. The findings are presented on Figure 1.
Nineteen percent of teacher trainers reported feeling “very well prepared,” whereas and 25.9% reported
feeling “well prepared” to use computers and internet for classroom instruction, while 43.1% reported
feeling “somewhat prepared” to use these technologies for instruction. However, 12% reported feeling
“not at all prepared” to use these technologies for instruction.

285
 
Technology Integration in Teacher Education

Figure 1: Percent of teacher trainers by extent to which they felt prepared to use computers and the
internet for instruction

Figure 2. Proportion of trainers reporting the availability of certain incentives from college or ministry
of education for participation in professional development

Support for Participation in Technology Training

Teacher trainers were asked if the following incentives: Release time, paid expenses, stipends, course
considered for promotion, additional resources for the teacher or classroom, or connection to the inter-
net from home were available to trainers for participation in training to use computers or internet. The
findings are presented in Figure 2.
The main incentive available was release time (26.3%); followed by provision of additional resources
like computers (22.2%) and internet connection to their residence from school internet network and
payment of training expenses that stood at19.6% for each. Course consideration for promotion purposes
and payment of stipends had the least rating at 8.9% and 5.3% respectively. The provision of incentives
was low with the highest rated incentive going at 26.3% and the lowest at 5.3%. Although provision of
release time to attend training on ICT integration in teaching and learning and connection of internet
at residence are key incentives to motivate teachers’ attendance of ICT integration training the study
findings show that the provision of the same was low.

286

Technology Integration in Teacher Education

Table 1. Extent to which various players prepared teacher trainers to use computer and internet

Types of players Not at all Small extent Moderate extent Large extent
a. College/graduate work 20% 36% 20% 24%
b. Professional development activities 7% 27% 41% 25%
c. Colleagues 10% 47% 31% 12%
d. Students 47% 34% 17% 2%
e. Independent learning 3% 22% 21% 53%
N=63

Figure 3. Hours of formal professional development teacher trainers were engaged in formal professional
development on use of computers and internet

On a scale of 1-4 (Not all, small extent, moderate, large extent) the study sought to find out to what
extent the various players (College/graduate work, professional development activities, colleagues, stu-
dents and independent learning)prepared teacher trainers to use computers and internet. The findings
are presented in Table 1.
A majority of the teacher trainers (74%) learnt use of computers on their own with a rating of 21%
for moderate extent and 53% for large extent. This was followed by professional development activities
with 44% (with a rating of 20% for moderate and 24% for large extent); college work/graduate (44%)
with a rating of 20% for moderate and 24% for large extent while 43% of the teacher trainers indicated
that they were trained by colleagues with a rating of 31% and 12% for moderate and to large extent re-
spectively. Nevertheless, a small percentage (19%) indicated they were prepared by the students with a
rating of 17% for moderate and 2% for large extent.
The study examined the number of hours that the teacher trainers were engaged in the formal profes-
sional development on the use of computers and internet during the last three years. The findings are
presented on Figure 3.
Many of the teacher trainers (37.9%) had between one and eight hours of formal professional devel-
opment on use of computers and internet engagement, 20.7% had more than 32 hours and 17.2% had
9-32 hours. Given, 24.1% had no formal engagement on professional development on use of computers
and internet and many of the teacher trainers (37.9%) have a minimal engagement of (1-8 hours),this
underscores the need for teacher trainers to have adequate competences on how to use ICT tools. This
puts into question the capacity of teacher trainers to integrate technology in teaching and learning.

287
 
Technology Integration in Teacher Education

Table 2. College requirements for technology training for teachers and available incentives

College requirements for technology training Yes No

Require technology training for teachers? 94.90% 5.10%
Encourage technology training with incentives? 54.50% 45.50%
Leave it up to teachers to initiate participation? 52.60% 47.40%
N=63

The study further sought to find out whether the colleges: a) require technology training for teach-
ers; b) encourage technology training with incentives and; c) leave it up to the teacher trainers to initiate
participation in technology training. The findings are presented on Table 2.
Whereas almost all the teacher trainers (94.9%) indicated that their colleges require technology
training, 54.5% encouraged technology training with incentives while 52.6% left the teacher trainers
to initiate their participation in technology training respectively. This suggests that the motivation for
teacher trainers to engage in training for technology integration is low. On the other hand, teacher train-
ers may not take training in ICT seriously since they are left at liberty to decide on whether to engage
in ICT training or not.

Provision Of Training Opportunities

The study also examined training opportunities provided to teacher trainers by college or ministry of
education. The teacher trainers were asked, ‘Does the ministry of education or college make the follow-
ing types of training available to you and, if yes, have you ever participated in these programs?’ The
findings are presented on Table 3.
The main type of training available for teacher trainers was use of computers/basic computer training
(63%), followed by use of internet (49%). Conversely, 40% of the teacher trainers indicated availability
of integration of technology in the curriculum while 36% indicated software application and 25% use
of advanced telecommunications (e.g., interactive audio, video, closed-circuit TV). Only, 11% of the
respondents indicated availability of follow up and/or advanced training. This finding on use of advanced
telecommunications is contrary to our expectation that there would be more follow up and/ advanced
training on ICT to enable teacher trainers to effectively integrate ICT in teaching and learning. Con-
sequently, teacher trainers do not have adequate opportunities for acquisition of skills in integration of
ICT in teaching and learning.
In relation to participation in the training, 86% of the respondents who indicated availability of basic
computers training (63%) participated in the training. On use of internet, 54% of those who had indicated
availability of use of internet training (49%) participated while, 49% of the 40% who had indicated avail-
ability of training on integration of technology in the curriculum participated in the training. Further,
48% of the 36% who had indicated availability of software applications training participated. Finally, of
the 11% who indicated availability of follow up and/or advance training only 11% participated.
These findings suggest that teacher trainers were more likely to participate in the training if the
training opportunities were available. However, given that half the teacher trainers did not participate
in training on integration of technology in the curriculum, it means they may not have the capacity to
integrate technology in teaching and learning.

288

Technology Integration in Teacher Education

Table 3. Training opportunities available and participation of teacher trainers

Training opportunities available If Available Participated

Don’t
Yes No Yes No
know
a. Use of computers/basic computer training 63 34 4 86 14
b. Software applications 36 59 5 48 52
c. Use of the Internet 49 47 4 54 46
d. Use of other advanced telecommunications (e.g., interactive audio,
25 67 9 19 81
video, closed-circuit TV
e. Integration of technology into the curriculum/ classroom instruction 40 54 5 49 51
f. Follow up and/or advanced training 11 79 11 11 89
N=63

The respondents were further asked to indicate the types of incentives available for them to participate
in training on computers or internet. The findings are presented in Table 4.
Slightly over one quarter (26.3%) of the teacher trainers indicated that their colleges provide release
time from classes or other responsibilities to participate in the training on the use of computers and
internet. This suggests that a majority of the teacher trainers have to create time outside their official
engagement to attend such training which may have negative implications on participation rates due to
other competing interests.
The second type of incentive was on whether expenses were paid (e.g., tuition, travel, books) for the
teacher trainers to attend the training on use of computers or internet. Less than one fifth (19.6%) of
the teacher trainers reported that their colleges had provisions to cater for their expenses for training on
use of computers and internet. This finding suggests that a majority of the teacher trainers may need to
meet their training costs. Bearing in mind that teacher trainers have other competing expenses to meet
from their income it’s highly probable that they may not be able to pay for such training. This therefore
may impact negatively on their participation in the training on use of computers and internet which is a
foundation skill in technology integration in teaching learning.
The third type of incentive was on whether teacher trainers were givenstipends/allowances to attend
training on use of computers or internet. A negligible proportion of the teacher trainers (5.3%) reported
that stipends/allowances were provided. This finding suggests that the ministry/colleges does very little
to motivate teacher trainers to participate in training on use of computers and internet.
The fourth type of incentive was on whether the training on the use of computers or internet was con-
sidered for teacher trainers’ promotion. Only 8.9% answered in the affirmative. Considering that teacher
trainers just like any other employee would be motivated to enrol in a course that leads to promotion
such a finding implies that the teacher trainers may not really see the need to participate in such training.
The fifth type of incentive was on whether there was provision for internet connection to teacher
trainers’ residence through the college network as an incentive to attend training on use of computers or
internet. Only about a fifth of the teacher trainers (19.6%) reported availability of internet connection at
their residence through the college network. This finding suggests that a majority of the teacher trainers
use personal internet connections while at their residence. This is likely to negatively impact on such

289
 
Technology Integration in Teacher Education

Table 4. Types of incentives available to teacher trainers participating in training on use computers or
internet

Don’t
Types of incentives available Yes No
Know
a. School or college provides release time from classes or other responsibilities 26.3 57.9 15.8
b. Expenses are paid (e.g., tuition, travel, books) 19.6 66.1 14.3
c. Stipends are provided/allowances 5.3 78.9 15.8
d. Course considered for promotion 8.9 75.0 16.1
e. Connection to the Internet from residence through your school’s network 19.6 67.9 12.5
f. Additional resources for you or your classroom (e.g. computers, software, etc.) 22.2 64.8 13.0
N=63

Table 5. Number of computers per class and those available for instruction by college

Number of computers/
Number of computers/
College Laptops/tablets
laptops/tablets in classroom
In the computer lab used for instruction
K 0 21
M 0 14
T 0 19
P 0 6
Total 0 60
N=63

teacher trainers’ integration of technology in teaching and learning especially in those activities which
they may need to do while at their residence.
The last incentive was on whether there was provision for additional resources for teacher trainers or
in their classroom (e.g. computers, software, etc.) as an incentive to attend training on use of computers
or internet. Only slightly over one fifth (22.2%) reported that such incentives were available. This find-
ing suggests that teacher trainers have to do with what is available and in the event that there is need of
such resources then this may negatively impact on the integration of technology in teaching and learning.

Technology Integration Infrastructure

The study sought data on the number of computers the teacher trainers had in the classes and how many
of such computers were used for instruction. The findings are presented on Table 5.
There were no computers available in classrooms for instruction in the subject areas in all the teacher
training colleges. The available computers were mainly in the computer laboratories and were especially
used for ICT class. In teacher training colleges ICT is a core subject intended to give students a foundation
on computer hardware and software which is keyto ICT integration in teaching and learning. However,

290

Technology Integration in Teacher Education

Table 6. Available sources of internet in the teacher colleges

Sources of internet Proportion

Wi-Fi 62%
Cable internet 13%
data bundle 16%
N=63

Table 7. Percentage of the students who had access to a computer and a mobile phone

College Computer (%) Mobile phone (%)

K 99.2 96.8
M 60.9 97.5
T 78.4 91.6
P 48.8 97.8
Total 78.4 95.2
N=63

in view of the few of computers available at the colleges it raises questions on the extent to which the
students are grounded on the basic ICT skills for use in the world of work.
The study examined the available sources of internet at the teacher training colleges. The findings
are presented on the Table 6.
Wi-Fi was the main source of internet (62%) followed by data bundles (16%) and then cable internet
(13%) at the teacher training colleges sampled. This suggests that the colleges had reliable sources of
internet for use in the integration of technology in teaching and learning.
The study sought to find out approximately what percentage of the students had access to a computer
and a mobile phone. The findings are presented on Table 7.
On average 78.4% of the college students had access to a computer while 95.2% had access to a mobile
phone. It can be noted that there were wide disparities with regard to students’ access to a computer across
the colleges with College K having the highest access at 99.2% and College P having the lowest access
at 48.8%. There was little disparity across colleges with regard to students’ access to mobile phones.
College P had the highest mobile phone access at 97.8% compared to College T with the lowest at 91.6%.
Given that 95.2% of the students had access to mobile phones, this presents a golden opportunity that
can be exploited by teacher trainers for integration of ICT in teaching and learning.

291
 
Technology Integration in Teacher Education

Table 8. Frequency use of listed E-resources by student’s during class time

Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often

a. Computers in the classroom 78% 19% 2% 2%
b. Computers in a computer lab/library/media centre 24% 14% 24% 39%
c. Internet from the classroom 48% 29% 16% 7%
d. Internet from a computer lab/library/media centre 33% 7% 29% 31%
e. Distance learning via the Internet 72% 16% 10% 2%
f. Distance learning via other modes of interactive media 62% 29% 5% 3%
g. Graphing calculators 74% 12% 7% 7%
N=63

Technology Integration in Classroom Instruction

The study examined how frequently students in a typical class used the listed e-resources during class
time. The findings are presented on Table 8.
A large majority of the teacher trainers (78%) reported that their students do not use computers in a
typical class while19% indicated that students rarely use computers .These finding suggests that there
is little computer use by students during class time. On use of computers in a computer lab/library/me-
dia centre, 39% indicated that students used computers often while 24% used it sometimes. This shows
that there was more use of computers in the labs than in a typical class. These finding suggests there
could be minimal integration of ICT in the class because the use of computers in the labs is mainly for
computer foundational skills.
On the use of internet in the classroom, 29% of the teacher trainers indicated that students used it
sometimes while 7% used it often. There was more use of internet from a computer lab/library/media
centre with 31% using it often and 29% sometimes. Only 10% used distance learning via the internet
sometimes while 2% used it often. Only 5% and 3% used distance learning via other modes of interactive
sometimes and often respectively. Finally, only 7% of the teacher trainers reported that students used
graphing calculators sometimes and often respectively.

Use of Computer for Instruction

Teacher trainers were asked whether they used computers or internet for instruction during class time.
Of the 63 teacher trainers 20.6% responded in the affirmative while 63.5% responded in the negative.
Nearly 16% did not respond. Further, teacher trainers were asked whether they assigned students proj-
ects that required use of computers inside the classroom and outside the classroom. The findings are
presented in figure 4.
Teacher Trainers assignment of projects to students that involved use of computers inside and out-
side of the classroom varied from one college to the other. Trainers in college P did not assign students
projects that involved use of computers inside the classroom. Teacher trainers in college T were more
than three times(30%) likely to assign projects that involved use of computers inside the classroom
compared to college M (8%). On the other hand, trainers in College T were four times (80%) more likely

292

Technology Integration in Teacher Education

Figure 4: Percent of teacher trainers’ reporting assignment of students’ projects that required use of
computers inside and out the classroom

Table 9. Use of technology in instruction tasks

Availability If available, extent of use

Not at Small Moderate Large
Yes No
all extent extent extent
a. Computers in your classroom 9% 91% 83% 0% 6% 11%
b. Computers elsewhere in the school
94% 6% 0% 38% 33% 29%
(e.g., library, Computer lab)
c. Computers at residence 59% 41% 21% 21% 24% 33%
d. Internet in your classroom 25% 75% 41% 23% 32% 5%
e. Internet elsewhere in the school (e.g.,
82% 18% 5% 33% 43% 19%
library, Computer lab)
f. Internet at residence 54% 46% 21% 21% 33% 24%
g. E-mail at school 88% 12% 27% 27% 27% 20%
h. School network through which you can
35% 65% 32% 29% 25% 14%
access the Internet from residence
N=63

to assign students projects that require use of computers outside the classroom than teacher trainers in
college K(21%).
These findings imply that the use of technology integration in the classroom was limited.

Technology Use For Instruction And Administrative Activities

The study investigated the availability and use of various computer hardware and software. The findings
are presented on Table 9.
More trainers (11%) with access to computers in the classroom used it to a large extent compared to
6% who used it to a moderate extent. Conversely, more trainers (33%) who had access to computer at
residence used it to a moderate extent as opposed to those who used it to a large extent (29%).

293
 
Technology Integration in Teacher Education

Table 10. Trainers use of computers or internet at the collage or residence to accomplish various tasks

At school At Residence
Not at all A little A lot Not at all A little A lot
a. Create instructional materials (i.e., hand outs, tests, etc.) 19% 52% 30% 18% 48% 33%
b. Gather information for planning lessons 17% 49% 34% 17% 40% 43%
c. Access model lesson plans 40% 45% 15% 40% 40% 20%
d. Access research and best practices for teaching 34% 36% 30% 19% 44% 37%
e. Multimedia presentations for the classroom 56% 43% 2% 48% 41% 10%
f. Administrative record keeping (i.e., grades, attendance etc.)… 26% 43% 31% 33% 40% 27%
g. Communicate with colleagues/other professionals 15% 43% 43% 17% 21% 62%
h. Communicate with students’ parents 50% 39% 11% 55% 34% 10%
i. Communicate with student(s) outside the classroom/classroom
20% 70% 11% 36% 43% 21%
hours
j. Post residence work or other class requirements or project
45% 47% 8% 42% 42% 15%
information
N=63

In regards to the use of computers elsewhere in the school, more teacher trainers (33%) used it to
moderate extent than 29% who used it to a large extent. In addition, many trainers with access to internet
at residence, 33% of them used it to a moderate extent while 24% used it to a large extent. More teacher
trainers (43%) with access to internet elsewhere in the college used it to a moderate extent compared
to 19% who used it to a large extent. Furthermore, more trainers (27%) with E-mail at school used it
to a moderate extent to communicate compared 20% who used it to a large extent. Teacher trainers
with access to school internet via their residence were more likely to use it to a moderate extent (25%)
than to a large extent (14%).Overall, teacher trainers were more likely to use computer and internet at
residence and elsewhere in school compared to the classroom. This finding points a limited use of ICT
integration in the class.
Teacher trainers were asked to what extent they used computer or internet to carry out various tasks
related to preparation of instruction materials or administrative tasks such as: creating instructional
materials, gathering information for planning lessons) and communication; (e.g., communication with
colleagues, students and students’ parents). The findings are presented in Table 10.
Except for administrative record keeping tasks, trainers were more likely to use internet a lot at
residence to accomplish instructional related tasks. More trainers (62%) used computer or internet at
residence to communicate with colleagues compared to 43% at college; followed by gathering informa-
tion for lesson planning (43% at residence; 34% at college); access to best practices for teaching (37%
at residence; 30% at college); and to develop instructional materials (33% at residence; 30% at college).
In addition, more teacher trainers at residence (21%) used internet for communication with students
than at college (11%). Similarly, more teacher trainers (20%) accessed model lesson plans at residence
than at college (15%). Further, more teacher trainers (15%) posted class requirements or project infor-
mation at residence compared to 8% at college; while 10%used multimedia presentations at residence
than at college (2%). Conversely, the level of communication with students’ parents by teacher trainers
was almost similar at residence and at college (10% at residence; 11% at college). From the above find-

294

Technology Integration in Teacher Education

Table 11. Percent of trainers reporting assigning students various activities that require use of comput-
ers or the internet

Significant
Not at all Small extent NA
extent
Practice drills 25% 14% 16% 46%
Solve problems/analyze data 18% 27% 13% 43%
Use computer applications such as word processing, Spread
25% 16% 20% 40%
sheets, etc.
Graphical presentation of materials 25% 13% 14% 48%
Demonstrations/simulations 21% 20% 18% 41%
Produce multimedia reports/projects 27% 20% 9% 44%
Research using CD-ROM 38% 13% 10% 40%
Research using the Internet 14% 21% 41% 23%
Correspond with experts, authors, students from other
30% 16% 25% 30%
Schools, etc., via e-mail or Internet
Use of social media (WhatsApp, Twitter and Instagram) 5% 14% 57% 23%
N=63

ings, it can be noted that teacher trainers are more likely to use internet for instructional preparation at
residence compared to at college. This can be attributed to the fact that trainers are engaged in teaching,
and administrative activities during the day and therefore the time available for instructional preparation
is at residence after work.
Teacher trainers with access to computers or internet were asked to categorise to what extent they
assigned students he following activities: Practical drills, Solve problems/analyze data, Use computer
applications such as word processing, Spread sheets, Graphical presentation of materials, Demonstra-
tions/simulations, Produce multimedia reports/projects, Research using CD-ROM, Research using the
Internet; Correspond with experts, authors, students from other Schools, etc., via e-mail or Internet, Use
of social media (WhatsApp, Twitter and Instagram).The findings are presented in Table 11.
At the significant level, more than half of the trainers (57%) reported that they assigned students to use
computers or the internet to communicate or post assignments on social medial; 41% for internet search;
25% for correspondence with experts; 20% for word processing/spreadsheets; 18% for demonstration and
simulation; 16% for practice drills; 14% graphical presentations; 13% for solving problems and analyzing
data; 10% for CD-ROM research and multimedia projects (9%). Evidently, the use of computers or the
Internet to communicate or post assignments on social media and research using the internet were the
highest rated activities by teacher trainers. This suggests that these two platforms were currently being
used for purposes of ICT integration to a significant extent.

Barriers to Technology Integration in The Classrooms

Trainers were asked to rate technology integration barriers at the following levels: Not a barrier; small
barrier; moderate barrier; great barrier. At the great barrier level, a majority of the teacher trainers
(66.1%) indicated inadequate training opportunities; followed by 57.1% inadequate computers; 50% lack
of release time; and 47.4% lack of instructional software. Other barriers rated at the great barrier level

295
 
Technology Integration in Teacher Education

Table 12. Percent of trainers reporting small, moderate, or great barriers to their use of computers and
the internet for instruction

Not a Small Moderate Great

barrier barrier barrier barrier
a Not enough computers/laptops/tablets 8.9 8.9 25.0 57.1
b Out-dated, incompatible, or unreliable computers 20.4 14.8 31.5 33.3
c Internet access is not easily accessible 12.3 10.5 45.6 31.6
d Lack of good instructional software 5.3 12.3 35.1 47.4
e Inadequate training opportunities 7.1 10.7 16.1 66.1
f Lack of release time for teachers to learn/practice 7.7 15.4 26.9 50.0
g plan ways to use computers or the Internet 8.0 24.0 28.0 40.0
h Lack of administrative support 16.1 28.6 26.8 28.6
Lack of support regarding ways to integrate ICT
i 10.5 28.1 31.6 29.8
into the curriculum
j Lack of technical support or advice 10.5 28.1 35.1 26.3
Lack of time in schedule for students to use
k 17.2 20.7 27.6 34.5
Computers in class
Concern about student access to inappropriate
l 10.5 26.3 35.1 28.1
materials
m Lack of funding 12.3 17.5 26.3 43.9
N=63

includes; 43.9% lack of funding; 34.5% lack of time in schedule for students to use computers in class;
33.3% indicated outdated, incompatible or unreliable computers and 31.6% internet access. In addition,
29.8% reported lack of support on how to integrate ICT into the curriculum, 28.6% lack of administrative
support; and 26.3% lack of technical support. These findings suggest that unless the identified barriers are
addressed then effective implementation of ICT integration in teaching and learning remains a mirage.

CONCLUSION

Teacher trainers were not adequately trained in ICT integration in teaching and learning. In addition,
teacher colleges do not adequately prepare teachers on the use of computers and internet. The main type
of training available for teacher trainees was on basic use of computers. Consequently, teacher trainees
do not have adequate opportunities for acquisition of skills in integration of ICT in teaching and learn-
ing. This implies that by the time they start teaching they may not be in a position to competently use
computer and internet in teaching and learning.
There were few or no computers in the classrooms for integration of ICT in classroom instruction. As
a result, there was little computer use by students during class time. This means that the use of technol-
ogy integration in the classroom was limited. However, there were a number of computers in computer
labs even though there were wide disparities in relation to students’ access to a computer across the
colleges. There was high use of computer and internet outside the classrooms which is a good indicator

296

Technology Integration in Teacher Education

of the potential that exists for integration of ICT in teaching and learning if adequate computers were
available in the classrooms
There was high access to mobile phones across colleges. The high access to mobile phones is an
indicator of the existing potential that can be exploited for ICT integration in the classroom instruction.
. In adequate training opportunities coupled with lack of enough computers was a great barrier to
trainers’ integration of technology for instruction in the classroom.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Teacher training institutions did not adequately prepare teacher trainers in ICT integration. It is recom-
mended that such deficiencies be addressed through teacher professional development on the use of
computers and internet.
There is need to provide adequate ICT infrastructure in the classrooms for effective integration of
technology in teaching and learning by the teacher trainers.
The study findings indicate that teacher trainers carry out instruction preparation at their residence,
as a result it is recommended that they are facilitated with internet access at their residence.

REFERENCES

Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Samah, B. A., & Fooi, F. S. (2009). Factors affecting teachers’
use of information and communication technology. Online Submission, 2(1), 77–104.
Apkan, J. P. (2002). Which comes first: Computer simulation of dissection or a traditional laboratory
practical method of dissection. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(4).
Athreya, B. H., & Mouza, C. (2016). Thinking skills for the digital generation: The development of
thinking and learning in the age of information. Springer.
Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher educa-
tion. The Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449–466. doi:10.1086/461626
Beggs, T. A. (2000). Influences and Barriers to the Adoption of Instructional Technology. Academic Press.
Bork, A. (2002). Interactive learning–interactive learning: Twenty years later. Contemporary Issues in
Technology & Teacher Education, 2(4), 605–611.
Brzycki, D., & Dudt, K. (2005). Overcoming barriers to technology use in teacher preparation programs.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 619–641.
Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachers adoption and integration of information and
communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education
and Development Using ICT, 8(1).
Buckingham, D. (2010). Defining digital literacy. In Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen (pp. 59–71).
VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

297
 
Technology Integration in Teacher Education

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2015). CAEP accreditation standards. Retrieved
30 March 2019 from http://caepnet.org/
Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1990). Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow: Teacher Beliefs
and Practices Part I: Patterns of Change. Academic Press.
Fu, J. (2013). Complexity of ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implications. Interna-
tional Journal of education and Development Using ICT, 9(1), 112-125.
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications
(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Hinostroza, J. E. (2018). New challenges for ICT in education policies in developing countries: The need
to account for the widespread use of ICT for teaching and learning outside the school. In ICT-Supported
innovations in small countries and developing regions (pp. 99–119). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
3-319-67657-9_5
Hong, K. S., Ridzuan, A. A., & Kuek, M. K. (2003). Students’ attitudes toward the use of the Internet for
learning: A study at a university in Malaysia. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 6(2), 45–49.
Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2007). Examining teachers’ beliefs about ICT in education: Implications of a
teacher preparation programme. Teacher Development, 11(2), 149–173. doi:10.1080/13664530701414779
Lee, L., & Dziuban, C. (2002). Using quality assurance strategies for online programs. Educational
Technology Review: International Forum on Educational Technology Issues and Applications, 2(2).
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lortie, D. C., & Clement, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study (Vol. 21). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008, March). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge.
In Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 1-16). Academic Press.
Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., & Angeles, J. (2000). Teachers’ Tools for
the 21st Century: A Report on Teachers’ Use of Technology. Statistical Analysis Report. Academic Press.
Thompson, S. S. (2003). Using technology to promote critical thinking through the natural sciences.
TecKnowLogia, 5(1), 38–39.
U.S. Department of Education (2000). Teachers’ Tools for the 21st Century: A Report on Teachers’ Use
of Technology. NCES 2000–102. National Center for Education Statistics.
Visser, M. (2012). Digital literacy definition. ALA Connect.
Whitworth, S. A., & Berson, M. J. (2002). Computer technology in the social studies: An examination
of the effectiveness literature (1996-2001). Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education,
2(4), 471–508.

298

Technology Integration in Teacher Education

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Computers: In this study computer includes the Internet, wireless networks, cell phones, tablets,
and desktops/computers.
Information Communication Technology: Refers to technologies that provide access to informa-
tion through telecommunications.
Teacher Education: Refers to training offered to prospective teachers to equip them with knowl-
edge, skills and attitudes required to perform their tasks effectively in the classroom, school, and wider
community.
Teaching and Learning: Teaching can be defined as engagement with learners to enable their un-
derstanding and application of knowledge, concepts and processes while learning is the acquisition of
knowledge or skills through study, experience, or being taught.
Technology Integration: Is the use of technology tools in general content areas in education in order
to allow students to apply computer and technology skills to learning and problem-solving.

299
300

Chapter 17
Adding Value:
Fostering Student Deliberations Across
Modes of Instruction and Institutions

Anita Chadha
University of Houston-Downtown, USA

ABSTRACT
Research finds that fostering reflective deliberation in classes ensures that students reach a high level
of achievement in their courses. This chapter evaluates student peer reflective exchanges across a four-
year institution and a community college and both face-to-face and online modes of instruction at these
differing institutions. Significant evidence reveals that regardless of institution type, students deliberate
with academic reflectivity yet deliberate with greater reflectivity in face-to-face classes across both institu-
tions. This study concludes that offering deliberative strategies are a viable means to offer pedagogical
content across different modes of instruction and at differing institutions, a concern for educators and
administrators in this digital age.

INTRODUCTION

As early as 1916, John Dewey noted the importance of knowledge as a process, one that entails self-
reflection and consideration while being open to the ideas and consideration by others to meet the
demands of living communally. Dewey’s longstanding ideas of community-based learning are closely
aligned with deliberation, the notion that participants take time to reflect, deliberate and reconsider their
views before responded to peers, the learning process that is the focus of this study.
An examination of the literature shows that deliberation is an effective mean for students in face-to-
face classes, at four-year institutions, to consider and reflect upon the material before responding to each
other with critical thought (Kenski & Stroud, 2006; Anderson et al., 2001; Boud et al., 2001; Chadha,
2018a). Research regarding the efficacy of deliberation has found that students who actively seek content
and deliberative with peers have had better learning achievements than those who were not involved in
deliberative processes (Pečar, 2016; Guay et al., 1995). Research additionally finds that student peer

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch017

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Adding Value

deliberations produce positive and measurable outcomes such as higher grades, increased knowledge,
and more frequent participation in content (Bode et al., 2014; Kenski & Stroud, 2006; Chadha, 2018b;
Anderson et al., 2001; Arasaratnam-Smith & Northcote, 2017; Rojas-Drummond et al., 2014).
Yet research examining the effectiveness of deliberations in online instruction at these institutions
provides mixed evidence. Some research finds that deliberations across both modalities of education that
is face-to-face and online are comparable in their educational outcomes (Boghikian-Whitby & Mortagy,
2016; Chadha, 2018b; Chadha, 2018c; Lyke & Frank, 2012). With numerous other studies confirm that
with the use of deliberative strategies, retention rates are on par between face-to-face and online modes
(Bolsen et al., 2016; Hastie et al., 2010; Kim & Bonk, 2006; Simonson et al., 2012; Tutty & Klein, 2008;
Wladis et al., 2015). While still, other researchers find that the use of deliberative strategies in face-to-face
courses surpass online course outcomes that used deliberative strategies (Hachey et al., 2013; Welker,
2012; Botsch & Botsch, 2012; Carpini & Keeter, 1996; Galston, 2007).
Despite this mixed evidence, researchers agree that when three elements are present online, critical
thinking processes result as students discuss and deliberate with each other. These three elements, as
diagrammed by the COL framework, are firstly that of the social presence of a peer. A peers social pres-
ence enhances deliberation as peers are not in a hierarchical position encouraging students to identify
with each other as they consider, deliberate and reflect purposefully online. Continual deliberations with
peers over time, also, build a sense of deliberative community as each adds to and furthers deliberations
amongst themselves (Garrison et al., 2001). The second element in the framework, the cognitive presence
element enhances deliberation as the students’ cognitive presence takes root through sustained reflection
and discourse due to the asynchronous nature of online instruction. Asynchrony seemingly narrows the
dialogue between just those present in the deliberations feeling like a continuous conversation among
those participating (Rudestam & Schoenholtz-Reed, 2009). As students asynchronously “…work together,
pool resources and accelerate learning” (Murchú & Sorensen, 2004, p. 1) the cognitive process takes
root as they explore, reason, search for resources as they have time to think, reflect, reason and continue
discussions at a later time, for example after taking care of work/home priorities furthering their cogni-
tion (Bryce, 2014; Chadha, 2018a; Garrison &Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Hrastinski, 2008; Pečar, 2016).
While the social presence element and the cognition element build and encourage a peer deliberative
community (Bryce, 2014; Chadha, 2018b; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Pečar, 2016; Hrastinski,
2008) the third element, the instructional presence/design of the course, furthers student’s delibera-
tive engagement. This element is the instructional presence as well as the creation of a web space that
is familiar and comfortable for students to engage in a deliberative process furthering the social and
cognitive processes (Garrison et. al., 2001; Harasim, 1996; Swan, 2001; Meyer, 2003). Researches note
that these three elements enhance deliberations online making them comparable to face-to-face modes
of instruction (Garrison et. al., 2001; Bryce, 2014; Chadha, 2018c; Garrison &Cleveland-Innes, 2005;
Hrastinski, 2008; Pečar, 2016).
Despite the abundance of this research on the pedagogical viability of deliberations in face-to-face
modes of instruction yet the mixed results of deliberations in online modes researchers issue a call to
continue comparing face-to-face and online modes of instruction. Moreover, as the wealth of research
has centered on four-year institutions (Gallagher, 2002; Cejda, 2010; Tinto, 1897; Tu, 2002a) yet online
education has risen by ninety-two percent at community (Lokken et al., 2008; Allen & Seaman, 2015)
researchers issue a call for research comparing the two different institution types (Allen & Seaman, 2015;
Tinto, 1975; Tinto, 1987; Tinto, 1993; Tu, 2002a, 2002b). This call to research becomes more significant
as eighty-two percent at community college students taking online classes (Garza et al., 2016) before

301
 
Adding Value

transferring to a four-year university (Korthagen et al., 2006) coupled with no quantitative research of
online instruction at community colleges (Tinto, 1975; Tinto, 1987; Tinto, 1993; Tu, 2002a, 2002b).
This research answers both these calls in comparing the different modes of instruction that is face-to-
face and online and across the different institution types, a four-year institution, and a community college.
In doing so this research examines whether students (1) participated with academic deliberation across the
differing institutions (2) if they academically deliberated across both online and face-to-face classes at the
different institutions and (3) if their academic deliberations formed an online community of learning at
the differing institutions. Using past research academic deliberation encompasses six variables meaning
that students had reflected, deliberated, or reconsidered theirs and others’ views when they responded
to questions or when they commented on peer posts (Chadha, 2018b; Chadha, 2018c; Englund, 2006).

LITERATURE REVIEW

In deliberative discussions each participant “takes a stand by listening, deliberating, seeking arguments,
and evaluating…in a collective effort to find… (Dis) the agreement” (Englund, 2006, p. 503). These
back-and-forth discussions are not considered deliberations if participants are simply asking for factual
information (Guzdial & Turns, 2000) but are sustained through questioning each other and actively
generating comments that lead their peers to reflect, elaborate upon issues and propose new ones. The
processes leading to students agreeing, disagreeing, yet willing to discuss, contemplate and interact as
they express and personalize their positions with critical reflection build a continual exchange among
them expanding upon a sense of deliberative community (Chadha, 2018a; Swan et al., 2000; Garrison
et al., 2001).
Reportedly deliberative strategies result in higher satisfaction levels and a sense of deliberative
community (Downing & Chim, 2004; Chadha, 2018b; Gurin et al., 2004; Hurtado, 2003). Researchers
also find that students involved in a collaborative endeavor are more successful at formulating opinions,
listening to opposing viewpoints, and appreciating multiple perspectives than those not involved in col-
laborative activities (Stephan & Vogt, 2004; Stitzlein & West, 2014). Moreover, interaction with peers
from diverse backgrounds and experiences have a positive effect on a deliberative community (Gurin
et al., 2004; Hurtado, 2003).
A number of researchers find that deliberations across both face-to-face and online classes are
comparable in their educational outcomes at four-year institutions (Boghikian-Whitby & Mortagy,
2016; Benbunan-Fich & Arbaugh, 2006; Chadha, 2018a; Chadha, 2018c; Lyke & Frank, 2012; Weber
& Lennon, 2007; Bruffee, 1993; Johnson et al., 1991; Light, 1992; Sherman, 1986). Researchers find
that there were no differences in final course grade between these modes of instruction (Tucker, 2001;
Chadha, 2018b) and that deliberative interaction had positive outcomes on student learning and social-
psychological well-being (Johnson et al., 1991; Meyers & Jones, 1993) at these institutions.
Yet another volume of research finds mixed evidence on the comparability of face-to-face and online
courses at these institutions. Some researchers find that students in online courses do not perform as well
as their peers in face-to-face courses (Driscoll et al., 2012; Larson & Sung, 2009; Neuhauser, 2002).
And that these students do not complete their courses in comparison to those in face-to-face classes
(DeTure, 2004; Morris et al., 2005; Urtel, 2008; Carpenter et al., 2004; Jaggars & Xu, 2013). While
other researchers find that students in online courses had greater levels of course satisfaction even scor-
ing higher on assessments than those in face-to-face classes as online spaces provide several advantages

302

Adding Value

for effective deliberation online in comparison to face-to-face classes (Bozionelos; 2004; Kraiger et al.,
1993; Lapsley et al., 2008; Sitzmann et al., 2006). These advantages researchers denote for effective
online deliberation are that firstly, a student’s identity/characteristics, such as their age, gender, religion,
geographic location or mode of instruction, can be masked online allowing students to project themselves,
their ‘social presence’ and experiences into the conversation, such as serving in the military or being a
single mom, investing them in the deliberative processes motivating them and peers they identify with
to visit and re-visit deliberation (Boud et al., 2001; Garrison et al., 2001; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997).
And researchers argue that as their peers are socially present online it reduces the isolation online while
allowing them to deliberate with intensity as they (re)consider differences of opinion, question others
and respond with critical thought forming “a sense of self is inherently connected to one’s sense of
belonging within a community (-ies)” (Koole, 2010, p. 241).
A second advantage for effective deliberations online researchers observes is that of the asynchro-
nous environment. This allows students to have (un)limited time for them to think, reflect, reason and
absorb the materials at a time and space of their choosing building their cognitive presence (Tu, 2002a,
2002b; Swan, 2001; Poole, 2000; Lawrence & Abel, 2013). Asynchrony builds students’ higher-order
thinking (Garrison et al., 2001; Swan, 2001; Poole, 2000; Díaz & Entonado, 2009; Paul & Elder, 2012;
Rountree, 1995; Navarro & Shoemaker, 2000; Vachris, 1997) especially as personalized relationships
develop among students furthering a deliberative online community (Koh et al., 2003).
The benefits of online spaces along fostered by the Col frameworks peers’ social presence and the
cognition elements have been found to positively impact students’ academic success and satisfaction
making online courses on par with face-to-face courses (Wenger, 1998; Parkin et al., 2012; Crampton &
Ragusa, 2015; Chadha, 2018a). In addition, researchers note that the presence of the instructor and the
design of a comfortable web space allows for students to freely express and personalize their interaction
allowing for pedagogy to be comparable to face-to-face classes (Chadha, 2018b; Lorenzo & Ittelson,
2005; Garrison et al., 2001; Wessner & Pfister, 2007; Cho et al., 2018; Evans et al., 2017).
With the growth of online courses yet the abundance of mixed research (Allen & Seaman, 2015;
Chadha, 2018c) researchers issue a call on the comparability of the differing modes of instruction, that
is face-to-face and online courses. While other researchers call for research on online education at com-
munity colleges in comparison to four-year institutions as research has focused on four-year institutions
despite the rise of online education at both institutions (Lokken et al., 2008; Allen & Seaman, 2015;
Korthagen et al., 2006; Tinto, 1975; Tinto, 1987; Tinto, 1993; Tu, 2002a, 2002b). The research answers
both these calls as it seeks to explore student deliberations across both a four-year and a community col-
lege and both modes of instruction at these differing institution types. In doing so this research is doubly
significant in that compares the differing modes of instruction offered across differing institution types.
Guided by the COL framework social presence element, and that this presence is established more
so at four-year institutions than it is at a commuter community college (Tinto 1975; Tu, 2002a) it is hy-
pothesized that (H1) students at the four-year institution deliberated with greater academically reflective
than students at the community college. Second, guided by the COL frameworks instructional presence
element it is hypothesized (H2) that as the instructor is present in face-to-face courses and not present in
online classes, that face-to-face student would have greater reflective deliberation at both the institutions
versus the online courses at both institutions. And, the third hypothesis is guided by both the social and
cognitive elements promoting a sense of online community, and as these elements are readily present
at a four-year institution and comparably less at community college (Tinto, 1975; Tinto, 1987; Tinto,

303
 
Adding Value

1993; Tu, 2002a, 2002b), it is hypothesized (H3) that students at the four-year institution would form a
greater sense of community than students in at the community college
Each of these hypotheses is based on students performing with deliberative reflectivity across the
board. Reflectivity was measured by the variable defined, “reflective/deliberative” meaning that stu-
dents had reflected, deliberated, or reconsidered their views when they responded to questions or when
they commented on other students’ posts. They puzzled through problems or issues, further questioned
others, challenged others or held them accountable for their views in a positive way. These comparisons
across different institutions and different modes of instruction at the different institutions are greatly
appealing to a large number of educators, students and administrators as this growth offer flexibility in
participation, ease of access and growth in enrollment across each institution.

METHOD

The central aim of this research was to test for academically reflective discussions among students in
both a face-to-face and online mode of instruction across a four-year university and a community col-
lege. Thus, a website was designed with student peer interactivity in mind. In particular, this research
studied the resultant 743 posts and responses among the 129 students during the spring 2017 semester
using a mixed-methods approach. First, it employed content analysis of student posts and responses. As
only one instructor coded the content analysis, intercoder reliability checks were not necessary.
Second, the content analysis was statistically tested using means prior researchers have used, the
independent-samples t-test, as this test determines if a difference exists between the means of two in-
dependent groups on the same dependent variable, which was academic reflectivity. Pre-and post-test
surveys about the nature of student online interactions from the semester formed the student perspective.
This analysis was possible as before semester start the instructors agreed to several commonalities in
their courses and the online collaboration for the entirety of the semester. And both professors applied
for and obtained human subjects’ consent before the semester.

Comparability Across Courses

Before the start of the spring 2017 semester, two instructors, one at a four-year institution and one at a
community college, agreed to collaborate on an invitation-only online web-project in their identical class,
Survey to the American government. The four-year university faculty member taught this course in a
face-to-face and online format as did the community college faculty member who taught this course in
a face-to-face and online format as well. This project has been used for several years to engage students
with each other across geographic spaces.
To minimize differences across the course. The professors agreed that all four courses would have
identical course objectives, goals, and requirements for the entire semester. The course itself would cover
the same content which is typical for an introductory class, these topics being the U.S. Constitution; Civil
liberties and civil rights; federalism, voting and elections, Congress, the presidency and the Judiciary.
Their students were therefore enrolled in the same class type (American politics) at the same level and
objectives and with identical syllabus requirements.

304

Adding Value

On the online site, a face-to-face Introduction to American politics class from the four-year univer-
sity was paired with a face-to-face Introduction to American politics community college class on the
collaborative site and called Group A. Likewise, an online Introduction to American politics class from
the four-year university was paired with an online Introduction to American politics community college
class on the collaborative site and called group B.
The instructors were mindful of several pedagogical goals in the collaboration: increase student
interaction and participation, reinforce lessons, hold students accountable for views, develop better un-
derstanding of points of view, improve communication and analytical skills, articulate points, to achieve
openness to all, to build civility, tolerance, critical thinking, deepen a sense of identity, and expand a
sense of “community.”
To minimize differences across the syllabus and the collaboration both professors agreed to identical
syllabus requirement for the collaboration which included common instructions, a course grade, and the
same minimum number of words and post response requirements for the collaboration as shown in Table
1. These three commonalities were for 1)students to respond to a minimum of eight weekly discussion
questions posted on a rotating basis by the instructors and also to respond to eight students’ posts to build
and maintain a discussion-oriented online community. The instructors posted the same question at the
same time to group A and to group B, therefore, students were asked the same questions in each of the
four classes. Students were not provided with examples of posts or responses to be written. The instruc-
tors did, however, emphasize that students participate and participate consistently, reminding students
of these ground rules when necessary. 2) A minimum length of 75 words, which is approximately four
fully-typed lines, was required in their posts and responses. Other than the minimum word guidance and
the requirement to respond and reply to the same minimum number of discussion questions, no other
guidance was provided to the students about how to interact or construct a post or response. Typically,
the students had one week to analyze and respond to the question (“the post”). To build dialogue, the
students were also required to respond to others’ posts (“the response”). This exchange between instructor
and student and student and student furthered personal interaction, student investment in the site, and a
sense of an online community. 3) A course grade was assigned to this collaborative activity.
Professors monitored conversations for signs that students were abiding by general rules of respect,
decency, and civility, but they generally refrained from participating in the discussion forums. Through-
out the semester, the instructors talked to each other about any issues or concerns having to do with the
online collaborative activities. The semester-long project “virtually” linked classes across two states
and different time zones for a total of 129 students. A description summary of campus participants is
provided in Table 1.
As the intent of the collaboration was to have students deliberate with each other about common politi-
cal issues virtually, an online space was created and customized for familiarity, one that looked similar
to Facebook. In doing so, this study relied on a paid subscription-based web site accessible to only those
students eligible for the study (i.e. those who signed human consent forms or obtained parental consent).
Students from each institution could access the same site and respond to the same question at any time
offering students enrolled at different universities/colleges to participate on an equal basis across the
four courses. On this site, the professors from counterpart institutions rotated turns in posting questions.
The dependent variable would measure for evidence of academic reflective deliberations in student
interactions. Measuring this dependent variable required a thorough reading of each student’s posts to
an instructor and responses to other students’ post. Using published research on this topic, the index,
academic reflectivity was a measurement of critical reflection that contributed to a post or response

305
 
Adding Value

Table 1. Descriptive summary of campus participants and collaborative requirements

Location Texas New York Texas New York

Institution Type 4 year-public university Community college 4 year-public university Community college
Mode of Instruction Online Classes Face-to-Face classes
Course Level Lower
Course name American politics
8 posts and 8 responses
Collaboration
Minimum of 75 words in posts and responses
Requirements
Grade
Grade 15% 10% 15% 10%
# students in course 38 38 29 24

(Chadha, 2018a). The index measured how reflective and/or deliberate the students were, whether they
were thoughtful in their posts and responses; if they were thinking critically, developing informed per-
spectives about civic issues, and learning from each other; whether they tied in ideas from classroom
discussions or texts, referenced external web links or books, asked questions that required extensive
discussion, and interacted in a civilized manner; and whether the lengths of their posts or responses went
beyond grade requirements showing they were taking the time to be thoughtful and deliberative in their
discussion. The index was operationalized accordingly,

Operationalizing The Dependent Variable: Academic Reflectivity

To be reflective/deliberative means that students had reflected, deliberated, or reconsidered their own
views when they responded to questions or when they commented on other students’ posts. They puzzled
through problems or issues, questioned others, challenged others, or held them accountable for their
views in a positive way. They thought about the question and responded with reflective and deliberate
comments.
Civic Roles. Were the students thoughtful citizens? Did they think about the questions posed and
respond in ways that reflected a theoretical or practical application of American politics? Did they dis-
cuss civic issues such as First Amendment or voting issues rather just mention them? Did they engage
each other, not just agree or disagree with each other? Did they challenge or push one another to think
in a civil way?
Classroom ideas or texts. In their responses did the students refer to ideas to which they had been
exposed in class or mention their professors or discussions in class?
References or outside links. Did the students post or cite links to external sites when responding to
questions, or did they refer to court cases in such a manner that one might look them up? Did they cite
current events or media-related stories that might be looked up or located by another student? Did they
provide actual links to other related sources?
Poses honest question. Did the students actually ask one or more questions that enlarged the scopes
of the discussions, rather than rhetorical ones that assumed answers?
Length. A scale of 1–3 was used: 1 = a short response of usually 75 words or fewer, or up to 4 full lines
of text; 2 = a medium response, between 5–9 lines of text; and 3 = a long response, longer than 10 lines.

306

Adding Value

One point each was assigned to the first five of the six variables. The sixth variable, length, had a
range of points. The lowest possible score was one, while the maximum a student scored was eight. The
total number of postings per student (example: student X posted six times a day, five days in a row) was
not used as a measure toward increased learning as it was not the total number of posts and responses that
were reflective, nor was reflectivity a measure of unreasoned or broad generalizations in a negative or
derogatory manner to others. Rather the reflective score was a measurement of thoughtful understanding
and contribution to a post or response. A post or response would be reflective and/or deliberate in that
students were thinking critically, they were developing informed perspectives about civic issues while
reconsidering their views, they tied in ideas from classroom discussions or texts, referenced external
web links or books and asked questions that required extensive discussion. These entries would be five
lines, or more in length, (which exceeded the minimum requirement of 75 words, or four typed lines)
furthering discussions. An example of an academically reflective posting is shown in Appendix 1. Next,
to test for academic reflectivity across the different modes of instruction and the different institutions,
the study variables were operationalized accordingly.
Operationalizing the study variable:

(1) Mode of Instruction. A total of four classes were involved in online collaboration. Two of these
courses were offered in a face-to-face mode (called Group A) and the other two offered in an online
mode (called Group B).
(2) Institution type. Two different types of institutions were involved in the collaboration, the four-year
university classes were coded as 1 and the community college classes as 2.
(3) Sense of Community. Using past research, a sense of online community was operationalized when
students conveyed their personalized connection with a peer(s) (Koh & Kim, 2003) and/or identi-
fied with a peer(s) as they bonded in their discussions (McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Koh & Kim,
2003). Likewise, in this study community was measured when students said they belonged to a
community or when they personalized their discussions identifying and building rapport with each
other.

The Hypotheses

Guided by the Col frameworks social presence element that a sense of presence was conveyed by a peer
and in their identification with fellow peers online and following research that social presence is not as
established at community colleges versus four-year institutions (Tinto 1975; Tinto, 1987; Tinto, 1993;
Tu, 2002a, 2002b) hypothesis (H1) followed that students at the four-year institution would deliberate
with greater academic reflectivity than students at the community college.
Second, guided by the Col frameworks instructional presence element and as the instructor is present
in face-to-face courses and not online at both institutions hypothesis (H2) followed that students in the
face-to-face courses at both institutions would deliberate with greater academic reflectivity than students
in the online courses. Third, guided by both the Col frameworks social and instructional presence ele-
ments promoting a sense of online community and as these are not as established at community colleges
(Tinto, 1975; Tinto, 1987; Tinto, 1993; Tu, 2002a, 2002b), Hypothesis (H3) followed that students in the
four-year institution would form a greater sense of online community than students in the community
college. These hypotheses are based on students performing with academic deliberative reflectivity
across the different institutions and modes of instruction.

307
 
Adding Value

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

A mixed-methods approach was used in this study. First content analysis was used to code the resultant
743 posts and responses. As only one instructor coded all the posts and responses, no inter coder reliability
tests were necessary. Second, the content analysis was statistically tested using the independent-samples
t-test as it determines if a difference exists between the means of two independent groups on the same
dependent variable, which was academic reflectivity.
Based on my first hypothesis an independent-samples t-test was run to determine if students at the
four-year institution would deliberate with greater academic reflectivity than students at the community
college. There were 67 students at the four-year university and 62 students at the community college. There
were no outliers in the data, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. Engagement scores for each mode of
instruction were not normally distributed, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > .000), and variances
were homogeneous, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p = .166). My hypothesis was
proven in that the online collaboration was more engaging to students at the four-year university (M =
1.48, SD = 0.502) than community college students (M = 1.43, SD = 0.479), a statistically significant
difference, M = 0.05, 95% CI [0.076, 0.178], t (238) = 788, p = .432 as shown in Table 2.
Based on my second hypothesis an independent-samples t-test was run to determine if students in the
face-to-face courses at both institutions would deliberate with greater academic reflectivity than students
in the online courses. There were 53 face-to-face students and 76 online students. There were no outliers
in the data, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. Engagement scores for each mode of instruction were
not normally distributed, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > .000), and variances were homoge-
neous, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p = .011). My hypothesis was proven that
the online collaboration was more engaging in the face-to-face courses at the differing institutions (M =
1.73, SD = 0.447) than the online course (M = 1.65, SD = 0.479), a statistically significant difference,
M = 0.08, 95% CI [0.04, 0.195], t (239) = 1.295, p = .011 as shown in Table 2.
Based on my third hypothesis an independent-samples t-test was run to determine if students at the
four-year university would form a greater sense of community than students in at the community college.
There were 67 students at the four-year university and 62 students at the community college. There were
no outliers in the data, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. Engagement scores for each institution
type were not normally distributed, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > .000), and variances were
homogeneous, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p =. 472). My hypothesis was
proven that a sense of community was formed at the four-year institution (M = 0.90, SD = 0.307) than
those in the community college (M = 0.88, SD = 0.321), a statistically significant difference, M = 0.02,
95% CI [0.049, 0.71], t (417) = .360, p = .719 as shown in Table 2.
The results support each of my three hypotheses, in that firstly students in the face-to-face classes at
both institutions deliberated with greater reflectivity than students in the online classes. Secondly, that
students in the four-year institution deliberated with greater academic reflectivity. And thirdly students
at the four-year institution formed a greater sense of online community than students in the community
college. The statistically significant results support each of my hypotheses. A point to note is that there
the results show slight differences across the institutions and modes of instruction however this is not
unusual as researchers attribute these slight differences to the differences of instructional presence at
community colleges versus those found at four-year institutions (Garrison et al., 2001; Baker, 2010; La-
dyshewsky, 2013; Shea & Pickett, 2006). Likewise, the differences among levels of social presence at the
institutions affected online course achievement at the community college level as well (Liu et al., 2009).

308

Adding Value

Table 2. Results of t-tests and Descriptive Statistics of reflectivity for community, institution type by
mode of instruction

Face-to-face Online
95% CI for Mean
St. Difference
Mean N Mean St deviation N T Df
deviation

Sense of
.90 .307 129 .90 .307 199 .360 417 -.049 .071
Community
Institution Type 1.48 .502 129 1.43 .497 119 .788 238 -.076 .178
Mode of Instruction 1.73 .447 129 1.65 .479 120 1.295 239 -.040 .195

Table 3. Post semester responses across modes of instruction (online and face-to-face (f-to-f) and dif-
fering institutions

Community Community Both Both Both 4year Both

4year-to-f 4year- Online
Questions: college f-to-f college f-TO-f Online University community
class class
class online class classes Classes classes college classes

Did you ‘identify’ Yes 21.74% 28.57% 23.08% 0.5031 50% 61% 45% 67%
(build rapport)
Maybe 52.17% 57.14% 23.08% 1.0931 11% 31% 75% 65%
with others on
this site? No 26.09% 14.29% 53.85% 0.4038 40% 1.1% 80% 68%
Did the Yes 65.22% 42.86% 53.85% 1.0808 11% 1.1% 100% 97%
collaboration
Maybe 26.09% 28.57% 19.23% 0.5466 55% 42% 45% 5%
feel like a
sense of online
No 8.70% 28.57% 26.92% 0.3727 37% 0.5% 36% 51%
community?

Relatedly, semester-end surveys provide support for the collaboration from the student perspective.
In a closed-ended question, students were asked if they visited the collaboration, other than writing their
posts and responses. In response, while 95% of students in the face-to-face classes said they did visit
the collaboration other than to write their posts and responses, 96% percent of students in the online
classes said they did as well. Student responses were similar at the four-year and community college
where 1.02%/1% said respectively that they visited the collaboration other than writing their posts and
responses indication their interest in the ongoing deliberations.
Another semester-end closed-ended question asked students if they ‘identified’ (build rapport) with
others on this site. While 50% of students enrolled in the face-to-face classes agreed to that statement so
did 61% percent of students in the online classes as shown in Table 3. A larger difference among students
resulted when the students were asked if the collaboration feels like a sense of online community. While
29% of students enrolled in the face-to-face classes said they did less than 1% percent of students in the
online classes said they did as well as shown in Table 3.
In response to an open-ended question asking students what they liked or disliked about the collabora-
tion an overwhelming majority of students across both institutions and modes of instruction consistently
said that they liked the diversity of opinions and experiences. And that the anonymity of these spaces
allowed them the ability to freely express themselves/their opinion, in turn, allowing them to engage
freely. While others wrote that “it was interesting to hear peers point of view while they were not face

309
 
Adding Value

Table 4. Open ended question asking them what they liked or disliked about the collaboration across
both modes of instruction and the differing institutions

4yr university face-to-face class responses:

It was quite informative, reading divergent views from collaborators
like about being able to learn things or see a new perspective
Like that we could express our opinion and I wish it was completely anonymous
The collaboration forces me to pay attention to issues that I would have never paid attention to on my own
I liked that the people who I spoke to and responded to I didnt know them. im not sure what i didnt like.
The collaboration allowed students from different states to express their views and that is a pro. A con would be that some people would
just post to the discussion board and not collaborate with other students.
One of my favorite aspects of the collaboration was reading different point of views and learning different information about the issue.
However, I did not like that there were too many responses and most of them had redudance in their information.
I liked the anonymity of the collaboration and how everyone got to hsare their viewpoints without being chastised, it gave me insight on
other viewpoints and positions, while also changing some of my very own opinions.
Four-year Online class responses:
Easy access, responding
it was good, it gave me an open mind and view of how others felt that did not agree with me
I liked the collaboration questions as well as the variety of responses. Very interesting to hear peoples point of view when not face to
face, helps to give a voice without having to worry about judgement.
liked seeing others opinions
The different point of view
some of the difference of opinion
I like how everyone was engaged in the collaboration
I was great to read others opinions on politics.
I hated having to respond to ones that are not current at all
it pushed me to learn more about the government.
Community college face-to-face class responses:
I liked interacting with people from a different state.
I liked how it made me have to investigate things and I disliked the lack of effort on some peoples parts
How much knowledge on each issue I had.
I liked researching information regarding the topic. I did not always like responding to other’s statements.
Community college online class responses:
I liked that everyone was polite to one another even when opinions varied greatly
Disliked discussing controversial topics online with strangers.
Great learning activity
I did not like posting my political views, it is something I keep to myself, therefore most of the time I tried to stay neutral in posting.
There was nothing which I disliked.
I liked the diversity of the opinions and the questions, there wasn’t anything that I disliked expect when people skirted around the issue
not actually answering the questions.
I’m not a political science major therefore it was intimidating to respond when I didn’t have previous knowledge on some of these
matters.

to face as it helped with their voice without having to worry about judgment”. Sample responses to this
question across both institutions and modes of instruction are shown in Table 4 further supporting this
study that deliberations in online spaces are an effective means for pedagogy.

310

Adding Value

CONCLUSION

As the need to engage our students in meaningful academic interactions in online courses grows across
departments and universities across the globe, this study contributes not only to the research on the
pedagogical viability of online collaborations, but it is the first research of its kind to compare students
across the different modes of instruction at differing institutions. Moreover, this study is especially sig-
nificant as the same instructors, identical class topics/requirements were taught during the same semester.
The findings presented in this research yield five major results. First, in tune with much of the
pedagogical literature, this study finds that academically reflective peer discussions take place across
different modes of instruction that of a face-to-face or online class and across a four-year institution and
community college on a site designed for interactivity. Second, that students at the four-year institution
deliberated with greater academically reflective than students at the community college. Third, students
in the face-to-face classes, regardless of their institution type deliberated with greater reflectivity versus
the online courses at either institution type. Fourth, students at the four-year institution formed a greater
sense of community than students at the community college. And fifth, that an interactive design found
in this online collaboration is replicable across a variety of classes, disciplines and regardless of the
geographic region.
Much more research is needed as online education continues to grow making it increasingly important
to evaluate differences across the different modes of instruction. And research is also needed across these
differing modes of instruction at community colleges in comparison to four-year institutions as online
enrollment at community colleges surpasses four-year institutions (Crawford & Persaud, 2013) with little
to no qualitative research across these institutions (Trowler, 2010; Zepke & Leach, 2005; Tinto, 1975;
Tinto, 1987; Tinto, 1993; Tu, 2002a, 2002b). Suggestions for future research include collaborations that
use the three elements in the Col framework comparing it to one without any one of the three elements
in the framework. In addition, it would be useful to compare a collaboration that has provides students
with example scripts versus one that does not.
This research adds value to the growth of literature on online higher education. This research ad-
ditionally adds to the relatively little research comparing students in online and face-to-face students
at four-year institutions in comparison to community colleges. Moreover, the findings in this research
inform institutional decision-making and educators as it creates new opportunities for students, faculty
and the enrollment growth at each institution. As students deliberate, civically challenge and academi-
cally learn from each other online across institutions and modes of instruction the future of research on
online peer learning is bright as its potential.

311
 
Adding Value

REFERENCES

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United
States. Sloan Consortium.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade Level: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson
Survey Research Group.
Anderson, T., Liam, R., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer
conferencing context. Academic Press.
Arasaratnam-Smith, L. A., & Northcote, M. (2017). Community in Online Higher Education: Challenges
and Opportunities. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(2), 188-198.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in
web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 42–54. doi:10.1177/108056990106400405
Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Finch, R. (2006). An investigation of epistemological and social dimen-
sions of teaching in online learning environments. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
5(4), 435–447. doi:10.5465/amle.2006.23473204
Báez, C. P., Hennig, C., & Segovia, Y. (2013). Pedagogical models, collaborative work and interaction
on online undergraduate programmes in Colombia: Still some way to go. International Journal of Edu-
cational Technology in Higher Education, 10(2), 431–445.
Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning,
cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), n1. doi:10.9743/JEO.2010.1.2
Barnett, S., Jones, S. C., Caton, T., Iverson, D., Bennett, S., & Robinson, L. (2014). Implementing a
virtual community of practice for family physician training: A mixed-methods case study. Journal of
Medical Internet Research, 16(3), e83. doi:10.2196/jmir.3083 PMID:24622292
Benbunan-Fich, R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2006). Separating the effects of knowledge construction and group
collaboration in learning outcomes of web-based courses. Information & Management, 43(6), 778–793.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.09.001
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel,
E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of
Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. doi:10.3102/0034654309333844
Bode, L., Vraga, E. K., Borah, P., & Shah, D. V. (2014). A new space for political behavior: Political
social networking and its democratic consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
19(3), 414–429. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12048
Boghikian-Whitby, S., & Mortagy, Y. (2016). Student preferences and performance in online and face-to-
face classes using Myers-Briggs Indicator: A longitudinal quasi-experimental study. Issues in Informing
Science and Information Technology, 13, 89-109.

312

Adding Value

Bolsen, T., Evans, M., & Fleming, A. M. (2016). A Comparison of online and face-to-face approaches to
teaching introduction to American government. Journal of Political Science Education, 12(3), 302–317.
doi:10.1080/15512169.2015.1090905
Botsch, R. E., & Botsch, C. S. (2012). Audiences and outcomes in online and traditional American govern-
ment classes revisited. PS, Political Science & Politics, 45(3), 493–500. doi:10.1017/S104909651200042X
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2014). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with
each other. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315042565
Bozionelos, N. (2004). Mentoring provided: Relation to mentor’s career success, personality, and men-
toring received. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 24–46. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00033-2
Branon, R. F., & Essex, C. (2001). Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance
education. TechTrends, 45(1), 36–36. doi:10.1007/BF02763377
Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority
of knowledge. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bryce, N. (2014). Teacher candidates’ collaboration and identity in online discussions. Journal of Uni-
versity Teaching & Learning Practice, 11(1), 7.
Carpenter, T. G., Brown, W. L., & Hickman, R. C. (2004). Influences of online delivery on developmental
writing outcomes. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(1), 14.
Carpini, M. X. D., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale
University Press.
Cejda, B. (2010). Online education in community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges,
2010(150), 7–16. doi:10.1002/cc.400
Chadha, A. (2018a). Personalized Online Reflective Deliberations: No Significant Differences across
Institution Type. Journal of Institutional Research, 7, 60–74.
Chadha, A. (2018b). Peer Interactions: Extending Pedagogical Deliberations into the Virtual Hallway. In-
ternational Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 8(3), 1–17. doi:10.4018/IJOPCD.2018070101
Chadha, A. (2018c). Virtual Classrooms: Analyzing student and instructor collaborative experiences.
The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(3). doi:10.14434/josotl.v18i3.22318
Cho, J., Ahmed, S., Keum, H., Choi, Y. J., & Lee, J. H. (2018). Influencing myself: Self-reinforcement through
online political expression. Communication Research, 45(1), 83–111. doi:10.1177/0093650216644020
Craig, J. (2014). What Have We Been Writing About? Patterns and Trends in the Scholarship of Teach-
ing and Learning in Political Science. Journal of Political Science Education, 10(1), 23–36. doi:10.10
80/15512169.2013.859086
Crampton, A., Ragusa, A. T., & Cavanagh, H. (2015). Exploring the role of technology in fostering sense
of belonging in students studying by distance. Sydney: Office for Learning and Teaching, Department
of Education and Training.

313
 
Adding Value

Crawford, C., & Persaud, C. (2013). Community colleges online. Journal of College Teaching &
Learning, 10(1), 75-82. Retrieved from: http://www.cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/TLC/article/
Download/7534/7600
De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze
transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005
Dendir, S. (2016). An online premium? Characteristics and performance of online versus face-to-face
students in principles of microeconomics. Journal of Education for Business, 91(2), 59–68. doi:10.10
80/08832323.2015.1110555
DeTure, M. (2004). Cognitive style and self-efficacy: Predicting student success in online distance
education. American Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 21–38. doi:10.120715389286ajde1801_3
Díaz, L. A., & Entonado, F. B. (2009). Are the functions of teachers in e-learning and face-to-face
learning environments really different? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 331–343.
Downing, K., & Chim, T. M. (2004). Reflectors as online extraverts? Educational Studies, 30(3), 265–276.
Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver
in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face
introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 312–331. doi:10.1177/0092055X12446624
Englund, T. (2006). Deliberative communication: A pragmatist proposal. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
38(5), 503–520. doi:10.1080/00220270600670775
Evans, S., Steele, J., Robertson, S., & Dyer, T. (2017). Personalizing Post Titles in the Online Classroom:
A Best Practice? Journal of Educators Online, 14(2), n2. doi:10.9743/jeo.2017.14.2.1
Ferguson, J., & Tryjankowski, A. M. (2009). Online versus face‐to‐face learning: Looking at modes
of instruction in Master’s‐level courses. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(3), 219–228.
doi:10.1080/03098770903026149
Gallagher, S. (2002). Distance Learning at the Tipping point: Critical Success Factors to Growing Fully
Online Distance Learning Programs. Boston: Eduventures.
Galston, W. (2007). Civic Knowledge, Civic Education and Civic Engagement. Fountain of Youth:
Strategies and Tactics for Mobilizing America’s Young Voters, 95-112.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and com-
puter conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.
doi:10.1080/08923640109527071
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction
is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. doi:10.120715389286ajde1903_2
Garza Mitchell, R. L., Etshim, R., & Dietz, B. T. (2016). Online CTE in the community college. Career
and Technical Education Research, 41(3), 193–212. doi:10.5328/cter41.3.193
Guay, T. (1995). Web Publishing Paradigms. Information Technology Project Group.

314

Adding Value

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a
computer‐mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26.
doi:10.1080/08923649709526970
Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R. A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education for democratic
citizenship. The Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 17–34. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00097.x
Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_3
Hachey, A., Conway, K., & Wladis, C. (2013). Community colleges and underappreciated assets: Using
institutional data to promote success in online learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Admin-
istration, 16(1), 1–18.
Harasim, L., & Stephen, T. (1996). Computer networking and scholarly communication in the 21st
century. Academic Press.
Hastie, M., Hung, I. C., Chen, N. S., & Kinshuk. (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for
educational international collaboration. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1),
9–24. doi:10.1080/14703290903525812
Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(4), 51–55.
Huntington-Klein, N., Cowan, J., & Goldhaber, D. (2017). Selection into online community college courses
and their effects on persistence. Research in Higher Education, 58(3), 244–269. doi:10.100711162-016-
9425-z
Hurtado, S. (2003). Preparing college students for a diverse democracy. Presentation made within the
Chet Peters lecture series. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University.
Jaggars, S., & Xu, D. (2013). Predicting online student outcomes from a measure of course quality.
Academic Press.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college
classroom. Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., & Shaik, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and
learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning
Research, 11(1), 29–49.
Joyce, T., Crockett, S., Jaeger, D. A., Altindag, O., & O’Connell, S. D. (2015). Does classroom time
matter? Economics of Education Review, 46, 64–77. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.02.007
Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections between Internet use and political efficacy,
knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 173–192.
doi:10.120715506878jobem5002_1
Kim, K. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education. EDU-
CAUSE Quarterly, 29(4), 22–30.

315
 
Adding Value

Koh, J., Kim, Y. G., & Kim, Y. G. (2003). Sense of virtual community: A conceptual framework and
empirical validation. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 75–94. doi:10.1080/108644
15.2003.11044295
Koole, M. (2010). The web of identity: Selfhood and belonging in online learning networks. Seventh
International Conference on Networked Learning 2010.
Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher
education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1020–1041. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2006.04.022
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories
of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2),
311–328. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311
Ladyshewsky, R. (2013). Instructor presence in online courses and student satisfaction. International
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 1–23. doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070113
Lapsley, R., Kulik, B., Moody, R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Is identical really identical? An investiga-
tion of equivalency theory and online learning. Journal of Educators Online, 5(1), n1. doi:10.9743/
JEO.2008.1.3
Larson, D. K., & Sung, C. H. (2009). Comparing student performance: Online versus blended versus
face-to-face. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 31–42.
Lawrence, S., & Abel, E. M. (2013). Comparing outcomes of a Web-based MSW course to face-to-face
class outcomes: Implications for social work education. Social Work Education, 32(6), 762–772.
Light, R. J. (1992). Explorations with students and faculty about teaching, learning, and student life.
Harvard Univ. Graduate School of Education and Kennedy School of Government.
Liu, S. Y., Gomez, J., & Yen, C. J. (2009). Community college online course retention and final grade:
Predictability of social presence. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2).
Lokken, F., Womer, L., & Mullins, C. (2008). Distance education survey results: Tracking the impact of
e-learning at community colleges. Washington, DC: Instructional Technology Council.
Lorenzo, G., & Ittelson, J. (2005). An overview of e-portfolios. Educause Learning Initiative, 1(1), 1-27.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology:
A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449–521. doi:10.3102/00346543071003449
Lu, F., & Lemonde, M. (2013). A comparison of online versus face-to-face teaching delivery in statistics
instruction for undergraduate health science students. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory
and Practice, 18(5), 963–973. doi:10.100710459-012-9435-3 PMID:23238874
Lyke, J., & Frank, M. (2012). Comparison of student learning outcomes in online and traditional class-
room environments in a psychology course. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(3/4), 245.

316

Adding Value

Ma, J., Han, X., Yang, J., & Cheng, J. (2014, October). Comparison of the Impact of Two Online Learning
Promotion Strategies on Group Interaction Activities. In 2014 International Conference of Educational
Innovation through Technology (pp. 143-149). IEEE. 10.1109/EITT.2014.32
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Communi-
ty Psychology, 14(1), 6–23. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1<6::AID-JCOP2290140103>3.0.CO;2-I
Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order think-
ing. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65.
Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting Active Learning. Strategies for the College Classroom.
Jossey-Bass Inc.
Morris, L. V., Wu, S. S., & Finnegan, C. L. (2005). Predicting retention in online general education
courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 23–36. doi:10.120715389286ajde1901_3
Murchú, D. Ó., & Sorensen, E. K. (2004). Online master communities of practice: Collaborative learning
in an intercultural perspective. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 7(1).
Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perceptions of distance learners in cyberspace.
American Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 15–35. doi:10.1080/08923640009527052
Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. American
Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 99–113. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602_4
Parkin, H. J., Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., & Thorpe, L. (2012). A role for technology in
enhancing students’ engagement with feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(8),
963–973. doi:10.1080/02602938.2011.592934
Paul, R. (2001). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Academic Press.
Pečar, M. (2016). Analysis of an asynchronous online discussion as a supportive model for peer col-
laboration and reflection in teacher education. Journal of Information Technology Education, 15.
Poole, D. M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: A case study. Journal
of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 162–177. doi:10.1080/08886504.2000.10782307
Qiu, M., & McDougall, D. (2013). Foster strengths and circumvent weaknesses: Advantages and
disadvantages of online versus face-to-face subgroup discourse. Computers & Education, 67, 1–11.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.005
Rojas‐Drummond, S., Mazón, N., Littleton, K., & Vélez, M. (2014). Developing reading comprehension
through collaborative learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(2), 138–158. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9817.2011.01526.x
Rowntree, D. (1995). Teaching and learning online: A correspondence education for the 21st century?
British Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 205–215. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.1995.tb00342.x
Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning
community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3),
175–190. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005

317
 
Adding Value

Sherman, L. W. (1986). Cooperative versus competitive educational psychology classrooms: A com-

parative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(3), 283–295. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(86)80008-7
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. M. (Eds.). (2014). Teaching and learning at a distance:
Foundations of distance education. IAP.
Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web‐based
and classroom instruction: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 623–664. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2006.00049.x
Stephan, W. G., & Vogt, W. P. (Eds.). (2004). Education programs for improving intergroup relations:
Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.
Stitzlein, S. M., & West, C. K. (2014). New forms of teacher education: Connections to charter schools
and their approaches. Democracy & Education, 22(2), 2.
Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning
in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306–331. doi:10.1080/0158791010220208
Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge
building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 359–383. doi:10.2190/W4G6-HY52-57P1-PPNE
Szeto, E. (2014). A comparison of Online/Face-to-face students’ and instructor’s experiences: Examin-
ing blended synchronous learning effects. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4250–4254.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.926
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of
Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125. doi:10.3102/00346543045001089
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. University of
Chicago Press, 5801 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60637.
Tinto, V. (1993). Building community. Liberal Education, 79(4), 16–21. PMID:10124451
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy, 11(1), 1-15.
Tu, C. H. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. International
Journal on E-Learning, 1(2), 34–45.
Tu, C. H. (2002). The impacts of text-based CMC on online social presence. Journal of Interactive
Online Learning, 1(2), 1–24.
Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes.
American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2
Tucker, S. (2001). Distance education: Better, worse, or as good as traditional education? Online Journal
of Distance Learning Administration, 4(4).

318

Adding Value

Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face
collaboration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 101–124. doi:10.100711423-
007-9050-9
Urtel, M. G. (2008). Assessing academic performance between traditional and distance education course
formats. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 322–330.
Vachris, M. A. (1997). Teaching economics in a virtual classroom. Virginia Economic Journal, 2(3),
17–26.
Weber, J. M., & Lennon, R. (2007). Multi-course comparison of traditional versus Web-based course
delivery systems. Journal of Educators Online, 4(2).
Welker, A. P. (2012). A comparative analysis between English 1020 course outcomes taught online and
face-to-face. University of Colorado at Denver.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press.
Wessner, M., & Pfister, H. R. (2007). Points of cooperation: Integrating cooperative learning into web-
based courses. In The role of technology in CSCL (pp. 21–46). Boston, MA: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
0-387-71136-2_3
Wladis, C., Conway, K. M., & Hachey, A. C. (2015). The online STEM classroom—Who succeeds? An
exploration of the impact of ethnicity, gender, and non-traditional student characteristics in the com-
munity college context. Community College Review, 43(2), 142–164. doi:10.1177/0091552115571729
Wolff, B. G., Wood-Kustanowitz, A. M., & Ashkenazi, J. M. (2014). Student performance at a com-
munity college: Mode of delivery, employment, and academic skills as predictors of success. Journal
of Online Learning and Teaching / MERLOT, 10(2).
Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2005). Integration and adaptation: Approaches to the student retention and
achievement puzzle. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(1), 46–59. doi:10.1177/1469787405049946

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Differing Institutions: This refers to different forms of institutions in higher education such as 4yr
public institutions and 2-year community colleges.
Modes of Instruction: The three common modes of instruction are online, hybrid/blended and face-
to-face instruction. In an online course, all required work are internet-based. This includes instruction,
learning activities, and interactions (both student-student and/or student-instructor). In a blended/hybrid
Course online contact displaces some portion of the required contact hours that would normally take
place in a scheduled face-to-face course. Contact includes instruction, learning activities, and interactions
(both student-student and/or student-instructor). And in a face-to-face course contact includes instruction,
learning activities, and interactions (both student-student and/or student-instructor).
Online Deliberation: The term online deliberation describes the emerging field of practice and
research related to the design, implementation and study of deliberative processes that rely on the web.

319
 Adding Value

Appendix

Appendix 1: Response to Instructor Question about free speech. Student response is reflective, used
class ideas, outside sources and is past minimum word requirements.
The First Amendment not only protects our words, but may protect actions like protesting and also,
symbolic speech. For example, in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the court held that the burn-
ing of the American flag was protected under the First Amendment. Just because the audience may be
offended by the words or expressions that are being demonstrated does not mean that it is prohibited.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/88-155. So although many people may find Colin Kaepernick kneel-
ing during the National Anthem offensive, he is peacefully protesting and that is protected. The first
amendment states right in it “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech; or the right
of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” If
someone is opposed to the speaker, they can argue their views but everyone is equally entitled to free
speech. The Government may prohibit some forms of speech if they could be used to incite a riot or are
threats of violence. Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919), created the clear and present danger test
to determine whether the “words used in a situation are of a nature that would create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent.” https://www.
oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47

320
 321

Chapter 18
Perspectives and
Implementation of ICT
in Teacher Education
Robert Akinade Awoyemi
Adeyemi Federal College of Education, Nigeria

Robert Akinade Awoyemi

Adeyemi Federal College of Education, Nigeria

ABSTRACT
This chapter evaluates teacher education from a technological point of view in relation to its conventional
perspectives, where teacher education was appraised in conjugation with ICT. The integration of ICT in
teacher education is a means of supporting high quality teaching and learning, involving teacher educators
and teachers, which requires how best to explore the utilization of technologies for meaningful learning
of students. In the course of this discourse, it was ratiocinated that ICT plays a vital role in teacher edu-
cation. In the field of teacher education, ICT-based applications and their integration with content and
pedagogy are potential catalysts for meaningful learning of students. Finally, the behaviourist theory,
the experiential learning theory, and the information processing theory were employed respectively to
discuss the theoretical framework of this chapter to assert the pertinence of ICT in teacher education.

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge, education and learning are strongly linked with society and its evolution, thus, one cannot
teach or learn nowadays the same way as a century ago, more particularly, the quick and deep changes
brought by Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) has had a strong influence on knowl-
edge and teacher education (Cornu 2010). ICT has increasingly become pervasive in societies around
the world and thereby, reaching schools and educational sectors. With numerous global advancements
in ICT it is essential that educators have a thorough working knowledge of these media and their influ-
ence on the performance and engagement of their students (Zhang and Martinovic 2008). According to

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch018

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 
Perspectives and Implementation of ICT in Teacher Education

Cornu (2010), the educational sector was traditionally used to hierarchical and pyramidal structures in
their pedagogical practices and approach, but with the advent of ICT, and most particularly the internet, a
totally different and divergent means of transmission and dissemination of information in the educational
sector was fabricated, which in turn led to new ways of ratiocination and cogitation. Pupils/students
themselves are changing and adopting to the new technological advancements, thereby, developing new
abilities, new approaches and new concepts, and this apparently affects the educational sector, where
teachers have to equip themselves technologically, particularly at a time when pupils/students seem to
be more competent than their teachers in technological proficiencies (Cornu, 2010). Panigrahi (2016),
asseverates that, the integration of ICT in teacher education is a means of supporting high quality teaching
and learning, involving teacher educators, teachers, student teachers, and leaders, which requires how
best to explore the utilization of technologies for meaningful learning of students, thus, in the present
digital world pupils/students must be given opportunities to learn with effective and efficient integra-
tion of ICT in the classroom. Panigrahi (2016), argues that good teaching with technology requires a
shift in existing practices in both pedagogy and content domains, therefore, teacher educators are urged
to think about their own context, and go beyond technology literacy to promote educational practices
that innovatively use interaction of technology, pedagogy and content. According to Cornu (2010), the
tradition pedagogical approach is not effective and efficient enough to solve some major problems in the
educational environment, because there is a tremendous accumulation of knowledge, and knowledge is
getting more complex and intricate every passing day. Therefore, Dash (2014), asserts that, the integra-
tion of ICT into pedagogical practices will improve the model of instructional design for meaningful
learning of students.

The Concept of Information Communication Technology

According to Yekini (2014), Information and Communications Technology or (ICT), is often used as an
extended synonym for information technology (IT), but is a more specific term that stresses the role of
unified communications and the integration of telecommunications (telephone lines and wireless signals),
computers as well as necessary enterprise software, middleware, storage, and audio-visual systems, which
enable users to access, store, transmit, and manipulate information. Yekini (2014), purports that, the
term ‘Infocommunications’ is used in some cases as a shorter form of information and communication(s)
technology. In fact ‘Infocommunications’ is the expansion of telecommunications with information
processing and content handling functions on a common digital technology base. According to Yekini
(2014), ICT can be further broken into the three major concepts which encompasses it; ‘Information’,
‘Communication’ and ‘Technology’, these concepts are briefly discussed below:

Information

The word information is derived from Latin “informare” which means “give form to”. Koontz (2002)
defines information as a change in an observer’s state of uncertainty, he compares information with
energy. “Energy and information are measures of work, whereas energy is a measure of the physical
work required to transform matter of one form into matter of another, information is a measure of (intel-
lectual) work”. Steven (2005) remarks that information has consistently been a significant element in the
development of human society and that it has over a long period of time shaped the way we think and act.

322

Perspectives and Implementation of ICT in Teacher Education

Communication

The word communication is derived from the Latin word “communis” meaning “to share”, Communica-
tion requires a sender, a message, and a recipient, although the receiver need not be present or aware of
the sender’s intent to communicate at the time of communication; hence communication can occur across
vast distances in time and space (Osumah 2003). Osei (2007), posits that communication requires a vast
repertoire of skills in interpersonal processing, listening, observing, speaking, questioning, analyzing,
gestures and evaluating, enables collaboration and cooperation, which also includes verbal, non-verbal and
electronic means of human interaction, which aids in sharing information whether in writing or speech.

Technology

The use of technology began with the conversion of natural resources into simple tools. The prehistoric
discovery of the ability to control fire increased the available sources of food and the invention of the
wheel helped human beings in traveling in and controlling their environment (Bax 2005). Technology
was broadly defined by Ofoefuna (2007) as the entities, both material and immaterial, created by the
application of mental and physical effort in order to achieve some value, in this sense, he regarded tech-
nology as tools and machines that may be used to solve real world problems. Wakama (2009), in his
own opinion regarded technology as the selective adaptation of one or more of the process identified
and described by science and their embodiment in services designed to serve the need of mankind on
the progress from savagery towards advanced social evolution.

Knowledge for Teaching: The “What” of ICT Mediated Teacher Education

According to Hammond (2006), over the last two decades, the use of ICT has been an important topic in
education, thus, on this note, studies have shown that ICT can enhance teaching and learning outcomes.
Kaur (2016), posits that, the computer which is popularly regarded as the super-teaching machine, has
acquired enormous usage in terms of teacher education, which as inversely brought about new innova-
tions and proved its potency in terms of teaching efficiency in many developed countries. Integrating
ICT in teacher education according to Kaur (2016), initiates the awareness of the students (who are being
taught) about major technological appliances/gadgets, for example, the familiarization of students with
computers, makes them (the students), understand what computers are capable of doing, what computers
are not capable of doing, and how computers could be used to facilitate learning. Kaur (2016), argues
that, it is possible to incorporate ICT in teaching of new skills and concepts, to provide remedial teach-
ing, to facilitate development of creative thinking and problem solving algorithms, in evaluation of
students’ performance and classification of children according to their ability, preparation of timetables
and schedules, allocation of learning materials according to individual needs and interests, maintenance
of progress report cards efficiently and confidently, providing information data for guidance and refer-
ence, provision for direct interaction between pupils and subjects in tutorial work, engaging students in
tutorial work and providing immediate feedback to students for better interaction and motivation.
According to Panigrahi (2016), with the integration of ICT into teacher education, teachers are ex-
pected to be more conversant about students, thereby performing roles of a facilitator and moderator with
different responsibilities in different situations. Takwale (2014), purports that, with implementation of
ICT and its effective integration with teaching-learning process, the approaches to learning and teach-

323
 
Perspectives and Implementation of ICT in Teacher Education

ing has experienced change, drastically, whereby the teacher becomes learner centric, .i.e. exploring the
best in every student, the teacher also becomes developmentally inquisitive .i.e. developing questioning
ability in students and by doing so, the teacher encourages the students to ask questions, thus leading
to critical and creative thinking, conclusively the teacher has the capability of developing a cooperative
and collaborative learning environment, where learning occurs through discussion.

Learning and Teaching in a Digital Society

According Roskiv (2010), different names are employed to describe the major social forces that have
shaped society, whereas the last century has been dominated by industrialization, the last decades are
often referred to as the ‘information’ or ‘knowledge society’ to the extent that computers and digitaliza-
tion have changed society in profound ways. Hargreaves (2003), posits that we are living in a defining
moment of education history, when the world in which teachers do their work is changing profoundly,
and the demographic composition of teachers is turning dramatically, and teaching is now becoming a
young person’s profession again, he stresses that the knowledge economy/knowledge society is driven
by creativity and ingenuity. Roskiv (2010), affirms that, within the digital society mobile connectivity
is seen as one major feature, in the 1990s, as the Internet became commonly available, the growth of
desktop and later of laptop computers gave rise to new dimensions of connectivity and these in turn
spawned mobile networks and more advanced mobile phones – ‘smartphones’ – capable of accessing a
growing number of Internet services almost anywhere.
Devices such as iPhone and iPad (and their equivalents) offer a ‘full office’ in one’s pocket with
e-mail, camera, GPS, books, news networks and almost any ‘cloud’ (Internet-based) service wanted in
which, these new digital devices and services are increasingly embraced by publishers of books, music,
films and, of course, the main news networks (Panigrahi 2016). Hammond (2016), posits that, it should
be no surprise that teachers who, like other professionals, are expected to be lifelong learners, must also
meet the challenges of digital and mobile technologies. It is not simply a matter of mastering new tech-
nology; since the entire traditional paradigm has been up-ended, they must re-examine their profession
and redefine their role as teachers in the learning process (Hammond 2016). Panigrahi (2016), asserts
that, understanding and mastering technology is the starting point of a process of creating a new school,
inasmuch as information indeed knowledge itself is not static but dynamic, hence, the need for learning
must be considered the norm in a constantly changing world of new connectivity and mobility. It is not
so much the devices that will be the challenge, but rather the creation of suitable and sustainable peda-
gogical models that are relevant to the demands of the coming knowledge society, therefore, if schools
and societies are unable to do so, they will be left behind (Panigrahi 2016).
Kaur (2016), asseverates that, education institutions must prevent self-destruction, ‘throwing the baby
out with the bath water’, but rather open up to the real world developments of the digital society, that
could initiate changes that would have the capability of saving and fostering vital educational values.

324

Perspectives and Implementation of ICT in Teacher Education

Exploiting E-Learning in Teacher Education

According to Laurillard (2007), the notion of e-Learning has been frequently confronted by the question
of how it could be exploited as a productive support in the teacher education. The question is highly
justified, although quite unrewarding, because it operates with several dim concepts; firstly, because
different people have considerably different interpretations of the term e-Learning, secondly, because
individuals are not sure what productive support should exactly mean, and lastly, because many authori-
ties intuitively tend to believe that e-Learning and online learning should not be engaged in teacher
education at all (Laurillard 2007). Hrušecky and Kalaš (2010), purport that, to make productive use of
e-Learning support in teacher education, the clarification of what e-Learning really is should be, therefore,
Hrušecky and Kalaš (2010), commenced with the precise characterization of e-Learning, according to
Hrušecky and Kalaš (2010), e-Learning has a distinct number of forms, interpretations and approaches,
which inversely gets different names in different contexts, for example; computer assisted learning
(CAL), computer-based training (CBT), web-based learning (WBL); web-based training (WBT), open
and distance learning (ODL), computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL), learning management
systems (LMS) and diverse more.
Newby (2010), affirms that the exploitation of e-Learning in teacher educations renders opportunities
for instructive teaching practices, in which students become lifelong learners, by being able to handle
new devices and tools at whenever available, and thus, making students more creative and innovative.
Kishan (2010), purports that, the implementation of e-Learning in teacher education facilitates greater
imaginative understanding through increased access to information and new ways of accessing and in-
formation, according to Kishan (2010), e-Learning enables the student with the power to take risks and
make (innovative) mistakes that are costly in terms of time/material, .i.e. e-Learning provides the teach-
ers and the students, respectively, new forms and structure for representing knowledge and individuals’
relationship with it, thereby increasing the opportunity for interrelation and provision of opportunities
to develop clear logical thinking, sequential understanding and study skills.
Kaur (2016), also made emphasizes on the utilization of e-Learning in teacher education, in the aspect
of enhancing the initial preparation of students by providing good teaching and training materials for
teachers, in which students can as well tap into the knowledge oriented by the teachers. Kaur (2016),
posits that, e-Learning equips students with the ability to continue the learning process over a physical
distance, with the aid of didactic software and intellectual tutoring systems. Therefore, Kaur (2016), as-
serts that, e-learning is capable of providing lifelong professional development by providing courses in
virtual situation, training on demand, orientation and refresher courses through videoconferencing and
online discussions which in turn endows both teachers and students with a limitless flow of knowledge.

The Virtual Learning Environment

According to Christian (2013), a virtual learning environment (VLE), which is also known as a learning
platform, aids in the simulation of a virtual classroom or meetings with the simultaneous coalescence of
several communication technologies. Christian (2013), affirms that, the web conferencing software is
a prominent and contemporary example of a virtual learning environment, which enables teachers and
students to communicate with each other via webcam, microphone, and real-time chatting in a group
setting, in which participants can raise hands, answer polls or take tests. Christian (2013), asserts that,

325
 
Perspectives and Implementation of ICT in Teacher Education

students are able to use a whiteboard and screencast when given rights by their teacher, who sets permis-
sion levels for text notes, microphone rights and mouse control.
According to Kennedy (2015), the virtual learning environment provides the opportunity for students
to receive direct instruction from a qualified teacher in an interactive environment, which inversely
connotes that students can have direct and immediate access to their instructor for instant feedback and
direction. Kennedy (2015), asseverates that the virtual learning environment provides a structured sched-
ule of classes, which can be helpful for students who may find the freedom of asynchronous learning to
be overwhelming, in addition, the virtual learning environment provides a social learning environment
that replicates the traditional “brick and mortar” classroom. Most virtual classroom applications pro-
vide a recording feature. With the integration of the virtual learning environment in teacher education,
teachers will be equipped with the capability of keeping tracks of their progress in class because with
the intervention of the virtual learning environment, each class will be recorded and stored on a server,
which allows for instant playback of any class over the course of the school year and this can prove to be
extremely useful for students to retrieve missed material or review concepts for an upcoming exam, in
which parents and auditors are empowered with a conceptual ability to monitor any classroom to ensure
that they are satisfied with the education the student is receiving (Kennedy, 2015).

Mechanisms for ICT-Enabled Teacher Education

Dash (2014), argues that, since technology is not the end goal of education, but rather a means by which
it can be accomplished, therefore, educators must have a good grasp of the technology and its advantages
and disadvantages. Singh (2014), posits that, in the field of teacher education ICT-based applications
and their integration with content, method and pedagogy are potential catalysts for meaningful learn-
ing of students. According to Singh (2014), professionals associated with teacher education institutions
should equip teachers to design their educational system and prepare them for the future of the society.
Takwale (2014), suggests that, teachers should try as much as possible to update their knowledge and
skills to use the digital technology in classroom for teaching and learning process, and likewise, teacher
education institutions should as well be equipped with ICT-based resources with provision of training
and orientation of teacher educator for better integration of technology with content and pedagogy.
According to Menon (2014), professional competencies integrated into ICTs in teaching and learning
process are a continuous process that ensure meaningful participation and integration of students, therefore,
educational administrators and policy makers should be more persistent in working closely with schools
and colleges to determine the training needs of teachers and extend their support to organize appropriate
training programs with better exposure at all levels. Menon (2014), posits that, teachers at all levels of
education need to be supported in meeting the challenges of effective integration of ICTs for improving
classroom practices i.e. all the classrooms should also be equipped with basic ICT - based infrastructure
like computers, projector and internet facility. Menon (2014), also posits that, the area of specialization
of teachers should be considered (e.g., mathematics, language, science etc.), in other to develop a short-
term ICT-based program for teacher educators and teachers as a part of their professional development.
Panigrahi (2016), purports that, the motivation of teachers leading to their active participation is very
important for result-oriented initiatives and their implementation, whereby, incentives like certification,
professional advancement, formal and informal recognition at the institution and community levels could
be utilized to sustain motivation of the teachers and teacher educators. Panigrahi (2016), maintains that,
curriculum and course content should be designed with an approach to ensure better implementation of

326

Perspectives and Implementation of ICT in Teacher Education

ICTs and should be supported by technology-mediated Learning Management System (LMS), thereby,
the curriculum and content of teacher education will enable the students to compete globally and this
is possible by developing a pool of world-class content and designing the content with socially relevant
examples and illustrations through technology-mediated interventions for students. Conclusively, Panigrahi
(2016), posits that, teacher education institutions across the country must provide the leadership for pre
and in-service teachers and model the new pedagogies and tools for learning with active collaboration
from national and international agencies, thus, with mutual collaboration from all around it would be
easy and convenient to design and develop culturally responsive digital content for teachers and students.

The Social Impact of ICT-Mediated Teacher Education

According to, Panigrahi (2016), ICT has the capabilities to bring several benefits to teachers and students
such as shared learning resources, shared learning spaces and promotion of cooperative and collabora-
tive learning they also provide a base for autonomous learning. Panograhi (2016), purports that, ICT
has enabled us to communicate one to one, one to many and many to many through communication
channels and networking, thus, providing a means to organize institutions differently and lead to new
ways of working together with virtualization. With implementation and integration of ICT in teacher
education, the society has been transformed into a knowledge society.

Issues in Integration of ICT-Mediated Teacher Education

According to Senapaty (2005), creating a cadre of teachers and teacher educators at different levels who
are able to appreciate the initiatives of ICT-mediated learning is very important through research and
development in the field of teacher education around the world, in which these teachers and teacher
educators must be capable of appreciating blended learning and paced learning to develop a motivation
for effective integration of technology with content of teacher education curriculum. Therefore, Senapaty
(2005), affirms that, it is imperative to consider the global standard and set a benchmark to correlate the
teachers’ performance with the performance of global standards.
Srivathsan (2010), posits that, a well designed ICT-mediated teacher education curriculum with ap-
propriate mechanism of assessing and monitoring quality of education should be in place for ensuring
better implementation of integrated teacher education programs, therefore, the issue of availability of
technical for making course design and its production for ICT-mediated learning should well tackled.
According to Srivathsan (2010), policy planning is very crucial in yielding a positive outcome in ICT-
mediated teacher education programs, therefore, if it is conceived that there is a lack of coherence in
planning and leadership it is presumed to consequently affect the implementation aspect in the ICT-
mediated teacher education program. Also, it is essential to bridge the gap between the mind set-up of
new-age students and old classroom teachers through advocacy, in-service training, capacity-building
activities from time to time and the availability and accessibility of technology for users at all levels
(Srivathsan 2010).
Panda and Basantia (2005), purports that, the teacher education institutions should understand the
tremendous potential of digital technologies and how best it can be harnessed in the teaching and learning
process to enable the students to learn meaningfully, therefore these teacher education institutions can
really serve different segments of the society and meet the expectations of the new generation learners.
Although, there are some major challenges these teacher education institutions tend to come across, ac-

327
 
Perspectives and Implementation of ICT in Teacher Education

cording to Mishra and Koehler (2006), teacher education institutions find it difficult to collaborate on the
development and implementation of ICT courses for pre-service and in-service teachers with agencies
within their reach, in conjunction to this, teachers face major challenges when they are in schools due
to number of demands and expectations, in which, at the same time, they are expected to be innovative
in the use of ICT in classroom teaching and learning process.
Panigrahi (2016), asseverates that, the effective integration of ICT for meaningful learning requires
to be constantly updated to ensure currency, relevancy and pedagogical tenacity, thus, the course content
must be constantly revised and updated as the technology is moving fast from time to time, it is also es-
sential to align the content in line with new trends in learning with technology, for example, mobile phones
can be used as a learning device in view of its accessibility, cost-effectiveness and ease of operation.
According to Panigrahi (2016), the teacher education institutions should aim to capture the potentials
and opportunities available to enable students access their course materials and work collaboratively, be-
cause the future of using ICT for teaching and learning is always challenging and the need for cooperation
among students is imperative to be the topmost priority. Therefore, it is essential for teacher educators
to update themselves with recurrent training and orientation through refresher courses and orientation
program and focus on the issue of lack of initiative which is crucial part in the formulation of appropri-
ate policy to encourage teachers and teacher educators to incorporate the use of technology in teaching.

Theoretical Framework

According to Dimitriadis and Kamberelis (2006), education is a field largely dedicated to practice, because
teachers are often training students for a specific professional task, therefore, the field of education, has
long been considered an “applied” area of inquiry. Culp, Honey and Mandinach (2005), affirms that,
over the last two decades, the use of ICT has been an important topic in education, on the one hand,
studies have shown that ICT can enhance teaching and learning outcomes, for example, in science and
mathematics education, scholars have documented that the use of ICT can improve students’ conceptual
understanding, problem solving, and team working skills and as a result of this, most curriculum docu-
ments state the importance of ICT and encourage schoolteachers to utilize them. Therefore, Zhou and
Brown (2017), had a major discourse, about some theories which could tend to be effective and efficient
in correlation to teacher education, in which some of these theories will be explicated below:

The Behaviourist Theory

According to Zhou and Brown (2017), the behaviourist theory was originated by John B. Watson (1878-
1958) and B. F. Skinner (1904-1990). Watson believed that human behaviour resulted from specific
stimuli that elicited certain responses. Watson’s basic premise was that conclusions about human devel-
opment should be based on observation of overt behaviour rather than speculation about subconscious
motives or latent cognitive processes, likewise, Skinner believed that people don’t shape the world, but
instead, the world shapes them. Skinner also believed that human behaviour is predictable, just like a
chemical reaction. He is also well known for his “Skinner box,” a tool to demonstrate his theory that
rewarded behaviour is repeated. (Shaffer, 2000). Parkay and Hass, (2000), posits that, behaviourism is
primarily concerned with observable and measurable aspects of human behaviour, thereby, in assuming
that human behaviour is learned, behaviourists maintain that all behaviours can also be unlearned, and
replaced by new behaviours; that is, when a behaviour becomes unacceptable, it can be replaced by an

328

Perspectives and Implementation of ICT in Teacher Education

acceptable one. A key element to this theory of learning is the rewarded response. The desired response
must be rewarded in order for learning to take place (Parkay & Hass, 2000)
Parkay and Hass, (2000), purports that, the behaviourist theory is very effective in teacher education,
because, advocates of behaviourism have effectively, attested to the tenacity of the adoption the system
of rewards and punishments in classrooms by rewarding desired behaviours and punishing inappropri-
ate ones. In which rewards tends to vary, but must be important or have a sense of correlation to the
student in some way. For example, if a teacher wishes to teach the behaviour of remaining seated during
the class period, the successful student’s reward might be checking the teacher’s mailbox, running an
errand, or being allowed to go to the library to do homework at the end of the class period. As with all
teaching methods, success depends on each student’s stimulus and response, and on associations made
by each learner.

The Experiential Learning Theory

According to Zhou and Brown (2017), David Allen Kolb, an American “organizational” sociologist and
educational theorist, is best known for his research into experiential learning and learning styles. As part
of a tradition, Kolb states that experiential learning is a process where knowledge results from making
meaning as a result of direct experience, i.e., or simply “learning from experience.” His experiential
learning theory is a holistic or “meta-view” of learning that is a combination of experience, perception,
cognition, and behaviour. Baker, Jensen, and Kolb (2002), posits that, the experiential learning theory
provides a comprehensive model of the learning process and a multi-linear model of adult development.
The experiential learning theory is effective in ICT-mediated teacher education because, it is an inclusive
model of adult learning (since teachers are adults) that intends to explain the complexities of and differ-
ences between adult learners within a single framework. The focus of this theory is experience, which
serves as the main driving force in learning, as knowledge is constructed through the transformative
reflection on the adults’ experience.
According to Baker, Jensen, and Kolb (2002), the experiential learning theory contains two distinct
modes of gaining experience that are related to each other on a continuum: the concrete experience which
is known as ‘apprehension’ and the abstract conceptualization which is known as ‘comprehension’. In
addition, there are also two distinct modes of transforming the experience so that learning is achieved:
the reflective observation which is known as ‘intension’ and the active experimentation which is known
as ‘extension’ (Baker, Jensen, and Kolb, 2002). When these four modes are viewed together, they con-
stitute a four-stage learning cycle that learners go through during the experiential learning process.
The learners begin with a concrete experience, which then leads them to observe and reflect on their
experience. After this period of reflective observation, the learners then piece their thoughts together to
create abstract concepts about what occurred, which will serve as guides for future actions. With these
guides in place, the learners actively test what they have constructed leading to new experiences and the
renewing of the learning cycle (Baker, Jensen, and Kolb).

329
 
Perspectives and Implementation of ICT in Teacher Education

The Information Processing Theory

According to Zhou and Brown (2017), the information processing theory is concerned with how people
view their environment, how they input that information into memory, and how they retrieve that in-
formation later on. The information processing theory approach is often based on the idea that humans
process information they receive instead of simply responding to external stimuli. According to the
model of information processing theory, the mind is often likened to a computer. The computer, like
the human mind, analyses information and determines how the information will be stored. Goodwin
(2005), purports that, there are three components of the information processing theory: sensory memory,
short-term memory, and long-term memory. Sensory memory is all of the things that you experience
through your five senses-hearing, vision, taste, smell, and touch. The capacity of sensory memory is
about four items and the duration is limited to .5 to 3 seconds. Short-term memory, also called working
memory, is the temporary storage, which lasts about 15-30 seconds, holds about 7 items of information,
and includes the thinking part of applying what consists the output of the sensory memory. Long-term
memory is the memory that can be accessed at a later time, which is long lasting, and can capable of
holding infinite information.
Zhou and Brown (2017), affirms that, the information processing theory has a strong implication
on teacher education, when its tenacity was experimented on teachers who hand out worksheets to help
students practice (or rehearse) their new information, and it was deduced that it enhances the encoding
ability of students and allows students to actually experience learnt concepts on their own. The informa-
tion processing theory utilizes some modes of guidelines, which effectively help students in processing
information, rendered by the teacher in class, these modes of guidelines include, gaining attention of
students before commencing on teaching, asking students to recall prior relevant learning (For example:
revision of previous day’s material), outlining relevant information separately, having student connect
new information with something that they already know about, teaching encoding for memorizing lists
(For example: mnemonics and imagery), presenting information in diverse ways and providing many
ways for students to manipulate information, maintaining daily practice and lastly, paying attention not
to create cognitive overloading activities.

CONCLUSION

This chapter was aimed on conventional perspectives and implementation of ICT in teacher education,
during the course of this research, the integration of ICT in teacher education was critically examined. A
progress was made by examining the concept of ICT, in which Yekini (2014), ICT as a more specific term
that stresses the role of unified communications and the integration of telecommunications (telephone
lines and wireless signals), computers as well as necessary enterprise software, middleware, storage,
and audio-visual systems, which enable users to access, store, transmit, and manipulate information.
The next topic of discourse was knowledge for teaching: the “what” of ICT mediated teacher education.
Another progress was made further, to discuss learning and teaching in a digital society and under this
topic another progress was made and two topics were further discussed: exploiting e-Learning in teacher
education and the virtual learning environment. The next topic of discourse was mechanisms for ICT-
enabled teacher education and under this topic, another progress was made and two topics were further
discussed: the social impact of ICT-mediated teacher education and issues in integration of ICT-mediated

330

Perspectives and Implementation of ICT in Teacher Education

teacher education. The last topic of discourse was the theoretical framework, and these was done by the
examination of three major theories: the behaviourist theory, the experiential learning theory and the
information processing theory.

REFERENCES

Baker, A., Jensen, P., & Kolb, D. (2002). Conversational learning: An approach to knowledge creation.
Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Bax, S. (2005). CALL – past, present and future. System, 31(1), 13–28. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00071-4
Christian, D. (2013). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems. University of
Aarhus.
Cornu, B. (2010). Digital Natives in a Knowledge Society: New Challenges for Education and for Teach-
ers. In ICT in Teacher Education: Policy, Open Educational Resources and Partnership. UNESCO.
Culp, K., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology
policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279307. doi:10.2190/7W71-QVT2-PAP2-
UDX7
Dash, M. K. (2014). Technology Mediated Learning for Professional Development of Teachers. E-Learning
in Teacher Education: Experiences and Emerging Issues. Delhi: University of Delhi.
Dimitriadis, G., & Kamberelis, G. (2006). Theory for Education. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
doi:10.4324/9780203958933
Goodwin, C. J. (2005). A history of modern psychology. Danvers, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hammond, D. (2006). Constructing 21st-Century Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education,
57(3), 300–314. doi:10.1177/0022487105285962
Hrušecky, R., & Kalaš, I. (2010). Exploiting E-Learning in Future Teachers’ Education. In ICT in Teacher
Education: Policy, Open Educational Resources and Partnership. UNESCO.
Kaur, H. (2016). Role of ICT in Teacher Education. International Journal of Educational Research and
Technology, 7.
Kennedy, J. (2015). Using TPCK as a scaffold to self-assess the novice online teaching experience.
Distance Education, 36(1).
Kishan, N. (2010). Global Trends in Teacher Education. New Delhi: APH Publishing.
Koontz, D.B. (2002). An Overview of Sense-making Research: Concepts, methods and results to date.
Presented Paper at the International Communication Association.
Laurillard, D. (2007). The Kaleidoscope Scientific Vision for Research in Technology Enhanced Learn-
ing. Kaleidoscope Network EU contract 507838.

331
 
Perspectives and Implementation of ICT in Teacher Education

Menon, M. (2014). E-Learning and Open Educational Resources for Teacher Development, E-Learning
in Teacher Education: Experiences and Emerging Issues. University of Delhi.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006, June). A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College
Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Newby, P. (2010). Research Methods for Education. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
Ofoefuna, M. O. (2007). Functional Approach to Educational TechnologyIsaac Boro Press.
Osei, T. A. (2007). Survey of ICT and Education in Africa: Nigeria Country Report. Osumah, U. (2003).
Internet Use in Nigeria: A Status Report. Journal of Information, 32(1).
Panda, B. N., & Basantia, T. K. (2005). ICT for Quality Control in Classroom. ICT.
Panigrahi, M. R. (2016). ICT Integrated Teacher Education. Commonwealth Essays and Studies.
Parkay, F. W., & Hass, G. (2000). Curriculum planning (7th ed.). Needham Heights, MAAllyn & Bacon.
Rosvik, S. (2010). Learning and Teaching in a Digital Society with Digital Tools. ICT.
Senapaty, H. (2005). Need for Information and Communication Technologies Penetration into a New
Paradigm of Learning. In ICT Initiatives Quality Improvement in Elementary Education. GoI Project.
Shaffer, D. (2000). Social and personality development (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson
Learning.
Singh, J. D. (2014). ICT Enabled Teacher Education in Context of New Millennium. Scholarly Journal
for Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(14).
Srivathsan, K.R. (2010). Vedyadhara Open (E) Learning Enviornment. Celebrating 25 Years of Excel-
lence. IGNOU.
Steven, S.D. (2005). Dilemmas in the Study of Information exploring the Boundaries of Information
Science. New York: Greenwood press.
Takwale, R. (2014). Life Long Learning for Development with ‘anyone, anytime, anywhere’ access to
‘quality of education for all’ with tech-MODE. In E-learning in Teacher Education: Experiences and
Emerging Issues. University of Delhi.
Wakama. W.T. (2009). Technology and Environment in the role of Technology in the Industrial Develop-
ment of Nigeria. Ibadan: HEB ltd.
Yekini, N. A. (2014). ICT (Concepts and Application). Self-Directed and Learning Approach. Hasfem
Publication.
Zhang, Z. & Martinovic, D. (2008). ICT in teacher education: Examining needs, expectations and at-
titudes. Academic Press.
Zhou, M., & Brown, D. (2015). Educational Learning Theories (2nd ed.). Academic Press.

332

Perspectives and Implementation of ICT in Teacher Education

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

E-Learning: This refers to a network enabled transfer of skills and knowledge with the aid of electronic
devices, in which information is disseminated to a large number of recipients at the same or different time.
ICT: This broadly refers to information and communications technology, which is an extensional
term for information technology, which refers to the role of unified communications and the integra-
tion of telecommunication (telephone lines and wireless signals) and computers as well as necessary
enterprise software, middleware, storage, and audiovisual systems, that enables users to access, store,
transmit and manipulate information.
Mediated Learning: This refers to an intervention program composed of a Learning Propensity As-
sessment Device (LPAD). Mediated Learning occurs when a mediator facilitates learning (of a student),
in which the mediator observes the students’ potential strengths and weaknesses in the course of learning.
Teacher Education: This refers to the policies, procedures and provision designed to equip teachers
with the knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and skills they require to perform their tasks effectively in the
classroom, school, and the community as a whole.
Virtual Learning Environment: This refers to a system for delivering learning materials to students
through the web, which includes assessment, student study tracking, collaboration and communication
tools, which can be accessed both on and off-campus, thereby supporting students’ learning outside the
school premises, 24 hours a day and seven days a week.

333
334

Chapter 19
Teaching Argumentation
in Higher Education:
Narratives From Composition
Writing Classrooms in Kenya

Alice Wanjira Kiai

The Technical University of Kenya, Kenya

Peter Getyngo Mbugua

United States International University Africa, Kenya

ABSTRACT
This study examines teaching methodologies used by composition instructors in a private university in
Kenya where composition is taught to all undergraduate students. The study adopted a qualitative approach
in the form of narrative inquiry to explore challenging topics in teaching and learning argumentation,
methodological interventions, instructors’ use of technology, and to suggest strategies for addressing
problem areas. Purposive sampling was adopted, resulting in narratives from three experienced course
instructors. Learner-centred approaches were prevalent, especially in addressing challenging topics
such as formulation of claims, supporting arguments with evidence, recognising fallacies and appeals,
and documentation of sources of information.

INTRODUCTION

English is an official language and the main medium of instruction in Kenyan schools and universities.
Ironically, although it is at university that students are expected to engage in increasingly sophisticated
discourse in written (and spoken) academic English, it is precisely at this point that English language
instruction and support takes a generally downward trajectory. Few universities offer specific support
that can effectively scaffold students towards meeting the demands of written academic discourse. In
the course of their careers, the researchers have taught undergraduate students in both public and private
universities in Kenya. In public universities, first-year undergraduates are generally offered Commu-
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch019

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

nication Skills. This is a common course, intended to prepare them for academic life, and it generally
comprises content on study and examination skills, listening, speaking, reading and writing skills. Writ-
ing skills are included in the course content, but do not constitute an independent course. The teaching
and learning of Communication Skills is similar across universities in Kenya. Students from different
departments learn the course together in large classes, and instructors mainly adopt the lecture method.
The instructors/researchers experienced a different model at the private university under study, where
composition is taught as a unique course.
The researchers’ experiences in teaching composition within this institution stand in sharp contrast to
their experiences in teaching Communication Skills elsewhere. The two courses are comparable to the
extent that both are offered to all undergraduate students, and both are intended to prepare students for
academic life. The teaching of writing for academic purposes is a common denominator in both courses;
however, in the context under study, writing is taught independently, and in greater detail than is to be
found in Communication Skills.
This study adds to the body of literature on the pedagogy of argumentation arising from a contextually
unique teaching and learning context where composition is keenly focused upon and taught across the
curriculum. It captures narratives of experienced instructors, who have taught the course in the institu-
tion for over five years, with a focus on their pedagogical practices and innovative classroom strategies
in addressing problem areas. The following are the objectives of the study:

1. To discuss methodological interventions to challenging topics in argumentation.

2. To explore composition instructors’ use of technology in teaching argumentation.
3. To recommend effective practices in composition instruction within the specified teaching and
learning context.

BACKGROUND

The Teaching and Learning Context

Writing is taught at two levels – Composition I and Composition II, as part of General Education. The
courses are taught by various course instructors. In order to achieve a level of uniformity in teaching and
achieving the expected learning outcomes, course instructors are guided by a uniform course description
from which individual course outlines/syllabi are developed. The topics for the course were discussed
by faculty and accepted in a series of workshops held between 2003-2006 (Personal communication).
From this template, each course instructor develops individual course outlines.
Class sizes are intentionally kept relatively small, with about 30 learners, and classrooms are equipped
with multimedia facilities. It is an institutional requirement that course instructors use the e-learning
platform (BlackBoard) for engagement and assessment of learners. Teaching is supported by the avail-
ability of multimedia facilities in all classrooms and a modern library.
Argumentation forms a major part of the second-level composition course. In order to take the course,
learners are required to have passed the earlier course – which focuses on expository writing and the
mechanics of writing - with Grade C (70-73%) and above. These courses are offered to a diverse, inter-
national student body, comprising first, second and foreign users of English, pursuing various degree
courses in the humanities, social sciences and related disciplines, as well as health sciences.

335
 
Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Theoretical Positions in Composition Studies

The recognition that writing is an important area of research has led to investigations into its theoretical
underpinnings (Faigley, 1986); however, Faigley acknowledges that although writing courses are prevalent
in the US, they are “rare in the rest of the world” (p. 539), and there is need to recognise the contextual,
local and dynamic nature of writing in order to raise it to disciplinary status. This study contributes to
composition pedagogy with narratives from an international university in Kenya, accredited locally and
in the United States, serving a diverse student body drawn from Africa and other parts of the world.
Dysthe (2001) examines Scott (1996) and Lea’s categorization of important influences on academic
writing. First, a study skills orientation has bequeathed composition studies with a view of writing as a
generalizable set of skills, like other study skills which the learner is required to gain mastery over upon
entry to university. Secondly, an academic socialization orientation has provided a view of writing as part
of the training that learners receive to gain membership within the discourse communities of particular
disciplines. Finally, an academic literacies orientation provides a view of writing in which writing is
viewed as being “crucial to the understanding of a disciplinary field and is bound up to questions of
identity, authority and agency” (Scott 1996, as cited in Dysthe 2001). These orientations are aligned to
the two major approaches to teaching writing: product and process approaches.
Product approaches involves emphasis on the end-product, with a focus on individual, controlled writ-
ing practice, adherence to formal requirements of arrangement, and imitation from a model text. Process
approaches emphasize creativity, collaboration and audience awareness, with a model text simply being
a resource for comparison. Vandenberg, Hum and Clary-Lemon (2006, p.4) capture an emergent third
perspective under the banner “beyond process” or post process (Trimbur, 1994). Post process theorists
reject any attempt to present writing as a single universal process. They promote a view of writing as
a complex network shaped by relations (conversations and negotiations with others), locations (mate-
rial and intellectual spaces), and positions (identity, as informed by beliefs and values). Kent (1999) as
cited in Breuch (2002) observes that certain background skills such as grammar can be taught, but this
does not necessarily enable a student to communicate effectively. Kent rejects process pedagogy which
“reduces the writing act (not the background knowledge) into content that can be taught to students…
teaching writing as a system is impossible.” (Breuch, 2002, p. 123). Post-process views are not neces-
sarily amenable to direct classroom application.
Various scholars contribute insights to specific theories as well as the growth and development of
composition theory (Berlin, 1982; Ede, 1989; Faigley, 1986; Flower & Hayes, 1981; Reynolds, Dolmage,
Bizzell & Herzberg, 2011). Theoretical positions on composition writing have evolved from Current
Traditional Rhetoric (CTR), which was the dominant school of thought in the nineteenth century. CTR
viewed writing as a product, rather than a process, and laid emphasis on uniform arrangement, gram-
mar, spelling and style. Such “product” considerations are by no means unimportant to the teaching and
learning of composition, but they do not capture views of writing as a process, which became prevalent
in the twentieth century. Expressivism, for one, developed in the 1960s. It views writing as a process,
and language as an instrument for discovery and personal expression. The learner explores writing by
freely expressing themselves and their interests, while the teacher takes on the role of a guide, not an
authority figure. Such classrooms are characterised by pre-writing activities, drafting, peer-teaching,
portfolio based assignments and reflective practice. Cognitivism, which was prevalent in the 1980s seeks
to unearth the processes that writer’s go through, as this provides insights into how to teach writing.
Social Constructivism views writing as a social process, and the writer as a part of the society’s culture.

336

Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

The writer has membership in discourse communities that are shaped by their social, economic and
political environment. Finally, as observed, post process theorists hold the position that it is not possible
to explain writing within a single theory, given its public, interpretive and situated nature.
Teachers of composition do not necessarily deliberately set out to adopt certain theoretical positions
in their writing classrooms; indeed, instructors are routinely faced with different dynamics in different
writing classrooms, and they constantly engage in unrecorded innovative classroom practices to meet
the needs of their learners. Berlin (1992) captures the interface between theory and practice as follows:
“the classroom becomes the point at which theory and practice engage in a dialectal interaction…all
teachers of rhetoric and composition are regarded as creatively engaging in theoretical and empirical
research, the two coming to fruition in their interaction in the classroom” (p.25). Through the narratives
of composition instructors in this study, we not only explore the interface between theory and practice
in the participant instructors’ University composition classroom, but also give voice to their ideas and
practices, which other instructors can adopt and/or adapt in their own classrooms.

Importance of Teaching of Argumentation in Higher Education

Argument in higher education is important for several reasons. Andrews (2009) notes that it is impor-
tant to be able to argue rationally in a civilized society, argument advances knowledge, and helps in
both clarification and persuasion. Additionally, argument plays a key role in academic life as is helps
learners understand how arguments are presented in their disciplines – thus they gain membership into
these discourse communities. Although some departments provide specific guidelines, the teaching of
argumentation is often the work of a Writing Centre, or in the present case, the work of a department
that offers services to other department in the institution.
Davies (2008) highlights the importance of critical thinking skills, which must be deliberately taught
and learnt since they are neither natural nor culturally uniform. As such, learners for whom English is
a second or foreign language must be taught not only about grammar and meaning from a mechanical
point of view, but also about inference-making and other higher order thinking skills. Rapanta and Ma-
cagno (2016) point to the importance of argumentation in unveiling background knowledge, enhancing
critical thinking skills and improving classroom interaction. They further note that though fallacies have
been treated in terms of examples of bad arguments, they are important in education as representations
of flawed reasoning.
Apart from recognising the importance of teaching and learning argumentation in higher education,
it is equally important to research different pedagogical contexts, taking into account who the learners
and instructors are, as well as institutional and regulatory dynamics within which teaching and learning
occurs. These factors, among others, impact on instructors’ ability to develop relevant curricula, relevant
content, and recommend home-grown solutions to existing challenges. As previously noted, the field of
composition writing in general has a strong tradition in the U.S, but much less so in Kenya. This study
provides insights into the teaching of argumentation in a specific Kenyan Higher Education context,
where it has been mainstreamed in the curriculum.

337
 
Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Class Size and Pedagogical Choices

Class size is an important underlying factor in pedagogical possibilities and choices. Large university
classes are a common trend in developing countries, particularly for courses that cut across the curricu-
lum, (with the dawn of online education, large classes are increasingly common in the digital realm).
The perception of what a large class is tends to be based on subjective experiences of the largest class
the teacher teaches (Todd, 2006), and can therefore vary greatly from one teaching-learning context
to the next. Despite varying conceptualizations, large classes are often collectively presented as being
challenging for reasons such as physical constraints, lack of individual attention to learners, delayed
feedback physical constraints, and discipline issues, among other issues (Benbow, Mizrachi, Oliver,
& Said-Moshiro, 2007; Kerr, 2011; Matsuda, 2002; Smith, 2014; Todd, 2006, Wang & Zhang, 2011).
Conversely, positive trends within large classes have also been recorded, including the possibility of
promoting shared responsibility among students and instructors, and interactive activities via pair work
and group work (Coleman, 1989 as cited in Shamim, Negash, Chuku & Demewoz, 2007).
The absence of these common challenges associated with large class sizes does not necessarily trans-
late to small class size advantage in learner achievement; however, small classes, coupled with other key
factors such as learner level, learner work habits and motivation, remains a reliable predictor of student
achievement. For instance, a study by the IDEA Centre in the US examined instructor and student percep-
tions of the effects of class size on learning and instruction (Benton & Pallet, 2013). In the study, class
sizes were categorized as follows: small (10-14), medium (15-34), large (35-49) and very large (50+).
It was found that in large classes, greater emphasis was placed on learning factual knowledge and less
emphasis was placed on developing creative capacities and communication skills. Equally, instructional
approaches varied. The lecture method was common, and there was little difference in learners’ grasp
of knowledge, principles, and theories; however, instructors in small classes promoted projects and
activities that required originality creative thinking and collaborative effort. Class size is therefore an
important factor in choice of composition pedagogy. “The effectiveness of a teaching method depends
not only on which objective is being emphasized, but also on how many students are enrolled in the
course” (Benton & Pallet, 2013, para.14).
This study contributes to the literature on the teaching of argumentation in higher education in
classrooms that, in the Kenyan context, can be considered small classes (15-30 students). Of note, also,
is that the learners are not specific to a particular department or discipline; therefore, the teaching of
argumentation is not discipline specific.

METHODOLOGY

Narrative inquiry involves the telling and capturing of stories, and the interpretation of these stories for
narrative patterns and themes. Broadly speaking, it is a way of understanding individuals, cultures, and
the wider society.

Narratives are useful in research precisely because storytellers interpret the past rather than reproduce
it as it was. The “truths” of narrative accounts are not in their faithful representations of a past world,
but in the shifting connections they forge among past, present and future. They offer storytellers a way
to re-imagine their lives…” (Riessman, 2005, p. 5).

338

Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Patton (2015) observes that researchers have captured and analysed different types of stories for various
purposes, for instance, stories of teaching, students, programme participants, fieldwork, relationships and
illness, among others. The present study contributes to the body of literature by generating first-person
accounts of experienced course instructors who teach argumentation.
Riessman (2002) highlights the importance of telling, transcribing and analysing in the interpreta-
tion of narratives. Telling involves affording participants the opportunity to tell important moments in
their lives in their own way. Transcribing involves generating a rough transcript of the entire interview
and re-transcribing selected portions for more detailed analysis. Analysing involves close and repeated
listening, leading to arranging and rearranging of the interview data. In this study, these phases were
followed after engaging participants in semi-structured, open ended interviews. Interviews were audio
recorded, and manually transcribed. Repeated listening led to more accurate transcription, familiarity
with content and, eventually, thematic organisation and presentation of findings.
Riessman (2005) critically discusses four models of narrative analysis: thematic analysis, structural
analysis, interactional analysis and performative analysis. Each of these is suited to particular purposes
and has accompanying strengths and weaknesses. Thematic analysis focuses on content rather than form,
resulting in a thematic typological representation of the narratives, with illustrative vignettes. Structural
analysis focuses on capturing both content and form, with detailed attention to syntactic and prosodic
features. Interactional analysis also includes both content and form, with particular emphasis on the
process of co-construction of meaning between the narrator and the listener(s). Performative analysis
views storytelling as performance, and analyses different aspects and features of the performance, often
with the support of video-recordings to capture visual communication that is not often captured in other
methods of analysis. Approaches and methods that focus on the performative nature of talk, features
of speech, form of talk or comparison of how narrators presented events were beyond the purpose and
scope of the present study.
Thematic analysis was deemed suitable for capturing content and theorising across narratives from
several participants, who all teaching the same course in the same institution. Transcripts were analyzed
thematically and synthesized into categories which help describe and explain the methodologies that
experienced teachers use in teaching argumentation at the University. In order to capture particulari-
ties of meaning, which may be a challenge for thematic analysts (Riessman, 2008, p. 76), data has not
been classified under cross-cutting themes; rather information is, in the first instance, organised on a
participant basis, allowing for unique, individual interpretations to common issues and themes, before
discussing their commonalities and theoretical implications.
Given the ‘thick’ nature of interview data, purposive sampling was used to select five course instruc-
tors with the greatest experience in teaching the course in the past five years (2014-2018). Experienced
instructors were likely to offer rich insights relating to instructional practices that have proven effective or
less effective over time. The researchers were granted access to teaching records for sampling purposes,
and the records showed that in the 2014-2018 period, twenty instructors had taught the course. Based
on long teaching experience and willingness to participate, content from three participants - CI 1, CI 2
and CI 4 - was eventually included in this study.
Participant course outlines for the period 2014-2018 were retrieved and the commonly taught topics
on argumentation identified. These were used to generate probing questions for participant- interviews
in order to obtain rich descriptive data on specific instructional practices in a uniform manner.

339
 
Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Table 1. Course instructors and frequency of teaching composition - level 2

No. of Courses Taught

Course Instructor
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 TOTAL
CI 1 3 3 2 4 4 16
CI 2 0 4 5 4 3 16
CI 3 3 3 2 2 3 13
CI 4 2 4 2 2 1 11
CI 5 1 3 2 2 2 10
CI 6 3 2 2 1 2 10
CI 7 0 1 2 2 3 8
CI 8 2 1 2 1 1 7
CI 9 0 2 1 1 3 7
CI 10 0 0 2 2 2 6
CI 11 3 0 0 1 2 6
CI 12 0 1 0 2 2 5
CI 13 2 1 1 1 0 5
CI 14 0 1 3 0 0 4
CI 15 1 0 0 1 1 3
CI 16 1 0 0 1 1 3
CI 17 2 2
CI 18 1 1
CI 19 1 1
CI 20 1 1
Key: Highlighted instructors participated in the study

Analysis of participant course outlines showed that the course is intended to promote literacy, higher
order thinking, and career preparedness, in line with the University mission. Although the course has
broader expected learning outcomes, in the section on argumentation, learners are expected to be able
to write and evaluate argumentative essays. Content includes problem identification and exploration;
purpose, audience and genre; making claims; developing the essay with reasons and evidence; types
of argument; identification of fallacies; appeals - logos, ethos and pathos. Other related sections in the
course include avoiding plagiarism; documentation and documentation styles; the research paper, and
report writing.
Participants were approached individually by the researchers and provided with both verbal and writ-
ten information about the study. Following informed consent, researchers and participants scheduled an
interview session of about an hour with each participant.

340

Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

EXPLORING THE ISSUES

Meet Bella (CI 1), The Reflective Practitioner

Bella has taught argumentation in the institution for seven years. She has a background in education, with
English and literature as teaching subjects. In regard to the teaching of argumentation, Bella expresses
herself strongly: “I like it. I have a lot of passion for that argumentation class. I teach it with passion.”

General Approach to Teaching Argumentation

Bella’s pedagogical journey in the teaching of argumentation is the story of a course instructor whose
instructional practices have gradually evolved from teacher centredness to learner-centredness. Through
observation, learner feedback and reflection about her own practice, Bella explains this shift, and in
doing so captures the essence of her argumentation classroom:

Before, I used to be teacher-centred, you know? The teacher owns the knowledge, so I explain, you listen.
But now, I sort of devolved the teaching. So I give them portions. There are those parts that I have to
explain, but there are those parts that I know they can manage – and, of course, I will help…

Bella’s expectation that learners will be involved and engaged is evident from the onset of her lessons;
it is couched in how she frames the subject matter, and expresses these requirements to her students. As
part of her course outline, Bella lists broad areas of knowledge such as health, education, and gender.
At the beginning of the semester, she informs her students that, as part of their course assessment, they
will, in groups, develop arguable issues from those topics, write an essay and make a presentation at the
end of the semester. In the presentations, they will expected to dress the part, for which marks will be
awarded. Bella recalls how students go out of their way to be creative. A group handling a topic on the
environment came with “leaves in their hair, everywhere.” A group handling health all came in white
jackets, while another dealing with education came dressed in suits and ties, and declared themselves
“educationists”. A group handling fashion came dressed in the trends from the 1970s, and accompanying
comparative images of fashion in the 70s and contemporary fashion.
Having observed the ineffectiveness of launching her lessons with a lecture on what argumentation
is, Bella now begins by dispelling the myths and misconceptions surrounding argumentation. In essence,
Bella begins by discussing what argumentation is not. In arriving at common ground with her students,
Bella engages in a great deal of discussion and exploration with her students, in the process of which
they jointly develop a list of arguable issues.

One of the things I used to do was I would start with ‘What is argumentation’? Then I discovered along
the way that they would still remain with misconceptions…they’d still be looking at argumentation as
a debate…they would be having that kind of idea that it is about winning…they would write one side,
instead of bringing the other side as opposing views or counterarguments.

341
 
Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Bella’s lessons proceed by a gradual exploration of the various components of a good argument –
from framing questions, developing claims, supporting the claims with reasons, providing evidence
and identifying underlying assumptions. Learners are involved in the exploration of these components,
sometimes through whole class discussion, and sometimes in groups. As an additional form of support,
Bella circulates short argumentative articles in class for students to identify various component parts,
such as claims, reasons, appeals, and even fallacies. The student-generated ideas and issue form the basis
for classroom discussions, and this bottom-up approach creates space for students to share their ideas
and experiences – which sometimes leads to heated debate.

We discover that most issues that are arguable are complex - they have religious perspectives; they have
ethical perspectives; they have health perspectives; they have moral perspectives.

Argumentation naturally deals with controversial issues, to which people may hold diametrically
opposed points of view. Bella encourages her learners to understand that argumentation is not about
winning or shouting, but about expressing themselves logically and persuasively.

When you shout, it’s because you don’t have anything to say, so you are trying to raise your voice to make
up for lack of information to support your position. Yeah. When I tell then that, they really laugh, you
know, and then they realise, oh, yeah, I don’t have to shout to be heard. I just need to have information…
when we come up with these topics, again, I tell them to go read on them – to go read on those topics…
if they don’t have knowledge, then it will not be easy for them to come up with reasons.

Sources of Ideas for the Teaching of Argumentation

Bella cites research and personal creativity as the driving forces behind her instructional practices. She
spends time reading; she searches the Internet for ideas and resources that she can use in class, and re-
sources that can make her lessons more interesting. Underlying all this is “just preparation – preparation.”

Role of Technology

The University policy requires that learning materials are posted on the e-learning platform (BlackBoard)
by Week 4 of the semester. Students are expected to access materials for each class from this platform,
and to use it for further engagement and submission of assignments.

I post notes, I post announcements for them, I post links for them to read [on BlackBoard]…they keep
telling me, Oh, Mwalimu, please when you post notes on BlackBoard, can you also post on WhatsApp…a
number of them don’t visit BlackBoard.

342

Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Bella therefore ensures that each of her classes creates a WhatsApp group, which is a popular forum
for communication and interaction. Her philosophy is that “our learning should continue any time, any-
where,” and she expresses as much to her students. She observes that there is a generational gap between
course instructors who use BlackBoard only, and their learners, who are mainly to be found on social
media. She finds that when she posts brief information on WhatsApp, students actually engage with the
content. Bella and her students use WhatsApp for dissemination of information, further reading/viewing,
questions, answers and discussion.

When I find information that I want them to read, I post it there – and since it is on their phones, I’ve
realised something – especially short things on their phones – they’ll read. As short clip – maybe two or
three minutes, they will watch… When I want to probably make an announcement, I’ll write it there…
maybe there’s something they didn’t understand in class, they will ask. And I encourage them to do that.
I tell them our class should continue 24 hours.

In addition to being a popular forum that enables her to post content that students read, the forum
allows students to continue engaging with one another on issues that they find interesting. Bella cites a
class discussion on a topical issue – lowering the age of sexual consent – which could not be concluded
in class, yet learners continued the discussion on WhatsApp “late into the night, and it continued the
following day.” Furthermore, the forum leads to peer teaching. She observes, “I’m not quick to give an
answer. I wait for the students to respond.” Following student responses, she judges whether to validate
the response, or explain further through a text message, or in class.

Challenging Topics and Innovative Classroom Practices

Students enjoy thinking about arguable issues that are around them, and are able to come up with reason
in support of positions they have taken; however, they find it challenging to identify unstated assumptions.
The identification of hidden assumptions is important because the validity of the entire argument relies
on having valid assumptions. Other challenging areas include coming up with evidence, identification
of fallacies, appeals, acknowledgment of counterarguments, and refutation of the same. Bella observes
that some of these areas are challenging because a lot of logic is required for students to retain their
position in an argument.

Evidence

For Bella, providing evidence in an argument is a function of reading. One of the major reasons why this
is a challenge to students is because “students don’t like reading”. She notes that after giving students
reading assignments, even brief ones of about two pages only, they still come to class without having
done the reading. To address this, Bella has had to incorporate in-class reading during her lessons. “I
tell them we are not doing anything else until you read…you have to create that space.” After reading,
Bella guides the class in identifying evidence. She acknowledges that reading in class is time consum-
ing, so she encourages out-of-class reading by downloading the required reading and then uploading
the content on WhatsApp.

343
 
Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Now that they like spending a lot of time on their phones – having those articles on their phones…maybe
not even sending a link…because again when you send a link, some will even tell you, oh, I didn’t have
bundles; oh, I didn’t have Wi-Fi – I’ve heard those excuses…download the article and have them just
read it.

Fallacies

In this area, Bella’s methodology has evolved quite markedly, following observation and reflection
regarding what she was doing and what was not working in her classroom. She observed that lengthy
explanations, one fallacy at a time, were ineffective. As such, she developed several innovations. At the
onset of the topic, Bella simplifies or uses simplified versions of terminology. Some fallacies have Latin
names, which are largely unpronounceable to students. She uses the English interpretations and focuses
on the concept, with a brief explanation and an example. Next, she makes print-outs of the short story
Love is a Fallacy by Max Shulman, which students read in class. This, she notes, is necessary because
posting the story via a link does not guarantee that student will read it. After reading the story, Bella asks
the students to identify the fallacies in the text. She then turns to the course book and assigns students
two fallacies each for reading, research and presentation during the next lesson. Following the presenta-
tion, the class watches the video Love is a Fallacy.
In addition to this, Bella brings in contemporary speeches that have fallacies into the learning experience.

Speeches by Trump are full of fallacies…we listen to them in class…the speeches he was making during
the campaign – those ones are full of fallacies…like, one of them, he said Clinton does not have the face
of a President. She cannot be a good President because she does not have the face.

By adopting all these strategies, Bella has experienced some success in teaching a topic that her
students found challenging.

For two semesters, some students have come to me and said, ‘the best topic for me was fallacies…be-
fore, they would be like ‘Aargh! These things are so hard!’ So I had to figure out how to do it – I started
involving them – and I tell them, you see the examples in this book? Come with your own examples…
they look for them and come with their own examples.

Even more gratifying for Bella is feedback from students who tell her that after the lesson they are
able to identify fallacies in peoples’ conversations or on the news. In one case, a student reported that
the lesson rescued his relationship:

One of the students wrote a message to me and said, ‘Mwalimu, I’m so grateful for that lesson – for
teaching us argumentation. It saved my life…I didn’t know how to discuss issues. I used to fight with my
girlfriends…I just used to force ideas. But after that class, now I know how to argue. That class saved
my relationship’…that was great feedback.

344

Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Appeals

In this area, Bella shifted from the lecture method, which was ineffective, to the use of groups. She
assigns different appeal – ethos, logos and pathos - to different groups for reading, research and class
presentation. She follows student presentations with the reading of a passage for identification of dif-
ferent appeals. “Do you see ethos here? Do you see pathos? What do you see?...So instead of lecturing,
they are the ones who come up with the information.”

Documentation of Sources of Information

Documentation is generally considered one of the most challenging areas for learners. Students first
encounter the American Psychological Association (APA) documentation style in an earlier writing
course, which focuses on expository writing. In the course under study, which focuses on argumenta-
tion, they are expected to build improve their skills in APA documentation and gain awareness of other
documentation styles, such as the Modern Language Association (MLA) style. Despite the challenges
commonly experienced in achieving appropriate documentation in students’ writing, Bella observes, “I
love APA – so I teach it until they like it. They get to like it. A number of them will tell me, Mwalimu,
we learnt APA in (earlier course), but now I have understood it.” She explains that she has been focusing
on teaching APA only because, previously, when she has taught both, it has resulted in a lot of confusion
among learners. In the last semester, however, she reintroduced both styles, sequentially.

I took a lot of time on APA…and then when they had understood it fully, I brought in MLA…Interest-
ingly, and happily for me, they did not confuse them. They seem to have got APA in such a way that
MLA could not override…I didn’t take long to teach MLA; they understood it very fast. Yeah, they were
able to tell the difference.

Bella’s Recommendations

Bella’s pedagogical journey is one of reflection and change towards a learner-centred argumentation
classroom. With more learner-engagement every step of the way, she has experienced positive feedback,
and improved learning outcomes.
For Bella, effective pedagogy in the writing argumentation classroom involves a bit of teacher ex-
planation, a great deal of class discussion, followed by reading. She acknowledges that reading, though
necessary and important, is a huge challenge (as discussed under challenges) that requires innovative
solutions. For her, this has involved provision of downloads rather than links and use of hand-outs for
in-class reading activities.
For every aspect of argumentation, Bella involves her learners in writing practice. Over time, she
has come to realise that practice has to be fairly immediate and administered in small doses. “This is a
writing course…when I finally test them, maybe another day, or two lessons later, them I realise they
didn’t get it…I explain a small part, and they practice, and I move on to the next part, they practice.” She
emphasizes the importance of brevity – sometimes just a paragraph showing mastery over an aspect or
two of the course. “Short, short things – one paragraph – reason and evidence.” Brevity, coupled with
a hand-written - rather than a typed - task, and sometimes done in groups, also acts as a deterrent to
plagiarism.

345
 
Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Bella infuses her pedagogy with group work at various points in the learning process, but group work
also forms a major part of her final-week assessment, during which time students not only strive to meet
the expected learning outcomes, but also get an opportunity to engage in creative self-expression for
reward in the form of academic credit.
Her teaching is supported by use of the official e-learning platform, but delivery of content and in-
teraction has been most effective when supplemented by use of WhatsApp, where students more freely
engage in extended discussions beyond the classroom walls.

Meet Oliver (CI2), The Guide on the Side

Oliver, whose first degree is in Education (English and literature in English), has taught composition at
the University for eight years. He expressed strong preference for teaching argumentation in particular,
noting that it is a very systematic method of persuasion.

General Approach to Teaching Argumentation

Oliver’s first step in teaching argumentation is to teach the basics of rhetoric and argumentation, and then
pose questions for discussion. These questions are drawn from general topical issues which are of interest
to students, rather than strictly academic topics. He encourages robust student engagement for about 20-30
minutes in almost every lesson, and this has two positive effects: it not only encourages self-expression
by students but also reveals aspects of argumentation, which then form teaching points. The approach
that Oliver adopts is highly student-centred; as a course instructor, he emerges as a “guide on the side”
(King, 1993). Oliver probes student responses, while concurrently teaching them interpersonal skills.

Sometimes when they concede, I push them – say, now, why do you concede? We also teach them to be
respectful in the way they respond to opposing viewpoints – so there is also an element of respect, deco-
rum in argumentation, as opposed to argumentation being a contestation of abuses: decibels, increased
decibels, or a dogfight.

Specific techniques vary according to the composition of learners in each class. Oliver observes that
younger learners have a short attention span and require greater engagement in activities, compared to
older, more mature learners who are often employed, and have already developed opinions about life
issues. “Participatory methods don’t work with all groups of students. Older, working students may
come from important national offices. They are not open with one another, but the good thing is that
they bring a rich, rich granary of experience.”

Sources of Ideas for the Teaching of Argumentation

Oliver draws ideas on how to teach argumentation from five key sources. In the first instance, teach-
ing methods are not new to him since subject methods courses were part of his Bachelor of Education
programme. Secondly, his personal engagements in community life, drama and theatre have all led to
adoption of participatory methods in the classroom. Thirdly, Oliver is active in research into multimo-
dality and new media. Data that he has collected from several public and private universities revealed
to Oliver that learners would be happy to use social platforms for learning, via their phones. This has

346

Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

informed his experimentation with use of social media (WhatsApp) via smart phones for teaching and
learning purposes. Research activity has, additionally been supported by his commitment to wider reading
– Oliver cites a text by Egara Kabaji, a well-known Kenyan literary scholar who writes about “catching
them when they are still young,” in relation to oral folksongs of Maragoliland that teach children life
lessons. By analogy, Oliver catches his students where they are to be found. He observes, “It occurred to
me - why don’t you catch the students where they love most – online – they want to be on their phones…
So I discovered if I want to craft an engaging moment, then allow them to be where they are.” Finally,
for Oliver, ideas come from conversations with peers, especially in the common room where colleagues
often share their classroom experiences.

Role of Technology

Like Bella, Oliver has observed slow use of the official e-learning platform. “This is Week 9 and some of
them have not accessed the notes on BlackBoard.” Although Oliver insists that his students deliver their
assignments via BlackBoard, the e-learning platform is not a place where students tend to spend time.
Nonetheless, Oliver infuses peer engagement and/or alternative technologies into his lessons, as follows.

Group Work on WhatsApp

Oliver uses group work quite extensively to promote learning, and in so doing he uses technology to boost
interaction within the group, and between the group and himself. “From Week 7, I normally organise
them into groups and they from a WhatsApp group, and we begin to do assignments around WhatsApp.”
Students undertake the process of researching topics and posting their findings on WhatsApp, where
their instructor also has membership. Oliver explains,

They will research; they will post. They will connect with other peoples’ ideas, and you can be able to
see how they guide each other…I insist that even on that platform, you must cite sources…if you have
not cited correctly…you’ll find it is actually their members who are correcting them.

As the course instructor, Oliver’s role is mainly to guide learners, encourage activity on the forum
and award marks. His practices have evolved over time. Initially, Oliver had strict rules about the forum
being used for academic purposes only, but in time he adopted a more flexible approach. “I discovered
it becomes very boring, and it loses the concept of social media.” In the absence of flexibility, students
form parallel groups which exclude the course instructor. In his classes, therefore, Oliver has set minimum
ground rules, while adopting a social platform for academic purposes. He allows social messages between
Friday and Sunday, but disallows nudity and stereotyping. He also uses their own jokes as a platform
for argumentation, thus infusing an element of fun into learning. “What I’ve learnt is that the students
we have spend a lot of time online; therefore, I’m trying to catch them where they spend more time.”

347
 
Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Video Clips

Videos that are about argumentation or exemplify argumentation help enrich the learning experience.
Oliver cites a video clip, Love is a Fallacy, which is “very, very interesting” and appeals to the learn-
ers because it is about “this girl-man relationship.” Video clips of speeches are also helpful in enabling
learners to dissect the parts of an argument. Oliver particularly recalls Give me Liberty or Give me Death
as “a very, very good one.”
Other instructional methods that Oliver favours include the following:

Role-Play

Oliver also uses role-play; however, he notes that “role play requires that learners themselves understand
the different roles and that they are confident enough to play it before other learners, then it becomes a
source of discussion.”

Group Work Presentations

Group work, as explained earlier, naturally leads to group presentations. Oliver requires that group as-
signments are sent to him one week in advance of the presentation. Since he prefers that all learners
come to class prepared to present, he randomly selects presenters - any member of the group may be
called upon to speak. During such sessions, Oliver takes into account factors such as punctuality and
smartness, which are part of developing one’s credibility. “You go early, and you have to be smart…
that’s part of building credibility – which is an appeal, again, that we teach them in argumentation…so
when you present yourself, whether you keep time – then we know you are credible.”

Challenging Topics and Innovative Classroom Practices

The major topics in argumentation include claims, reasons, evidence, counter-arguments, appeals and
fallacies. Of these, Oliver finds that students had little difficulty in finding reasons to support claims;
however, formulation/recognising of actual claims, identification of fallacies, extraction of specific
evidence and use of appropriate documentation are all challenging areas to learners, which call for in-
novative instruction.

Formulation and Recognition of Claims

Teaching of claims includes a lecture exploring what claims are. Oliver sometimes supports this with
a video of a speech, in which learners identify the main points and moving backwards to pinpoint what
idea is supported by these points. Of significance is the ability to notice the ‘because’ clause. “Whenever
you are teaching claims, you put forth a claim and say, ‘because’…”

348

Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Fallacies

Since fallacies are numerous, they are easily confused. Oliver has studied video clips that help explain
what fallacies are in order to directly explain the concept and the different types of fallacies to learners.
In addition to viewing Love is a Fallacy, Oliver encourages students to read on the topic, and extract of
specific evidence. Oliver observes that students have the tendency to gloss over issues and respond in
general terms. To help them extract specific information, he observes, “…we go sentence by sentence…
topic sentence…evidence…examples of evidence…typical examples of an appeal…typical examples
of a fallacy.”

Appropriate Documentation

Oliver teaches both APA and MLA but notes, “This (documentation) is very difficult for most of them
because it involves honesty, and, you know, we are dealing with people who I’m not very sure whether
they really want to be honest…they find it too laborious, too detailed, that you have to keep checking
this, checking that. Oliver strives to explain the importance of documentation to students: “It is impor-
tant that you know (documentation) so that you build credibility and ethos in your writing - that you
are somebody…whose work is worth reading.” Down-to-earth examples form part of his explanation.

And the typical example which I use always is that even when you borrow someone’s cardigan…and
somebody tells you that this jersey is nice, it is important to say, ‘Thank you very much. I’ll tell the
owner. I borrowed this because I don’t have mine.

Oliver uses various intervention methods in attempting to meet the expected learning outcomes relat-
ing to documentation. For one, he directs them to useful sites such as the Online Writing Lab (OWL) by
Purdue University. Additionally, he assigns group work requiring research and presentation.

Lack of Reading Culture

The greatest challenge among students is the lack of reading culture, yet argumentation demands that
one reads in order to research and obtain points. According to Oliver, lack of role models is partially to
blame: “They have never seen us read…how many of us read…how then do we tell these guys to read
if they have never seen us reading?” Additionally, students are not used to reading long texts.

Give them twenty pages of a document…nobody will read that. If you give them two pages, one page,
yes – that’s OK, but reading is a big, big challenge…some of them don’t even know how to read…they
don’t buy books. And when they buy books, they buy motivational books…their minds are not designed
for complex things, and extracting information and annotating.

Students are used to easy pictorial forms and brief sentences which are common on social platforms.
“They don’t get lots of things to read, so it’s a very big challenge. I don’t know how we can turn it round
and force them to read.”

349
 
Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

OLIVER’S RECOMMENDATIONS

Oliver proposes use of reward, videos, and class discussions as possible techniques of improving teach-
ing and learning of argumentation in the University. Reward is an important concept, and this could
be manifested in the form of extra marks, drawn from the marks that are awarded for attendance and
participation.
He considers visual methodologies helpful because “they (students) love seeing…whenever you go
into class and you’re talking about videos, they are very happy. In fact that time, they will not use their
phones. They are watching a video.”
Open class discussions are very useful because they give learners the chance “to vent”. Oliver tries to
ensure that students are active in discussions, and often moves from one student to the next, systemati-
cally requiring contributions from each student. “Then you will be shocked that people who are quiet
have very good ideas. Topics that are of interest to learners, and provocative are ideal for class discus-
sion. “For example, dressing. We were discussing whether we should be able to introduce a dress code
in universities – to deter students from wearing revealing clothes –and it gave a lot of interpretations.”

MEET MELVIN (CL4), THE STORY-TELLER

Melvin has five years’ experience teaching at the university, and, like the other participants, his first degree
is a Bachelor of Education degree, with English and literature as teaching subjects. Melvin describes the
writing course in which argumentation is taught as one of his favourite courses. For him, everything is
an argument. He observes that arguments are all around us, and it is therefore important for students to
learn how to question issues. “I always tell them (students) – they are surrounded by arguments every-
where.” Melvin views the course as a cornerstone course that prepares learners for university life and
even life beyond university.

General Approach to Teaching Argumentation

Melvin’s first class is all about getting to know his students, and engaging with them in order to hear
their points of view. In particular he emphasizes the need for them to trust that the course is important,
and that is why it is a requirement for all students. Secondly, he encourages them to draw a connection
between their Major (specialization) and the principles of argumentation that they will learn in the course,
and thirdly, he urges them to relate the course to their hobbies.
Following this orientation, Melvin’s pattern of presentation is generally to teach each topic with
adequate exemplification, followed by use of media, such as videos, examination of propaganda, and
finally essay writing. Melvin’s lessons are mainly developed around the pillars of claims, reasons and
evidence, which are central to building a plausible argument. In his experience, students do not find it
difficult to identify the different types of claims, reasons and evidence. Melvin likes the topic on claims
because it lends itself to storytelling, in which the essay has an introduction, body and conclusion, and
in the introduction, there should be a hook, background and thesis statement.
In a recent development, which is an idea in progress, Melvin has introduced a brief session at the
beginning of class, dubbed “Two Minutes” during which time, students talk about any topic. Melvin
emphasizes the centrality of establishing the claim. This requires being able to arrive at the central issue.

350

Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

I tell them that argumentation is so important that a thesis statement has a name. It is called a claim…
the most important sentence. And I tell them, this is not fiction – don’t hide your claim. And again, I
also tell them it is not a debate.

He cautions students that claims are not obvious. “Sometimes claims are hidden. When someone
wants to con you, they will not tell you – so it is hidden. When someone wants to manipulate you, they
will not tell you – so it is hidden.”
From the students’ two minutes, Melvin finds information that helps explain aspects of argumenta-
tion. “I ask my students, are you able to summarize that in a text or in a tweet? Or can you present that
in two minutes?... Are you able to trace those three things? What is the main point - the claim, reasons
why, and evidence… which, now you evaluate sources – you go to the library – and APA.”

Sources of Ideas for the Teaching of Argumentation

Melvin believes arguments are to be found all around us, and he sources ideas from online resources,
informal conversations and examination moderation meetings.
From informal conversations and examination moderation meetings with colleagues, Melvin has
received tips on materials he can use in the classroom, such as Love is a Fallacy. He has also gained
awareness on how different course instructors handle different topics and insights into the challenges
others’ are facing, some of which are common challenges. “You learn how they teach; how they interpret
different topics.” With such awareness comes classroom innovation.

Role of Technology

Melvin describes himself as an “old school teacher…I tell stories.” Of importance is the ability to tell
one’s story/express oneself without technology. Although he uses videos and PowerPoint to teach, Melvin
holds strong views about the place and role of technology in the classroom. Technology is there as a tool
to facilitate communication, but it is not to be relied on in order to communicate.

I believe in the world we are living in, there are people who are pushy about technology, robots and AI.
…And I believe those people don’t want people who are critical thinkers and creative thinkers…the more
you become a critical thinker and a creative thinker, the more you see the weaknesses of technology, by
the way. So for me, it is there to facilitate, to enhance these things.

As noted earlier, Melvin’s process of teaching argumentation involves initial engagement through
explanations, examples and discussion before bringing on board media into his classroom.
Other instructional methods that Melvin favours include the use of teaching essays and group work.

Teaching Essays

Teaching essays are structured for teaching and include elements such as a thesis statement, reasons and
support. “There is a teaching essay – it’s about castrating cats…so I give it to the students, and I’ll ask
them to identify the fallacies, identify the appeals and reasons…when they read, they will understand
the nuances of written language and spoken language.

351
 
Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Group Work

Group Work is used both to execute assigned tasks and to engage in evaluation of written content.
“Sometimes, I ask them to grade the (teaching) essays…like in a group. This empowers students when
writing their own essays. Groups also serve as an opportunity to reinforce desirable practices among
learners. “They form groups according to who is in. If you come late, you do the work individually. That
way, you have forced learners’ to participate.”

Challenging Topics and Innovative Teaching Methodologies

Reasoning and Critical Thinking

Melvin acknowledges that challenging topics require adjustments to instructional methods. Although
learners do not have major problems identifying claims, reasons and evidence, they do face challenges
in reasoning. He believes that the difficulties they face in critically responding to questions about rea-
sons and evidence arises from a lack of extensive reading. Also, although students enjoy learning about
fallacies, they do not like being tested on them. In order to improve learning outcomes in these areas,
Melvin has innovated through use of selected videos, and teaching essays. Additionally, in general,
Melvin encourages his students to watch Ted Talks. The show has good quality speeches which can help
students discern elements in an argument. “What is the claim? What evidence is given? What are the
reasons given? In your own opinion, do you think the evidence is sufficient? (This is) a way of introduc-
ing them to critical thinking.”
Melvin views fallacies as part of learning about evidential support and critical thinking. “It’s critical
thinking. If there are fallacies, it means you don’t have sufficient evidence – then you must ask yourself
why.” In teaching fallacies, Melvin begins by explaining what they are, and then asking them to read
the story Love is a Fallacy before watching the video. In the process of teaching and learning, he lays
emphasis not on the name of the fallacy, but on the learner’s capacity to explain why a particular state-
ment is fallacious. Because he believes that wider reading would help students in mastery of problematic
areas such as fallacies, he promotes reading before watching videos, wherever possible, and encourages
attention to detail when engaging with both print and visual forms.

Extensive Reading

Melvin strongly believes in the centrality of reading in order for learners to learn how to develop their
own essays. “When you give them reading assignments, you can actually tell students are not reading…I
force them to read in class. Melvin ensures that the material he asks learners to read is well researched,
even motivational books.

For the last two semesters, I’ve been encouraging my students to read a book called Factfulness: 10
reasons why the world is a better place. The book has very clear segments, which make it possible for
students to discern claims, reasons and evidence.

He also encourages learners to read movie scripts.

352

Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Like this semester…about the Game of Thrones – so I asked them why are people complaining about
the ending of Game of Thrones…this is why we are saying it does not follow – you (producers) brought
us all here, then the ending does not follow.

Documentation of Sources

Melvin introduces the topic on documentation in line with the pattern of thinking that he has established
in his classroom: claim, reason, evidence. “The claim, the reasons, these are from you – but the evidence
to support them, that’s where documentation comes in.” He chooses to focus his teaching on APA only,
which they have already encountered in the earlier composition course. This decision is informed by
a view that if learners gain sufficient mastery over one system, they will learn the dynamics of other
documentation systems.
Melvin has observed that faculty often comment that documentation lessons are boring, while students
react negatively, “Aaargh! Again?” To counter his, Melvin experiments – he tries to make his lessons as
interesting as possible, for instance, through use of videos, handouts and exercises.

This semester, I tried something different. There was an assignment on APA, detailed. So I got for them
a short handout on how to reference in-text citations and gave it to them in class to answer this assign-
ment. The first student told me, ‘This is good, Sir. I never knew where to put this comma and full colon.
Let’s see how it works.

Melvin’s Recommendations

Introduction of a strong reading component in argumentation

Melvin opines that the teaching of essay structure in the absence of a reading culture among students’
reading is a journey going nowhere. He recommends the introduction of a strong reading component in
the teaching of argumentation. Melvin already deliberately gives his students long essays so that they
read. While on a virtual visit to Harvard University, Melvin believes that the writing of short stories for
one’s own learners is an idea worth emulating. This is particularly important because course texts and
examples tend to be structure-oriented.

There’s a book out there – they’ve called it 40 short stories…these short stories, you read – even the kind
of questions you’re asked. Argue. Like, why do you think?…how do you think it ended? Why? That’s
argumentation. So, if they had those stories,…they’ll be good.

Equally important in terms of reading is the development of locally relevant content. Melvin therefore
recommends the need for context-sensitive content development. This is a gap that course instructors
can help fill. “We don’t have Kenyan content to teach on this. Like fallacies. Sometimes you create a
few for exams, but for teaching, yeah…there’s a lot for us to do, by the way.”
Finally, Melvin recommends cross-faculty fertilization. The Department serves other departments;
however, there is little awareness among wider faculty about what composition instructors teach and
what learners learn to do in terms of their writing. Melvin emphasizes the need for all faculty to “be on

353
 
Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

the same page: claims, reasons, evidence” as this will influence the kinds of questions asked, and how
these questions are marked.

You ask a learner, OK, how is (this course) helping you in your term paper on International Relations?
When you look at those questions…I just feel that if there would be a way that lecturers are made aware,
it would help in how they structure questions, and how they mark.

IMPLICATIONS

Promotion of Learner-Centred Approaches

The three experienced instructors all found lecture-dominant lessons ineffective in teaching argumen-
tation, and sought to promote learner centred classrooms. They expressed agreement with approaches
aligned to constructivism, integrative, collaborative and differentiated learning, and their practices gener-
ally indicated a process orientation to the teaching of argumentation. Given that the course is taught by
various lecturers with different backgrounds and preferences, there is need for systematic dissemination
of challenging areas and accompanying successful methodological interventions. This can be achieved
formally and informally through regular workshops, peer observation in each others’ classrooms, col-
laborative teaching and reflective practice.

Development of Content

The choice of instructional content, as well as learners’ input into these choices is also relevant to the
teaching and learning of argumentation. Generally, instructors provide broad themes for learners to narrow
down into arguable topics, or learners take the lead in driving the choice of themes. Whichever direction
is taken, it is important for course instructors to work towards developing locally and contextually famil-
iar content and examples for the course. This will help ground learners’ efforts to critically think about
existing challenges in their own society first, and thus scaffold them from the known to the unknown.

Use of Social Media Platforms to Support Mainstream Technology

All participants reported having incorporated use of WhatsApp, in addition to using of the official e-
learning platform, for purposes of teaching and learning. They indicated that learners readily accessed
WhatsApp compared to Blackboard, which they underutilised. There is need for more research on how
best social media platforms can effectively be leveraged in the teaching and learning of argumentation
and writing skills in general.

Developing Critical Reading Skills and a Reading Culture

All participants recognised the centrality of reading in developing learners’ ability to write a good
argument. Equally, all lamented that learners lacked reading skills and a reading culture. Despite their
attempts to promote intensive and extensive reading in their argumentation classrooms, they all recog-
nised that reading remained a serious challenge to meeting the expected learning outcomes of the course.

354

Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Institutional support would ensure that critical reading and response is taught across the curriculum,
either independently or, through curriculum review, as a major component of the writing programme.

Inter-Faculty Dialogue

The writing programme ultimately achieves it goals when learners are able to apply their skills, includ-
ing argumentation skills, in various tasks within their mother departments. In order for faculty in these
departments to reinforce what has been learnt on the programme, there is need for all faculty in the in-
stitution, to enhance or develop skills in recognising and assessing student essays. This can be achieved
through seminars, workshops and other forms of training with a focus on raising awareness on content,
form and assessment of essays in general, and argumentative essays in particular.

CONCLUSION

Challenging topics in argumentation include formulation of claims and identification of unstated as-
sumptions; supporting arguments with evidence; composing counterarguments and refutation of coun-
terarguments; recognising fallacies and appeals, and documentation of sources of information. Experi-
enced course instructors, all of whom have a keen interest in teaching argumentation, have attempted,
methodologically, to address these challenges. Methodological interventions have centred upon adoption
of learner-centred approaches, and use of available technological support. Mainstream technology is
used to post content as per institutional requirements; however, this is often supported by adaptation of
social media platforms – specifically WhatsApp as a tool for teaching and learning. The platform is used
not only for ease of access to content, but also as a forum for group work, and as a means of extending
discussions beyond the classroom. Failure by students to read required content remains the biggest chal-
lenge faced by all course instructors, and one that should systemically addressed.

REFERENCES

Andrews, R. (2009). Argumentation in higher education: Improving practice through theory and research.
New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203872710
Benbow, J., Mizrachi, A., Oliver, D., & Said-Moshiro, L. (2007). Large class sizes in the developing
world: What do we know and what can we do? American Institutes for Research under the EQUIP1
LWA / US Agency for International Development.
Benton, S. L., & Pallet, W. H. (2013, Jan. 29). Class size matters. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/01/29/essay-importance-class-size-higher-education
Berlin, J. A. (1982). Contemporary Composition: The major pedagogical theories. College English,
44(8), 765–777. doi:10.2307/377329
Berlin, J. A. (1992). Poststructural, cultural studies and the composition classroom: Postmodern theory
in practice. Rhetoric Review, 11(1), 16–33. doi:10.1080/07350199209388984

355
 
Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Breuch, L. M. K. (2002). Post-process “pedagogy”: A philosophical exercise. Journal of Advanced

Composition, 22(1), 119–150.
Davies, W. M. (2008). ‘Not quite right’: Helping students to make better arguments. Teaching in Higher
Education, 13(3), 327–340. doi:10.1080/13562510802045352
Dysthe, O. (2001). The mutual challenge of writing research and the teaching of writing. Keynote ad-
dress to The European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing (EATAW) and the European
Writing Centre Association (EWCA). University of Groeningen.
Ede, L. (1989). Writing as a social process. A theoretical foundation for writing centres? Writing Center
Journal, 9(2), 3–13.
Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of process. A critique and a proposal. College English, 48(6),
527–542. doi:10.2307/376707
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and
Communication, 32(4), 365–387. doi:10.2307/356600
Kerr, A. (2011). Teaching and learning in large classes at Ontario universities: An exploratory study.
Toronto Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35. doi:10.
1080/87567555.1993.9926781
Matsuda, P.K. (2002). Process and post process. A discursive history. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 12(2003), 65-83.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Quantitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th
ed.). Saint Paul, MN: Sage Publishing.
Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F. (2016). Argumentation methods in educational contexts: Introduction to the
special issue. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 142–149. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.006
Reynolds, N., Dolmange, J., Bizzell, P., & Hersberg, B. (2011). The Bedford bibliography for teachers
of writing (7th ed.). Bedford: St. Martin’s.
Riessman, C. K. (2002). Analysis of personal narratives. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Hand-
book of Interview Research: Context & Method (pp. 695–710). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Riessman, C. K. (2005). Narrative analysis. In Narrative, memory & everyday life (pp. 1–7). Hudder-
sfield, UK: University of Huddersfield. Retrieved from https://www.student.gu.se/infoglueCalendar/
digitalAssets/1771183328_BifogadFil_Chapter_1_-_Catherine_Kohler_Riessman.pdf
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Shamim, F., Negash, N., Chuku, C., & Demewoz, N. (2007). Maximising learning in large classes: Is-
sues and options. Addis Ababa: The British Council. Retrieved from http://www.teachingenglish.org.
uk/sites/teacheng/files/ELT-16-screen.pdf

356

Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Smith, R. (2014). Transformations in ELT: contexts, agents and opportunities. In NELTA Conference
Proceedings 2013. Kathmandu, Nepal: Nepal English Language Teachers’ Association.
Todd, R. W. (2006). Why investigate large classes? KMUTT Journal of Language Education, 9, 1-12.
Retrieved from https://www.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/reflections/article/view/114271
Trimbur, J., Bizzell, P., Knoblauch, C. H., Brannon, L., & Spellmeyer, K. (1994). Taking the social
turn: Teaching writing post process. College Composition and Communication, 45(1), 108–118.
doi:10.2307/358592
Vandenberg, P., Hum, S., & Clary-Lemon, J. (2006). Critical introduction. In P. Vandenberg, S. Hum,
& J. Clary-Lemon (Eds.), Composition theory for writing teachers. Urbana, IL: National Council for
Teachers of English.
Wang, Q., & Zhang, N. (2011). Teaching large classes in China – English as a foreign language. Re-
trieved from www.ntu.edu.vn/Portals/96/.../Teaching%20large%20classes%20%287%29.pdf

ADDITIONAL READING

Andrews, R., Torgerson, C., Low, G., McGunn, N., & Robinson, A. (2006). Improving argumentative
skills in undergraduates: A systematic review. New York, NY: Higher Education Academy.
Andriessen, J. E. B. (2009). Argumentation in higher education: Examples of actual practices with
argumentation tools. In N. M. Mirza & A. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and Education: Theo-
retical Foundations and Practices (pp. 195–214). London: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_8
Awada, G. (2016). Effect of WhatsApp on critique writing proficiency and perceptions towards learning.
Cogent Education, 3(1), 1264173. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2016.1264173
Bacha, N. N. (2002). Developing learners’ academic writing skills in higher education: A study for
educational reform. Language and Education, 16(3), 161–177. doi:10.1080/09500780208666826
Daiute, C. (2014). Narrative inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Davies, M., & Barnett, R. (Eds.). (2015). The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher educa-
tion. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. doi:10.1057/9781137378057
Fletcher, J. (2015). Teaching arguments: Rhetorical comprehension, critique and response. Portland,
ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Gere, A. R. (2019). Developing writers in higher education: A longitudinal study. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Hamad, M. M. (2017). Using WhatsApp to enhance students’ learning of English language “experience
to share”. Higher Education Studies, 7(4), 74–87. doi:10.5539/hes.v7n4p74

357
 
Teaching Argumentation in Higher Education

Kumi-Yebaoh, A., & Blankson, H. (2014). Social media and use of technology in higher education. In V.
C. X. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Education and Technology in a Changing Society. Hershey,
PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6046-5.ch017
Mitchell, S., & Andrews, R. (2000). Learning to argue in higher education. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/
Cook: Heinemann.
Nelms, G., & Dively, R. L. (Eds.). (2007). Perceived roadblocks to transferring knowledge from first-year
composition writing to writing-intensive courses: A pilot study. WPA. Writing Program Administration,
31(1-2).
Paulsen, M. B. (Ed.). (2014). Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 29). New York:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8005-6
Roberge, M., Siegal, M., & Harklau, L. (Eds.). (2009). Generation 1.5 meets college composi-
tion: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S. – educated learners of ESL. New York: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203885697
Tang, R. (2012). Academic writing in a second or foreign language: Issues and challenges facing ESL/
EFL academic writers in higher education contexts. London: Continuum International Publishers.
Wallace, R., Jackson, A., & Wallace, S. L. (2000). Reforming college composition: Writing the wrongs.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Appeal: Persuasive devices used in an argument that rely on logic, emotion or ethics.
Argument: A reasoned claim, supported by evidence.
Claim: A statement capturing one’s position in an arguable topic.
Composition: Activity of structuring a piece of writing.
Critical Thinking: Objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form reasoned judgement.
Evidence: Body of facts or information that supports a claim.
Extensive Reading: Wide reading for enjoyment and improving reading and interpretation skills.
Fallacy: Faulty reasoning that leads to an unsound argument.
Higher Education: Post-secondary education, at degree level.
Intensive Reading: Detailed reading, with specific objectives.
Learner-Centred Approach: Instruction that encourages learners to be active, interactive and re-
sponsible participants in their own learning, while teacher models, facilitates and monitors the process.
Narrative Inquiry: Gathering, analysis and reconstruction of people’s stories in order to re-present
experiences.
Reflective Practice: Process of engaging in reflection through monitoring and critiquing one’s ac-
tions, leading to self-awareness and personal-professional development.
Technology: Systems and devices which arise from the practical application of scientific knowledge.

358
 359

Chapter 20
A Profitable Education:
Countering Neoliberalism in 21st
Century Skills Discourses

Rohit Mehta
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0686-9877
California State University, Fresno, USA

Edwin Creely
Monash University, Australia

Danah Henriksen
Arizona State University, USA

ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the authors take a multifaceted critical approach to understanding and deconstructing the
term 21st century skills, especially in regard to technology and the role of corporations in the discourses
about education. They also consider a range of cultural and political influences in our exploration of
the social and academic meanings of the term, including its history and politics. The application of the
term in present-day educational contexts is considered as well as possible futures implied through the
term. The goal in this chapter is to counter ideas that might diminish a humanized educational practice.
Specifically, the authors offer a critique of neoliberal discourses in education, particularly the neoliberal
and corporate narrative around 21st century teaching and learning. They raise concerns about what an
undue emphasis on industry-oriented educational systems can mean for the core purposes of education.

INTRODUCTION

21st century skills are touted as desirable for classrooms in order to prepare students for future employ-
ment and educational needs. They are often linked to digital technologies and to a range of creative and
critical thinking skills and competencies (Kereluik, Mishra, Fahnoe & Terry, 2013; Mishra & Mehta,
2017; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2019; Suto & Eccles, 2014). The notion of 21st century skills
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch020

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 
A Profitable Education

has evolved to occupy an important place in curriculum and policy frameworks internationally (Suto
& Eccles, 2014). Sociopolitically, they are also associated with the private-sector, neoliberal facets of
globalization, and the increasing transnational mobility of work and education (Brown, Green & Lauder,
2001; Jones, 2008). Underlying the notion of 21st century skills are assumptions that are not always
understood or interrogated in popular or academic discourses. In this chapter, we offer a nuanced and
critical view of this notion by exploring the range of ideas and discourses that shape our understanding
of the term “21st century skills,” interrogating the foundations of and intentions behind its present-day
applications in education.
We begin by examining a historical trajectory for the idea of 21st century skills, looking at the past,
present, and future of the ongoing discourses in this area. We then consider the neoliberal influences
on education, and potential concerns around the uncritical adoption of private-sector thinking into the
public sphere of education—sharing examples of corporate or utilitarian perspectives on education and
the potential for misalignment with deeper educational purposes in learning. Finally, we explore the
potential of democratizing or humanizing pedagogies, and consider ways of still adopting but possibly
reconceiving the notion of 21st century skills and accompanying discourses. We offer ways of consider-
ing the future of education that are not dismissive of workforce needs and economic potential but also
do not overemphasize an economic and instrumental imperative for 21st century thinking in education.

How Did We Get Here?

The first mention of 21st century skills dates back to the early 1980s, when it rose to prominence in the
Reagan era via the report, “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform” (Gardner, 1983),
which linked education to international corporatization. The report also placed emphasis on science and
technology as the driving force for the economy, with education positioned as the supplier of skilled labor
capable of driving economic expansion. From competitive and growth-seeking economic imperatives
of the 80s, the term has since been colonized by large-scale technology manufacturers and developers,
who have successfully injected instrumental rhetoric into the idea from preschool to university levels
(Mishra & Kereluik, 2011; Smith, 2018).
The recent rhetoric around 21st century skills has been mostly highly positive, even creedal, and is
positioned in terms of so-called 21st century classrooms, digital technologies, and innovative pedagogical
practices (Trilling & Fadel, 2009). Yet, more often than not, educational practitioners and researchers
use the term in vague ways that are devoid of the realities of lived experiences in educational contexts.
As authors, we too find ourselves using it as a placeholder term to idealize abstract future skills (Mishra
& Mehta, 2017). This invites a query into the etymology and semantics of the term. When 21st century
educators use the term, they are clearly not talking about skills typical of five or 10 years ago, or maybe
even reflecting the state of education today. Instead, the term is oriented to future learning goals that have
been adopted (often uncritically) from technology-focused economic initiatives (Binkley et al., 2012).
As compared to the more traditional content-based learning and academic skills that have shaped
education over the last century, 21st century skills have often been seen as broader skills for thinking and
living in the contemporary digital world (Trilling & Fadel, 2009). While there are varied frameworks and
approaches, they have generally revolved around meta-level skills such as critical thinking, creativity,
and various other more generalizable or transportable skills (Dede, 2010). In a recent skills framework,
Kereluik et al. (2013) offered a more comprehensive and balanced view of the skills and knowledge
sets that educators and researchers have considered important for success in the 21st century (fig. 1).

360

A Profitable Education

Figure 1. The 3x3 model of 21st century learning, based on the Kereluik et al. (2013) framework

The ubiquitous idea of 21st century skills emerged as a skillset considered crucial by many experts to
prepare students for their future (Bellanca, 2010). That future is conceptualized around skills needed to
compete in a global economy. Thus, the driving force in this perspective is economic, built on instrumental
values that are rooted in capitalistic thought (Ong, 2007). Such thought is embodied in global markets
that emphasize the exchange of tangible and intangible products online and in the various social media
platforms (Freberg, Graham, McGaughey, & Freberg, 2011; Peters, 1999). Nowadays, digital products
dominate these global markets, based on a rhetoric focused on the need for competent workers trained
for the current economy and digital futures. The responsibility of training for futures falls on educators
and begins in schools. Skill sets, such as those represented in Figure 1, are oriented to efficient produc-
tion and the unfolding needs of corporate futures. Enshrined in this market-driven philosophy, there is
an assumption that these skills will help students be work ready and future-proof.

Where Are We Now?

Despite an abundance of frameworks and models, what actually constitutes 21st century skills is not as
clear or delineated as what is represented in public discourse about the term. While there appears to be
a shift in the last five years to seeing the term as all-inclusive, incorporating the totality of what students
need to be successful in the digital era (Great Schools Partnership, 2106; AES, 2019; Boss, 2019), there
is no consensus on what should or could be included as part of this desired skill set. A 2010 article in
Education Week by Elizabeth Rich reflects this uncertainty about use of the term:

The term “21st century skills” is generally used to refer to certain core competencies such as collabora-
tion, digital literacy, critical thinking, and problem-solving that advocates believe schools need to teach
to help students thrive in today’s world. In a broader sense, however, the idea of what learning in the
21st century should look like is open to interpretation—and controversy. (Rich, 2010)

361
 
A Profitable Education

In the article she presents definitional statements from a range of educators and academics, none of
whom fully agree on what the term means and how it is related to 21st century education, not to mention
what knowledge and skills should be included. Even a cursory examination of web sites that propagate
the term reveals that “21st century skills” is often positioned as an overwhelmingly universally-accepted
and all-encompassing term that appears to include virtually everything that contemporary students could
potentially need (Ross, 2017; Thoughtful Learning, 2019). There appears to be little differentiation of the
types of skills needed for particular contexts, and instead there is a grab-bag of general skills presented
as relevant to a universal range of contexts linked to futures around work and study. Clearly, skills and
competencies are more specialized than that, and are situated within the educational and work context
in which they are applied.
We argue that far from being settled, “21st century skills” is really a disputed skill set, and it is also
associated with an idealization about a type of classroom and a type of student that can be produced in
21st century education (Chapman, et al., 2014; Goertz, 2015; International Teaching in Motion, 2017).
Many of the popular renderings of the 21st century classroom imagine students that are being strategi-
cally prepared for a digital future, where a range of skills and competencies needed to negotiate this
future are being developed and match the needs of the corporate world. In the US, programs such as
Battelle for Kids (Battelle for Kids, 2019) have formulated this imaginary student into a profile that is
meant to guide the disposition of school systems into the future and into what work will become. About
this profile, which they term “Portrait of a Graduate,” the website of Battelle for Kids states:

Now more than ever, that experience must not only provide for the acquisition of rigorous academic
content, but it must also be more intentional about fostering critical thinking, communication, collabo-
ration, creativity, and other 21st century skills our young people need to thrive in this complex, rapidly
changing world.

Many school systems across the country have engaged their larger community in developing a Portrait
of a Graduate, a collective vision that articulates the community’s aspirations for all students.

The universalization in the notion of a “collective vision that articulates the community’s aspirations
for all students” points to a view of education which is deterministic about the future and the supposed
skills needed to deal with changes spurred by global digitization, the transforming economy and the
shifting landscape of education. Moreover, there is an apparent lack of recognition of the actual drivers
of education (especially funding drivers) and of the localized needs that often shape what can be provided
for students. There is also a belief that “critical thinking, communication, collaboration, creativity, and
other 21st century skills” will support the needs of students in a “rapidly changing world” (Battelle for
kids, 2019). Such a belief is unfounded, in light of the lack of empirical research about 21st century
classroom practice and given the diversity of practice experiences in how such skills might be enacted
in classrooms and documented in curricula (Hung, Shu-Shing & Lim, 2012; Van de Oudeweetering &
Voogt, 2018), not just today but in the future. All in all, we need to resist the apparent push towards
uncritically adopting these ubiquitous and generalized skills and recognize that all learning is context-
specific and dependent on a range of mitigating factors. Not the least of these factors is the equitable
distribution of resources that support so-called 21st century learning and skills.

362

A Profitable Education

Where Are We Going?

In this imagined “future,” which is supposed to reflect existing trends, such as an emphasis on digital
technologies and increased engagement with new media, some researchers tend to value (the new forms
of) technical and vocational skills (e.g.: programming languages, digital literacies) (Barr, Harrison &
Conery, 2011; Yadav, Gretter, Good & McLean, 2017) over situated transdisciplinary education that
affords epistemic, sociocultural, economic, and linguistic diversity (Craft, Chappell & Twining, 2008;
Mehta, Mehta & Seals, 2017; Mishra, Koehler & Henriksen, 2011).
Recently, however, scholars have been taking a more critical approach to traditional and dominant
educational systems, asking educators and policy makers to decolonize how literacies, disciplines and
knowledge are defined and assessed (i.e. to question existing practices that suppress local and indigenous
literacies and practices as a result of years of colonization) (Tuck & Yang, 2012). This includes a call to
diversify and humanize curricula to support and sustain multiple and equitable ways of being, doing, and
becoming, especially in an age of new and digital media and evolving forms of global communication
(Mehta, 2017; Paris & Alim, 2014). Clearly, advocates of “21st century skills” should turn their atten-
tion to educational equity and social justice, in light of what appears to be an uncritical neoliberal focus.
That said, some of the dominant critical discourses around these skills have come from the more
traditional vanguard of education, which sometimes opposes the notion of teaching broad-based and
transferable skills for the future professional world. This critique is often based on the notion that it
might erode the teaching of traditional subject matter—such as history, literature, mathematics, and
so on (Griffin & Care, 2014). For instance, the Common Core (2009) issued a challenge to those who
promote the notion of 21st century skills, noting that such “skills can neither be taught nor applied ef-
fectively without prior knowledge on a wide array of subjects.” This is frequently refuted by the idea
that the role of education must be to prepare students for work and the future, and that both skills and
content are needed (Mishra & Mehta, 2017). This debate fails to account for some of the deeper critiques
around the genesis of 21st century skills and the difficulties of finding an accepted meaning of the term.
In addition, the question remains—who decides what skills to include and what place is given to more
complex skills or recognition of subtler valuations such skills for aesthetic purposes?
One might also consider whether it is presumptive, or even naïve, to pronounce a set of skills for
an uncertain future when we can barely understand the challenges and technological changes affect-
ing education now. Some have even wondered whether the focus on 21st century skills as a forward
or future-oriented term is even needed, given that at this point we are already two decades into its use
(Boss, 2019). That said, the notion of “21st century skills” is typically only a placeholder term to assess
what skill sets the market might need for forthcoming jobs and industry, so that the next generation of
workers can be prepared (Bernhardt, 2015). For example, we might think of app developers as a new
form of the old, specific skill-based laborers seen in mining or construction jobs. As old technologies
are replaced by new technologies, new skills are needed to accommodate them. Likewise, instead of
teaching the older workforce new skills, the tendency is to teach to the new generation, thus the focus
on schools. This, according to advocates, assures a longer vision for the labor needs of the market, thus
making it more efficient, and may possibly lead to the valuing of engineers, programmers, scientists,
and mathematicians over artists, philosophers, and humanists. Such an orientation to the technological
has significant implications for the disposition of schooling, and important decisions about curricula,
policy and practice.

363
 
A Profitable Education

Some of the discussions on 21st century skills have certainly come from (or captured the attention of)
educational scholars, especially those working in areas tangential to educational technology. However,
much of the work and reporting of practical significance around 21st century skills or the promotion of
these ideas into practice has originated from the private sector and the corporate world, rather than from
educators, scholars, students, parents or other school stakeholders (Bernhardt, 2015). Any number of
reports in the private/corporate sector and from the foundations that they support promote the ability of
students today in terms of preparation for the workforce, aiming to draw attention to the kinds of skills
employers seek from both public and private education (Smith, 2018). For instance, the report “Are They
Really Ready to Work? Employers’ Perspectives on the Basic Knowledge and Applied Skills of New En-
trants to the 21st Century U.S. Workforce” authored by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2006),
delivers a clarion cry for education to listen to business and industry in shaping the future of learning.
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills is a public-private partnership and advocacy group—with direct
board and leadership connections to technology companies, and aims to encourage schools to infuse
technologies and to systematically digitize all classrooms.
This organization also aims to bring workforce interests into K12 education, sponsored by a range
of business interests across industry, including corporations such as Dell, Pearson, State Farm and SAP.
Ancillary organizations, such as The Conference Board and Corporate Voices for Working Families,
among a number of others, also support the call of employers in explicitly preparing a skilled workforce
and placing the onus on school to deliver more. The opening statement, written by four corporate CEOs
notes:

It is our hope...that the community, educators, policy makers, students and their families will listen to
what employers collectively think. The results indicate that the U.S. is not doing enough, fast enough...
All of us must do our part to ensure that our students are well-prepared for the workforce demands of
the 21st century. The education and business communities must agree that applied skills integrated with
core academic subjects are the “design specs” for creating an educational system...Business leaders
must take an active role in outlining the kinds of skills we need from our employees for our companies
and economy to thrive...The business community must speak with one voice: new entrants to the U.S.
workforce must be equipped with the basic knowledge and applied skills necessary to be competitive in
the global economy of the 21st century. (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006, p. 7-8)

On the surface, there is nothing inherently wrong with employers wanting a more prepared workforce
or promoting certain skills sets be emphasized in schools. But there are potential issues with the uncriti-
cal adoption of ideas about learning and educational values derived from the private sector and brought
into the public education sphere. We argue that the purpose of schooling and learning needs to be about
more than job and workforce preparation. Along with preparation for the workforce there also needs
to be preparation of the whole person emotionally, mentally, and physically to engage in meaningful
learning experiences that are lifelong and developing students as responsible citizens and stewards of the
world around them (Dewey, 1934; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Mehta, Keenan, Henriksen & Mishra, 2019).
Many critics of 21st century skills have also pointed out that the core ideas behind these skills are
nothing new or especially innovative (Bernhardt, 2015). In fact, many aspects of what are positioned as
new skills are already in place and have been central to many teacher preparation programs, and employed
in classrooms across the country. Sawchuk (2009) noted that “there is nothing new in the proposals of
the 21st century skills movement. The same ideas were iterated and reiterated by pedagogues across the

364

A Profitable Education

20th century” (p. 1). What is somewhat new, however, is the notion of private industry (and especially
multinational corporations) exerting considerable influence on the formation of the core educational
values, content, competencies and emphases in public schooling. Bernhardt reflects that:

Though these organizations may suggest they are focused on our students’ best interests, not economic
outcomes, the amount of attention paid to economic goals remains substantial throughout policy materi-
als. Schools solely focused on economic outcomes and the production of individuals to meet these ends
are in peril of resembling assembly lines intent on creating particular types of individuals who think in
certain ways. (p. 7)

Pointing to the problems of seeing education as just the reproduction of person as a bundle of skills
or behaviors, Michael Apple (1978) notes that an economic approach to schooling “socializes people to
accept as legitimate the limited roles they will ultimately fill in society” (p. 375). This is potentially a
narrowing of the provisions of schooling and of the type of student produced in schools. Furthermore,
he suggests that efforts to push the energies of schools and teachers away from the localized world of
the individual and the community, towards concerns dominated by economic imperatives and prede-
termined destinies, must be more critically examined. Indeed, this being the case, there are potentially
deleterious implications for local communities and the schools that are part of their unique and diverse
cultural footprint.

NEOLIBERAL TOOLS CHANGING EDUCATION

In “The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism,” Kotz (2017) argues that the economic crisis of 2008 was
not simply the aftermath of financial panic and an unusually severe recession, but instead a structural crisis
of neoliberal, or free-market, capitalism. To resolve this, he suggested a need for institutional restructuring.
Since then, the term “neoliberal” has gained some popularity among more liberal academics, who use
the term to denounce the attempts of industrialists, think tanks, and policy makers to undermine social
and democratic reform for economic gain through the supposed benefits of the free market (Shermer,
2014). Neoliberalism has been described as a kind of economic model that bridges politics, policy, and
economics, and “seeks to transfer control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sec-
tor. It tends towards free-market capitalism and away from government spending, regulation, and public
ownership” (Kenton, 2019). For instance, companies like Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon have
pushed expensive electronic and digital technologies onto schools and other educational contexts in the
name of educational reform, all the while using it to gain access to personal and sensitive data (Smith,
2018). These companies are publicly known to use this data to target personalized advertisements to its
consumers, including children, and then increase capacity to sell even more merchandise. This can result
in cultural dominance and thus the marginalization of different experiences and perspectives (Bowcott
& Hern, 2018; Reisinger, 2012).
With the technological and scientific changes that have led to new internet-based and digital spaces,
the world has seen a surge in neoliberal forms of globalization that thrive in new global markets and
through digital platforms (Ong, 2007). While some educators have taken more optimistic approaches
to these digital spaces, studying and understanding literacies in non-traditional and multimodal ways

365
 
A Profitable Education

(Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear & Leu, 2014; Kress, 2003), others have been skeptical of the neoliberal poli-
cies driving this form of globalization (Ong, 2007; Smith, 2018).
One concern among scholars is that, in this global and digital environment, there is the potential for
reinforcing deficit views of other nations and their cultural and literacy practices (Coiro et al., 2014; Cope
& Kalantzis, 2015). There is a possibility of new forms of cultural imperialism emerging from tech giants
such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft, who are colonizing markets by pushing products as
educational and unifying tools, promoting them as essential for survival in a new global village (Han,
2017; Smith, 2018). These companies embody a western and American view of culture, oriented to
English language as the dominant lingua franca, and they normalize particular views of the world that
may run counter to those of minority language and cultural groups without as much power or voice in
society. Furthermore, in their very affordances for digital, global and connected communication, there is
the potential for promotion of divisive and hateful beliefs and ideologies (Silver, 2019). In recent years,
for instance, hate speech spread through Twitter and Facebook was entangled with Rohingya refugee
crisis in Myanmar and bombings in Sri Lanka (Ethirajan, 2019; Specia & Mozur, 2017).
Recently, these companies have found their biggest markets in schools and other educational institu-
tions in capitalistically inclined nations, often called “developed,” “first world,” or “global north” as well
as countries with a relative potential for economic growth, often called “developing,” “third world,” or
“global south.” Lately, companies like Netflix, Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft, have invested
heavily in India, Southeast Asia, and Africa as their next biggest markets, in an attempt to overcome the
near-saturation in western markets (Bowman, 2017; Mataen, 2012). Educational contexts have been the
entry points into these markets, allowing tech companies to position themselves as philanthropic, built
on the rhetoric that they are helping the “third world” (Smith, 2018).
When adopting the rhetoric of 21st century skills, especially drawn from technology companies into
education, the argument for promoting these skills has been based on economic benefit and the needs of
students in a rapidly changing workplace. This begs the question about the intentions of corporations,
such as Google, who invest millions of dollars into digital technologies to foster so-called educational
reform (Smith, 2018). Indeed, one might ask whether the engendering of 21st century skills is about
good corporate citizenship or primarily about maintaining market share. Educational institutions rarely
discuss the rationale behind or the evidence for the value of certain digital online tools and platforms—
nor do they always consider the ethics of corporate values. Given this, such values can pass uncritically
from multinational corporations into educational institutions, who may unwittingly adopt an ideology
in conflict with core societal and educational values such as equity, democracy and social-wellbeing
(Bennis, ND; Smith, 2018).
We argue that any critical consideration of 21st Century Skills should begin with a consideration of
the neoliberal agenda of global corporations, often rooted in private interests rather than public wellbe-
ing (Urciuoli, 2008). Specifically, most corporate interests, and big technology companies in particular,
embody a neoliberal perspective grounded in free-market capitalism and a profit-motive. Indeed, the
neoliberal focus on privatization and productivity is potentially concerning as an influencer upon public
education. In sum, this interconnection between big tech and educational systems allows the potential
for the promotion of values that are alien to what school can and should be about.

366

A Profitable Education

The Dehumanizing Naivete of Big Tech

In any critique of 21st century skills, when discussing educational reform driven by big technology
companies or corporate interests, there are pragmatic concerns that also need consideration. As stated
earlier, we believe that students need to find work and, ideally, become productive members of society.
However, we do suggest that the purpose of schooling is greater than just finding a job. Dewey (1903)
argued that a fundamental reason for the provision of education by the state is for developing the kinds
of knowledge, skills, values, and ways of being in the world that build healthy and equitable democracy
and active citizenship. This ensures that everyone has opportunities to participate fully in society and
experience the liberating potential of learning. Dewey believed that these democratic principles should
permeate every context for education and be present in every educative experience. As such, K12 edu-
cation, higher education, vocational or trade-school, and indeed any opportunities for lifelong learning,
should contain this focus.
We argue that a holistic and democratic focus needs to be maintained as the overriding goal and
reason for being in all educational settings. This focus should also be the basis for the development of
an approach to imparting skills and knowledge, and educating the whole person.
Corporate or big-technology interests are unlikely to align with the fully human-centered or Deweyan
ways of being that educators and schools should seek as the purpose of education. To illustrate where
such misalignment might occur between private-sector ways of seeing education and more fundamen-
tally humanistic ones, we present an interesting ‘what if’ story which, if in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek
fashion, seeks to illustrate these concerns.
This scenario is derived from a recent article by media theorist, Douglas Rushkoff (2019), who
posed the following provocation as a kind of thought experiment: “What if Mark Zuckerberg had stayed
in school?” Rushkoff considers that if instead of dropping out of Harvard midway to pursue building
Facebook, Zuckerberg might have reaped the benefits of two more years of a liberal arts education,
gaining critical historical, cultural, economic, and political context for his work. But Zuckerberg chose
not to, because based on the criteria for lean startup success, education had already served his purpose.
In true instrumentalist fashion, he decided that he had enough pure programming and computer science
knowledge to build his minimum viable product. But Rushkoff (2019) suggests that this is an inherent
misreading of the purposes of education, for which society is now paying the price, noting:

Looking back through Harvard’s course catalogs for 2005 and 2006, one finds a bounty of offerings,
from sociology and psychology to philosophy and literature, that would have challenged the assump-
tions underlying Silicon Valley dogma and might just have given Zuckerberg the insight he needed to
build a platform that promoted human cognition and connection, and even democracy itself, instead of
undermining them.

Rushkoff imaginatively explores the idea that Zuckerberg could have taken a different view of educa-
tion, taking classes that might have critically challenged his thinking, and thus changed the recent history
of technology in society—which emphasizes a narrow band of skills needed in society. For instance, he
could have taken Greg Manciw’s “Principles of Economics” class. In this, he could have recognized the
growth-based economic operating system beneath every Silicon Valley venture, which ultimately turns
users into the products or into mere data fodder for algorithms; or he might have learned how seeking
the highest profit as the only measure of success would put his company at the mercy of its shareholders,

367
 
A Profitable Education

obligating him to grow by any means necessary. Zuckerberg could have taken “Literature and the Arts”
with literary critic Helen Vendler, studying poetry as the history and science of feeling, which could
have allowed him to predict his platform’s propensity for emotional insensitivity and given him under-
standing that language is a weapon. Or he could have been informed by Steven Pinker’s course, “The
Human Mind,” which might have helped him to see human consciousness from an ethical standpoint,
before he sought to subvert and train society’s collective psyche via Facebook’s algorithms. Within these
examples, the range of skills that an ethical citizen needs are considerably widened.
Rushkoff’s (2019) thought experiment concludes with an exploration of how opportunities to learn
across the arts, humanities, psychology and other human-centered disciplines might have given Zuck-
erberg different ways of learning and working productively in the world. This might have improved the
overall ethical basis of Facebook and averted the platform’s many problems around a glut of “fake news,”
tampering with free elections, issues with harassment, bullying, privacy breaches, and many more.
Whether Rushkoff’s imagined educational “sliding doors” thought experiment might be true is unim-
portant. His key takeaway message is that the unfettered neoliberalism of big corporations and big tech
ventures is limiting in what it can do for teaching people about being ethical and creative citizens in their
work and personal lives. Ideas drawn from the arts, humanities and other human-centered disciplines
should play a critical role in learning, education and experience, and can be used towards producing a
socially beneficial ethical ripple effect on how people function in society. Such holistic human experi-
ences need not be in conflict with broad skills for living and working in the 21st century and beyond,
but such skills still have to be interrogated more thoughtfully in order to align with the deeper Deweyan/
Freirean purposes of schooling, and should not be taken up uncritically.
In this example, while human-oriented and aesthetic learning would have been outside of Zucker-
berg’s instrumental interests (programming, entrepreneurship, technology etc.), they might have made
him less prone to “move fast and break things,” which is a motivating motto for Silicon Valley. The
21st century skills that he needed to operate more holistically—integrating his innovation with wisdom,
critical thinking and ethicality in thoughtfully forward-looking ways—were far afield from the narrow
skills set that he used to construct his corporate world.
One of Zuckerberg’s mentors, big-data billionaire Peter Thiel, has recently offered opportunities to
future innovators allowing them to drop out of school, through a fellowship that “gives $100,000 to young
people who want to build new things instead of sitting in a classroom” (Thiel Foundation, n.d). Such
mistrust of the deeper and more ethical and holistic value of education, in favor of immediate gratifica-
tion, points to the narrow utilitarian basis of some corporate interests. In other words, they see the point
of education as only about becoming a more productive worker, getting a well-paid job, or forming a
startup. By contrast, learning in a broader sense is about becoming an informed and vibrant citizen and
living a good and ethical life. If the term ‘21century skills’ is to be used, then it should reflect this wider
notion of the purpose of education.
While we reiterate that there is nothing wrong with education helping people to be productive and
find gainful employment—indeed these things are important—education has a purpose that transcends
mere instrumentalism. Education should support the fabric of what it means to be human, and embrace
ideas of education that foster purposeful social change and equity. It should also permit opportunities to
learn to think critically and empathetically, to deeply understand and develop new knowledge, to build
social and emotional skills, to develop tools for ethicality and citizenship, and to contribute creative and
human-centered value (not only productivity, growth and corporate innovation) to our world.

368

A Profitable Education

Further Concerns about Corporate Interests in 21st Century Skills

The presence of corporate ideologies working their way into education systems, or the emergence of
instrumental and employment-based valuation of knowledge, should be approached carefully and viewed
critically in educational settings. The very purpose of corporations and corporate interests across any
area of industry is inherently driven by the profit-motive and shareholder pressure, and not necessar-
ily aligned with the humanistic purposes of education. That is not to say that corporate purposes are
intrinsically unethical or ignore wider human needs and concerns. Rather, as has been clear throughout
this chapter, we argue that preparing students is a holistic enterprise that includes the whole person, and
thus should not be reduced to a bundle of skills. It is not confined to mere economic imperatives, but is
about the development of students as life-learners and ethical community members.
To illustrate this concern, we point to the example of creativity, which is one of the most commonly
emphasized, and considerably misunderstood, of the 21st century skills. The Partnership for 21st Century
Skills has consistently listed it as one of the ‘4 Cs’ of 21st century learning—along with communication,
collaboration and critical thinking. Creativity is often defined as the ability or process to come up with
solutions to problems that are both novel and effective (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). A creative product in
the arts might look very different from a creative mathematical proof or from a creative business ven-
ture; however, they would consistently have these two elements of novelty and effectiveness. Beyond
this, creativity is a disputed construct, that sits uneasily with calls for creative thinking to be promoted
in education in order to solve problems or spark improvements, advancements and innovation (Moran,
Cropley & Kaufman, 2014).
While most academics, educators and industry leaders see creativity as vital for student development
and learning through life, we are cautious about the kind of uncritical 21st century skills list-making
with which creativity is often associated. Creativity in and of itself is in some ways value-neutral, as a
creative idea might be novel and effective but also can be deeply problematic for society or even unethi-
cal. So, in educational settings, it is important to engage complexity in teaching people to act wisely in
creative action and decision making (Baucus, Norton, Baucus, & Human, 2008). Creativity untethered
from wisdom and a deeper ethical foundation may have unintended and possibly negative consequences
(Craft, 2008; Henriksen, 2019). This darker side can be seen across a range of problems in corporate
or industry settings, particularly in contexts where the rapid pace of technological change does not en-
courage the kind of wise creative practices that permit nuanced and ethical decisions. Any list of 21st
century skills, we believe, must be understood critically in terms of ethical tensions and implications.
Innovation-driven companies such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple position creativity as
central to their corporate vision, as evidenced by an upbeat support for creativity in their mission state-
ments, a strong emphasis on creative design, and product development processes geared toward rapid
innovation and prototyping. But they rarely mine down to the philosophical and ethical explorations
that should go hand-in-hand with an emphasis on creativity—since these explorations would not serve
to advance the bottom line neoliberal purposes of their companies.
The troubling ethical tensions that emerge in the enactment of 21st century skills, even in something
as desirable and human-centered as creativity, can be best seen in the manner in which for-profit big
technology companies often choose to behave creatively. An all-encompassing emphasis on profitability
is antithetical to Deweyan/Freirean education foundations, but does have the ability to foster innovation
and technological advancement. This advancement and inventiveness can certainly be reflected in profits
and stronger economic and employment growth—so the instrumental creative purposes might initially

369
 
A Profitable Education

appear strong—but they can actually emerge at great cost to society. For instance, Manjoo (2019) has
argued that the innovation of companies such as Uber have created a “moral stain,” wherein original
good ideas become ruined by misguided neoliberal principles of corporate culture. The original idea
for Uber was to be a “radical new urban vision” to “reduce the need for car ownership and increase the
utilization of each car. It could make transportation cheaper and far more environmentally friendly, and
it might create sustainable jobs for many drivers” (Manjoo, 2019). But, as he further writes:

In the years since, Uber skirted laws and cut corners to trample over regulators and competitors. It ac-
celerated the start-up industry’s misogynistic and reckless hustle culture. And it pushed a frightening
new picture of labor—one in which everyone is a contractor, toiling without protection—our hours and
our lives ruled by uncaring algorithms in the cloud. Uber, and to a lesser extent, its competitor Lyft, has
indeed turned out to be a poster child for Silicon Valley’s messianic vision, but not in a way that should
make anyone in this industry proud. Uber’s is likely to be the biggest tech I.P.O. since Facebook’s. It will
turn a handful of people into millionaires and billionaires. But the gains for everyone else—for drivers,
for the environment, for the world—remain in doubt.

Similar cases have been made against Facebook and other technology giants—in cases where sig-
nificant technological creativity is not necessarily connected to the broader social good. Examples of
such negative consequences abound: from Twitter bots that manipulate elections, to how fake news can
aggravate existing social ruptures; or from the misuse of personal data for corporate gain, to increased
cases of depression and social isolation that come of heightened or constant immersion in digital inter-
faces (Horowitz & Graf, 2019).
Therefore, even creativity should not be viewed uncritically—and, for the 21st century classroom and
beyond, educators, we believe, should seek to engage the kinds of humanizing thinking and wisdom that
are often grounded in deep and genuine engagement with the humanities and the arts (Mehta & Henrik-
sen, 2019). Typically, humanities and the arts engage with affective learning and promote understanding
of the complexities of human, social, cultural and historical life. If skills-based frameworks are to be
adopted, it warrants deeper thinking about their purpose and origin, in ways that view the student as a
whole person. It also bears thinking about whether or not skills are entrenched in the kinds of affective
content and humanizing thinking that promote the ethical and creative development of students.
In the example of creativity discussed above, which is listed in numerous skill-based frameworks,
we can see that the complexity and disputed nature of the construct is not well-reflected in a wholly
instrumentalized and decontextualized view of skills. Indeed, it is not addressed in most of 21st century
skills definitions and curriculum frameworks offered up to educators, students and schools. Further, this
same criticality could be used to assess other skills that are part of the rhetoric of 21st century educa-
tion. While affirming the need for productivity skills for students, we, nevertheless, argue for greater
criticality in unpacking the 21st century skill sets widely promoted in academic and practice literature,
and we call for the alignment of such sets with the democratic and humanizing purposes for education
rather than simply accepting them as cheerleaders for educational change.

370

A Profitable Education

DEMOCRATIZING AND HUMANIZING EDUCATION

Neoliberal agendas bring with them a sense of economic imperative and competition that can diverge
from the kinds of whole-person approaches to schooling that serve students in their intellectual, emo-
tional, physical and mental development as people. So, while we are not against the notion of skills or
workforce preparation being one consideration in schooling—there are clearly problems with a kind of
neoliberal philosophy spreading through or taking over in defining the very purpose of schooling. Olssen
& Peters (2007) explained that in educational systems shaped by neoliberal discourses:

Education is represented as an input–output system which can be reduced to an economic production

function. The core dimensions of new public management, are: flexibility (in relation to organizations
through the use of contracts); clearly defined objectives (both organizational and personal), and a re-
sults orientation (measurement of and managerial responsibility for achievement of). In addition, new
public management in applying quasi market or private sector microtechniques to the management of
public sector organizations has replaced the ‘public service ethic’ whereby organizations were governed
according to norms and values derived from assumptions about the ‘common good’ or ‘public interest’
with a new set of contractualist norms and rules. (p. 324)

There are also unintended consequences wherein a corporate mentality or instrumentalist view of
the world begins to creep into how we think about education, and then to drive the ways in which we
expect teachers to teach and assess, and students to learn.
Some scholars have even noted that decades of strong neoliberal instrumentalism and private industry
influence in U.S. education have penetrated schools’ systems, leading to indirect but clear pushes toward
standardized testing, school rankings, interschool challenges in the name of increasing accountability and
producing measured outputs (Olssen & Peters, 2007; Peters, 1999). Consequently, more stress on teach-
ers to produce desired national and state-level results, pressure on students to perform by externally-set
expectations, and incentives for administrators and management to meet policy-driven demands have
started to govern the process of schooling. In such contexts, where months at a time are often dedicated
to practicing for a series of state and national tests, less time is provided for creative disciplinary/in-
terdisciplinary learning and gaining aesthetic and contextual understanding. Counter-discourses about
schools killing creativity, and calls for learning based on aesthetic exploration, inquiry-based explorations
and developing a cultural consciousness, have offered pushback against the capitalist agenda without
really identifying its neoliberal roots and its challenge to aesthetic, creative, democratic, and humanizing
education (Olssen & Peters, 2007).
Ironically, despite neoliberal instrumentalism and the emergence of high-stakes testing in education,
there is another narrative that adds to the complexity of the evolving concept of 21st century education.
That narrative is about the need for schools to provide divergent and creative thinkers for industry to
promote the development of new innovative products, services and designs (Newton & Newton, 2014;
Guido, 2018; Thornton, 2018). This narrative is linked to so-called design thinking (Luka, 2014), which
incorporates not only innovation but reflexivity about the process itself and thinking about sustainable
futures (Andrews, 2015). So, while on the one hand there is an apparent narrowing of the curriculum,
together with greater focus on testing, there is another emerging curriculum story about the importance
of creativity in teaching, and thus the call to infuse it in the curriculum. Little wonder that classrooms
become spaces that are contested and filled with competing demands. On the one hand neoliberalism

371
 
A Profitable Education

reflects the movement to testing and demanding higher skill levels for employees; on the other hand, it
calls for a skill set that should now include design, creativity, problem solving and divergent thinking.
These kinds of inconsistencies and tensions have led to some of the uncertainties and lack of clarity
which we have pointed to around 21st century skills in education.
Mehta, Keenan, Henriksen, and Mishra (2019) suggested that in attempting to find efficient ways
producing qualified learners, education policy and curricula have increasingly adopted purely functional,
instrumental reasons for learning. This is particularly true in STEM (science, mathematics, engineering,
and technology) disciplines, which are seen as valuable to a 21st century workforce. Such neoliberal in-
strumentalism may be well intentioned in certain ways—in seeking to prepare students for work. However,
it can also ultimately undermine its own purposes by turning many students away from certain academic
interests, because this kind of cut-and-dried reasoning frames knowledge as an objective, data-driven and
rational tool rather than a personally motivating, enjoyable or engaging subject capable of embracing
multiple epistemologies. Henriksen and Mishra (2018) note that an example of this happens in STEM
fields when we push participation and test scores in these areas solely because they offer high-paying
work and stable jobs, or because it feeds a patriotic rhetoric wherein STEM helps nations best others in
international competition. This logic fueled the US-USSR space race in the 1960s, where knowledge
was a tool to win an international competition—space exploration being its by-product.
Mehta et al. (2019) note that this sense of war and competition as the true value of education can be
seen in influential reports, such as 1983’s A Nation at Risk, where the authors begin by stating, “If an
unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance
that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war” (National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983, p. 5). In more recent years, even the best-intentioned policy approaches to invigorating
students’ interest in learning, such as President Obama’s STEM for All, have only focused on neoliberal
rationale for learning, such as to “land a good-paying job,” or offering every student the kinds of learn-
ing “that make them job-ready on day one.”
Though we do not deny the need for tested learning competencies as part of what schools do, we do
believe that a singular focus on such approaches misses what is engaging and motivating about learning—
and ironically, then misses the key driver that has motivated the most creative thinkers through history.
Clearly, a purely instrumental way of seeing education is not only of ethical concern, but is also an
existential challenge to what education is about (Olssen & Peters, 2007). Educators should consider the
purpose of education and the extent to which it is grounded in the kinds of aesthetic, emotionally reso-
nant, meaningful, and culturally sensitive approaches to learning that John Dewey’s and Paulo Freire’
works have emphasized. We believe that the ideas about education offered by Dewey and Freire provide a
sounder framework for preparing students for the uncertain and complex futures they will no doubt face.

Democratic Pedagogies for 21st Century Teaching and Learning

As mentioned earlier, Dewey’s (1923) notion of the role of democracy in education is a call for prepar-
ing responsible citizens capable of making informed decisions and choices that lead to public good. He
positions democracy not only as a political stance but also as an ethical ideal about informed participa-
tion. This involves a continual critique of societal values. If a society does not work for all the people, it
can then be revised by the citizens themselves. In creation of such a democratic society, education has a
profound moral purpose. Educators have the responsibility to help future generations build character as

372

A Profitable Education

Figure 2. An iterative framework of aesthetic inquiry (Mehta et al., 2019)

well as foster creative and disciplinary knowledge that prepares them for uncertain futures. Both character
and knowledge are needed to solve unexpected and unforeseen future problems.
To prepare for an uncertain future, Dewey argues that it is more important for citizenship to be driven
by aesthetic inquiries instead of instrumental motivations that only satisfy limited functions in a society.
As many have argued before Dewey, aesthetically motivated inquiries are likely to create more fulfilled
lives (Dewey, 1934; Girod, Twyman, & Wojcikiewicz, 2010; Schiller, 2016). An aesthetic framing also
shifts the focus from corporate agendas to wider social and democratic issues.
In figure 2, we share an example of an aesthetic framing that leads to a wide-based approach to in-
quiry, where interests in problems are driven by a sense of wonderment (that stem out of appreciation
and curiosity in the world) and concern for the betterment of society. In turn this leads to a personal
journey (and a process to refine our perception of the world), eventually reaching a point of fulfillment
and a sense of personal truth-making. Fulfillment, here, is not a terminal step, but rather a beginning
for further inquiries driven by a deeply aesthetic and humanistic understanding of the self and the world
(Mehta et al., 2019). Here, concepts of beauty and good help shape an understanding of a shared world
that works for all, not a selected few.
While an aesthetic framing helps set the foundation for more humanizing processes that promote
democratic values, another essential element for creating equity and justice-based social realities is
humanizing pedagogy.

Humanizing Pedagogies for 21st Century Teaching and Learning

At the center of approaches that foster and support a more democratic basis for education—such as
culturally sustaining pedagogies (Paris, 2012), culturally relevant teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1995), or
humanizing pedagogy (del Carmen Salazar, 2013)—is Freire’s pedagogy of the oppressed.
His ideas evolved out of an act of resistance against dominant practices in schools that marginalized
students of color and other historically oppressed populations. Freire (1970) described humanizing
pedagogy as a revolutionary approach to instruction that “ceases to be an instrument by which teachers
can manipulate students” to meet neoliberal expectations, but rather “expresses the consciousness of
the students themselves” (p. 51). He argued for a system where people consider themselves as equally
valued and respected, and have the agency to question power and the status quo.

373
 
A Profitable Education

As a step towards a just society, Freire (1970) offered the idea that full humanization begins with
a dialogic approach to education, pursued with the goal of developing critical consciousness, which is
“learning to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action against the op-
pressive elements of reality” (p. 17). Such critical consciousness that involves the continual questioning
of institutional power is often at odds with the neoliberal agenda. We argue that one goal of education is
to prepare students to be critical thinkers and conscious of agendas that promote oppression. Students,
from a Freirean perspective, need the capacity to counter such oppression with humanizing acts that
celebrate inclusion and diversity for the sake of social justice.
Bartolomé (1994) suggested that a humanizing pedagogy builds on the sociocultural realities of
students’ lives, and brings attention to the sociohistorical and political dimensions of education. It
casts students as critically engaged and active participants in the co-construction of knowledge. In such
educational systems, pedagogies and principles important for preparing the whole person for the “21st
century” look something like the following:

(a) the full development of a person is essential for humanization,

(b) to deny someone else’s humanization is also to deny one’s own,
(c) the journey for humanization is an individual and collective endeavor toward critical consciousness,
(d) critical reflection and action can transform structures that impede our own and others’ humanness,
thus facilitating liberation for all, and
(e) educators are responsible for promoting a more fully human-centred world through their inclusive
pedagogical principles and practices.

This list suggests the need for a restructuring of existing systems of knowledge, built on economic
imperatives and epistemic hierarchies in schools that often favor existing neoliberal, technological and
scientific agendas that sponsor the idea of 21st century skills. Paris and Alim’s (2014) work on culturally
sustaining pedagogies and Tuck and Yang’s (2012) ideas about decolonizing educational practice are
more in line with the humanizing pedagogies that are essential for an equitable and just future than is
perhaps evident in the notion of 21st century skills.

CONCLUSION

One purpose of education, arguably, is preparing people for an uncertain future, even setting the stage
for the needs of coming generations. But, in existing school systems, a focus on 21st century skills has
hitherto been aligned mostly with corporate ideology that results in a compliant and obedient work-
force. While seeking to develop skills that are beneficial for future success is important, we question the
alignment of education with corporate interests and market-driven needs. Our call is for a humanistic
education that is human-centered and is oriented to societal well-being.
In narrow educational systems based on high stakes testing, passive and efficient pupils are more
desirable than active, critical, and autonomous problem solvers, as envisioned by Dewey and Freire.
While the latter are more likely to question and change the status quo, the former are more likely to be
rewarded in the present social systems with high paying jobs, built on respect and power. Such systems
are infused with a neoliberal rhetoric that sounds progressive but is designed to feed the free-market

374

A Profitable Education

purposes of corporations and big tech, and maintaining the status quo rather than promote deeper kinds
of critical and creative thinking.
Given the history, ideology and politics of 21st century skills, we identify four key problems that
present a challenge to countering neoliberal policies in education. First, there is a lack of consensus about
what actually counts as 21st century skills and in what ways this skill set, apparently desired for contem-
porary students, differs from what might be termed ‘traditional’ thinking skills and literacies (Trilling
& Fadel, 2009). Second, if the nature of the skill set, linked to digital technologies, can be agreed upon,
how then can these skills be enacted in classrooms in ways that work for all students, not a selected few?
The issue of grounding these contested skills in practice remains a problem for researchers and educa-
tors. There is a clear discontinuity between what is claimed in popular or scholarly discourses and what
is seen in the classroom (Rosefsky, Saavedra & Opfer, 2012). Third, given the fluidity of technological
change and the increasing digitization of industry, workplaces, and educational contexts, the notion of
21st century skills must reflect this fluidity and be conceived as a term of transmutation that is open to
the future and to significant change, inclusive of epistemic and sociocultural diversity. This also means
embracing technological fluidity that is directed toward social justice and not just corporate interests.
Finally, and connected to the previous point, there is the issue of equity. The idea of 21st century skills
can be seen as reflecting the desires of the white middle class and neoliberal economics, and perhaps
points to the divide between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ (Darling-Hammond & Gandara, 2015). We
contend that not only is a consensus about the term needed but that it should reflect the needs of students
and the practices of educators, rather than being a ubiquitous term used for political and economic ends.
Keeping these challenges in mind, in this chapter, we have considered concerns about the uncritical
adoption of the neoliberal tendencies of 21st century skills and the continuing re-colonization of local
literacies (Patterson, 2015). The discourses of 21-century skills have been fundamentally flavored by
political and economic values, and such values have seeped into education (Dede et al., 2005).
We do not claim that we need to reject the term. There is utility in looking ahead to future aims and
fundamental educational purposes or desired skills. We do, however, assert the need for more critical-
ity and evaluation of existing power structures and neoliberal agendas that appear to drive the term.
For this, we offer Deweyan and Freirean examples of pedagogies that are better suited for the needs of
preparing students for uncertain futures that are socially just and equitable. The concept of 21st century
skills needs a thorough demystification and an honest appraisal about how useful it is for educational
policy and for school contexts. Freire (1970) reminds us that educational change needs to be grounded
in local action. Only then can we envision decolonization of the term by educators and researchers, or
a reimagining of 21st century skills that better reflect local needs and practices.

REFERENCES

AES. (2019). What are 21st century skills? Retrieved from https://www.aeseducation.com/career-
readiness/what-are-21st-century-skills
Andrews, D. (2015). The circular economy, design thinking and education for sustainability. Local
Economy, 30(3), 305–315. doi:10.1177/0269094215578226
Apple, M. W. (1978). Ideology, reproduction, and educational reform. Comparative Education Review,
22(3), 367–387. doi:10.1086/445993

375
 
A Profitable Education

Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone.
Learning and Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23.
Bartolome, L. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard Educational
Review, 64(2), 173–195. doi:10.17763/haer.64.2.58q5m5744t325730
Battelle for Kids. (2019). Portrait of a graduate: A first step in transforming your school system. Portrait
of a Graduate. Retrieved from https://portraitofagraduate.org/
Baucus, M. S., Norton, W. I. Jr, Baucus, D. A., & Human, S. E. (2008). Fostering creativity and innovation
without encouraging unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 97–115. doi:10.100710551-
007-9483-4
Bellanca, J. A. (Ed.). (2010). 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.
Bennis, D. (n.d.). What is democratic education? Institute of Democratic Education in America (IDEA).
Retrieved from http://democraticeducation.org/index.php/features/what-is-democratic-education/
Bernhardt, P. E. (2015). 21st century learning: Professional development in practice. Qualitative Report,
20(1), 1–19.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Senta, R., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). De-
fining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and Teaching
of 21st Century Skills (pp. 76-66). Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2
Boss, S. (2019, January 22). It’s 2019. So why do 21st-century skills still matter? EdSurge. Retrieved
from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-01-22-its-2019-so-why-do-21st-century-skills-still-matter
Bowcott, O., & Hern, A. (2018, April 10). Facebook and Cambridge Analytica face class action lawsuit.
The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/10/cambridge-analytica-
and-facebook-face-class-action-lawsuit
Bowman, J. (2017, February 11). Why Amazon.com Inc. is investing billions in India. The Motley Fool.
Retrieved from https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/11/why-amazoncom-inc-is-investing-billions-
in-india.aspx
Brown, P., Green, A., & Lauder, H. (2001). High skills: Globalization, competitiveness, and skill for-
mation: globalization, competitiveness, and skill formation. Oxford, UK: OUP. doi:10.1093/acprof:o
so/9780199244188.001.0001
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the
basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century US workforce. The Conference
Board, Inc., the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Corporate Voices for Working Families, and the
Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519465.pdf
Chapman, A., Randell-Moon, H., Campbell, M., & Drew, C. (2014). Students in space: Student practices
in non-traditional classrooms. Global Studies of Childhood, 4(1), 39–48. doi:10.2304/gsch.2014.4.1.39

376

A Profitable Education

Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of research on new litera-
cies. New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781410618894
Common Core. (2009). Why we are behind: What top nations teach their students but we don’t. Retrieved
from http://www.commoncore.org/_docs/CCreport_whybehind.pdf
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=X6KkCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=a+pedag
ogy+of+multiliteracies+learning+by+design&ots=CbVjTVzYLj&sig=1_t2q77wnOW7hP6YvmaCz-
QnFOA
Craft, A. (2008). Trusteeship, wisdom and the creative future of education? UNESCO Observatory:
Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Research in the Arts, 1(3), 1–20.
Craft, A., Chappell, K., & Twining, P. (2008). Learners reconceptualizing education: Widening par-
ticipation through creative engagement? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3),
235–245. doi:10.1080/14703290802176089
Darling-Hammond, L., & Gandara, P. (2015, March 11). Skills preparedness, equity must be part of 21st
century education policy priorities. The Hill. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/
education/258881-skills-preparedness-equity-must-be-part-of-21st-century
Dede, C. (2010). Technological supports for acquiring 21st century skills. International Encyclopedia
of Education, 3, 158-166.
Dede, C., Korte, S., Nelson, R., Valdez, G., & Ward, D. J. (2005). Transforming learning for the 21st
century: An economic imperative. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
del Carmen Salazar, M. (2013). A humanizing pedagogy: Reinventing the principles and practice
of education as a journey toward liberation. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 121–148.
doi:10.3102/0091732X12464032
Dewey, J. (1903). Democracy in education. The Elementary School Teacher, 4(4), 193–204.
doi:10.1086/453309
Dewey, J. (1923). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. London:
Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (2005). Art as experience. New York: Penguin. (Original work published 1934)
Ethirajan, A. (2019, May 11). The family networks behind the Sri Lanka bombings. BBC News. Retrieved
from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48218907
Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). Who are the social media influenc-
ers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90–92. doi:10.1016/j.
pubrev.2010.11.001
Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Galeano, E. (2006). Upside down: A primer for the looking-glass world. New York: Macmillan.

377
 
A Profitable Education

Gardner, D., & The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: the im-
perative for educational reform. an open letter to the American people. A report to the Nation and the
Secretary of Education. Retrieved from https://www.edreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/A_Na-
tion_At_Risk_1983.pdf
Giriharadas, A. (2018). When market is our only language (K, Tippet, interviewer) [Audio file]. Retrieved
from: https://onbeing.org/programs/anand-giridharadas-when-the-market-is-our-only-language-nov2018/
Girod, M., Twyman, T., & Wojcikiewicz, S. (2010). Teaching and learning science for transformative,
aesthetic experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 801–824. doi:10.100710972-009-9175-2
Goertz, P. (2015, February 27). 10 signs of a 21st century classroom. Edutopia. Retrieved from https://
www.edutopia.org/discussion/10-signs-21st-century-classroom
Great School Partnership. (2016, August 25). 21st century skills. The Glossary of Educational Reform.
Retrieved from https://www.edglossary.org/21st-century-skills/
Griffin, P., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2014). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and ap-
proach. Springer.
Guido, M. (2018, July 19). How to teach convergent and divergent thinking: definitions, examples, templates
and more. Prodigy. Retrieved from https://www.prodigygame.com/blog/convergent-divergent-thinking/
Han, B. C. (2017). Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and new technologies of power. New York: Verso Books.
Henriksen, D. (2019). Expanding the paradigm: Bringing designerly perspectives into creativity scholar-
ship. Creativity Studies, 12(1), 15–33. doi:10.3846/cs.2019.6757
Horowitz, J. M., & Graf, N. (2019, February 20). Most U.S. teens see anxiety, depression as major
problems. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/02/20/most-u-
s-teens-see-anxiety-and-depression-as-a-major-problem-among-their-peers/
Hung, D., Shu-Shing, L., & Lim, K. (2012). Authenticity in learning for the twenty-first century: Bridg-
ing the formal and the informal. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 1071–1091.
doi:10.100711423-012-9272-3
International Teaching in Motion. (2017). What does a 21st century classroom look, sound, and feel
like? Education Rickshaw. Retrieved from https://educationrickshaw.com/2017/08/02/what-does-a-21st-
century-classroom-look-sound-and-feel-like/
Jones, A. (2008). The rise of global work. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33(1),
12–26. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2007.00284.x
Kenton, W. (2019, May 30). Neoliberalism. Investopedia. Retrieved from: https://www.investopedia.
com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp
Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth: Teacher
knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 127–140.
doi:10.1080/21532974.2013.10784716
Kotz, D. M. (2015). The rise and fall of neoliberal capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

378

A Profitable Education

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York: Routledge.
Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy.
Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. doi:10.1080/00405849509543675
Luka, I. (2014). Design thinking in pedagogy. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 2, 63–74.
Manjoo, F. (2019, May 1). The Uber I.P.O. is a moral stain on Silicon Valley. New York Times. Retrieved
from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/opinion/uber-ipo.html
Mataen, D. (2012). Africa–the ultimate frontier market: A guide to the business and investment oppor-
tunities in emerging Africa. Petersfield, UK: Harriman House Limited.
Mehta, R. (2017). What does it mean to be literate? Designing and implementing a framework of inclu-
sive literacy practices in a rural context (PhD Dissertation). Michigan State University. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED580986
Mehta, R., & Henriksen, D. (2019). An embodied, dialogic endeavor: Towards a posthumanizing ap-
proach to creativity with Dr. Kerry Chappell. TechTrends, 63(1), 1–7. doi:10.100711528-018-0357-7
Mehta, R., Keenan, S., Henriksen, D., & Mishra, P. (2019). Developing a rhetoric of aesthetics: The
(often) forgotten link between art and STEM. In M. Khine & S. Areepattamannil (Eds.), STEAM Educa-
tion: Theory and Practice (pp. 117–141). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04003-1_7
Mehta, R., Mehta, S., & Seals, C. (2017). A holistic approach to science education: Disciplinary, af-
fective, and equitable. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 36(3), 269–286.
Mishra, P., & Kereluik, K. (2011). What 21st century learning? A review and a synthesis. In M. Koehler
& P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2011--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference (pp. 3301-3312). Nashville, TN: Association for the Advancement of Computing
in Education (AACE). Retrieved February 28, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/36828/
Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Henriksen, D. (2011). The seven trans-disciplinary habits of mind: Ex-
tending the TPACK framework towards 21st century learning. Educational Technology, 51(2), 22–28.
Mishra, P., & Mehta, R. (2017). What we educators get wrong about 21st-century learning: Results of
a survey. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 3(1), 6–19. doi:10.1080/21532974.2016.
1242392
Moran, S., Cropley, D., & Kaufman, J. (2014). The ethics of creativity. London, UK: Palgrave MacMil-
lan. doi:10.1057/9781137333544
Newton, L., & Newton, D. (2014). Creativity in 21st-century education. Prospects, 44(4), 575–589.
doi:10.100711125-014-9322-1
Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy:
From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345.
doi:10.1080/02680930500108718
Ong, A. (2007). Neoliberalism as a mobile technology. Transactions of the Institute of British Geogra-
phers, 32(1), 3–8. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2007.00234.x

379
 
A Profitable Education

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy, a needed change in stance, terminology, and practice.
Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. doi:10.3102/0013189X12441244
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining
pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100. doi:10.17763/
haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2019). Together, we can realize the power and promise of 21st
century learning for every student. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework
Patterson, J. (2015). 21st century learning initiatives as a manifestation of neoliberalism. In K. Sturges
(Ed.), Neoliberalizing Educational Reform. Bold Visions in Educational Research (pp. 213–237). Rot-
terdam: SensePublishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-977-7_9
Peters, M. (1999). Neoliberalism. In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education. Available online at:
http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/neoliberalism.htm
Reisinger, D. (2012, May 18). Facebook sued for $15 billion over alleged privacy infractions. CNET. Re-
trieved from https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-sued-for-15-billion-over-alleged-privacy-infractions/
Rich, E. (2010, October 11). How do you define 21st-century learning? Education Week. Retrieved from
https://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2010/10/12/01panel.h04.html
Rosefsky Saavedra, A., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teach-
ing. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8–13. doi:10.1177/003172171209400203
Ross, D. (2017, April 24). Empowering our students with 21st century skills for today. Getting Smart.
Retrieved from https://www.gettingsmart.com/2017/04/empowering-students-21st-century-skills/
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal,
24(1), 92–96. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Rushkoff, D. (2019, March 21). What if Mark Zuckerberg had stayed in school? Medium. Retrieved from
https://medium.com/s/douglas-rushkoff/what-if-mark-zuckerberg-had-stayed-in-school-321aa3129af5
Sawchuk, S. (2009). Motives of 21st-century-skills group questioned. Education Week, 29(14), 18–21.
Schiller, F. (2016). On the aesthetic education of man. Penguin.
Shermer, E. T. (2014). Review. The Journal of Modern History, 86(4), 884–890. doi:10.1086/678713
Silver, L. (2019, May 13). Social media users in 11 countries see false information online. Pew Research
Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/13/misinformation-and-fears-
about-its-impact-are-pervasive-in-11-emerging-economies/
Smith, B. L. N. (2018). Public transparency, student privacy, and technological persuasion in education:
Refining some concerns of opt out. Thresholds in Education, 41(3), 19.
Specia, M., & Mozur, P. (2017, October 27). A war of words puts Facebook at the center of Myanmar’s
Rohingya crisis. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/world/asia/
myanmar-government-facebook-rohingya.html

380

A Profitable Education

Suto I., Eccles, H., & Cambridge Assessment. (2014). The Cambridge approach to 21st Century skills:
definitions, development and dilemmas for assessment. A paper presented at the IAEA Conference,
Singapore. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/461811-the-cambridge-
approach-to-21st-century-skills-definitions-development-and-dilemmas-for-assessment-.pdf
Thiel Foundation. (n.d.). The Thiel Fellowship. Retrieved from https://thielfellowship.org/
Thornton, K. (2018, July 25). Fostering divergent thinkers. Nine Billion Schools. Retrieved from
https://9billionschools.org/theblog/2018/7/25/fostering-divergent-thinkers
Thoughtful Learning. (2019). What are 21st century skills? Thoughtful Learning. Retrieved from https://
k12.thoughtfullearning.com/FAQ/what-are-21st-century-skills
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills. Learning for life in our times. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization, 1(1), 1–40.
Urciuoli, B. (2008). Skills and selves in the new workplace. American Ethnologist, 35(2), 211–228.
doi:10.1111/j.1548-1425.2008.00031.x
Van de Oudeweetering, K., & Voogt, J. (2018). Teachers’ conceptualization and enactment of twenty-first
century competences: Exploring dimensions for new curricula. Curriculum Journal, 29(1), 116–133.
doi:10.1080/09585176.2017.1369136
Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Good, J., & McLean, T. (2017). Computational thinking in teacher education. In
P. Rich & C. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp.
205–220). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_13

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Globalization: Is an economic move to internationalize trade, finance, and investment so the inter-
national market can be dominated by capitalistic models. Some scholars fear this also promotes neo-
colonization and cultural homogenization.

381
382

Compilation of References

Abbitt, J. T., & Klett, M. D. (2007). Identifying influences on attitudes and self-efficacy. Academic Press.

ABCmouse.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.abcmouse.com/programorverview

Abramovich, G. (2018). Fifteen mind-blowing stats about artificial intelligence. Retrieved June 2019: https://www.adobe.
com/insights/15-stats-about-artificial-intelligence.html

Adorjan, M., & Ricciardelli, R. (2019). Student perspectives towards school responses to cyber-risk and safety: The
presumption of the prudent digital citizen. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–13.

AES. (2019). What are 21st century skills? Retrieved from https://www.aeseducation.com/career-readiness/what-are-
21st-century-skills

Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Samah, B. A., & Fooi, F. S. (2009). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information
and communication technology. Online Submission, 2(1), 77–104.

Akilli, G. (2007). Games and simulations: A new approach in education? In D. Gibson, C. Aldrich, & M. Prensky (Eds.),
Games and simulations in online learning: Research and development frameworks (pp. 1–20). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Publishing. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-304-3.ch001

Al-Awidi, H. M., & Alghazo, I. M. (2012). The effect of student teaching experience on preservice elementary teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration in the UAE. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5),
923–941. doi:10.100711423-012-9239-4

Alberta Regional Consortia. (2015). The Provincial First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Professional Learning Project. Re-
trieved from http://fnmied.blogspot.ca/

Aldrich, C. (2009). Learning online with games, simulations, and virtual worlds: Strategies for online instruction.
Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

Alfred, T. (2004). Warrior scholarship: Seeing the university as a ground of contention. Indigenizing the academy:
Transforming scholarship and empowering communities, 88.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Sloan
Consortium.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade Level: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research
Group.

Al-Musawi, A. S. (2011). Redefining technology role in education. Creative Education, 2(2), 130–135. doi:10.4236/
ce.2011.22018



Compilation of References

Althauser, R., & Darnall, K. (2001). Enhancing critical reading and writing through peer reviews: An exploration of
assisted performance. Teaching Sociology, 29(1), 23–35. doi:10.2307/1318780

Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, Social Media & Technology 2018. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://
www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/

Anderson, M., & Kumar, M. (2019). Digital divide persists even as lower-income Americans make gains in tech adoption.
Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/07/digital-divide-persists-even-
as-lower-income-americans-make-gains-in-tech-adoption/

Anderson, T., Liam, R., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing
context. Academic Press.

Anderson, D., Imdieke, S., Lubig, J., Reissner, L., Sabin, J., & Standerford, S. (2010). Self-study through collaborative
conference protocol: Studying self through the eyes of colleagues. Teaching and Learning, 2(24), 59–71.

Anderson, R. S. (1998). Why talk about different ways to grade? The shift from traditional assessment to alternative
assessment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 74, 5–16. doi:10.1002/tl.7401

Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27–30.
doi:10.3200/CTCH.53.1.27-31

Andrews, D. (2015). The circular economy, design thinking and education for sustainability. Local Economy, 30(3),
305–315. doi:10.1177/0269094215578226

Andrews, R. (2009). Argumentation in higher education: Improving practice through theory and research. New York,
NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203872710

Apkan, J. P. (2002). Which comes first: Computer simulation of dissection or a traditional laboratory practical method
of dissection. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(4).

Apple, M. W. (1978). Ideology, reproduction, and educational reform. Comparative Education Review, 22(3), 367–387.
doi:10.1086/445993

Arasaratnam-Smith, L. A., & Northcote, M. (2017). Community in Online Higher Education: Challenges and Opportuni-
ties. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(2), 188-198.

Arbaugh, J. B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses.
Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 42–54. doi:10.1177/108056990106400405

Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Finch, R. (2006). An investigation of epistemological and social dimensions of teach-
ing in online learning environments. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 435–447. doi:10.5465/
amle.2006.23473204

Archambault, I., & Crippen, K. (2007). The sites teachers choose: A gauge of classroom Web use. Contemporary Issues
in Technology & Teacher Education, 7(2), 59–74.

Athreya, B. H., & Mouza, C. (2016). Thinking skills for the digital generation: The development of thinking and learn-
ing in the age of information. Springer.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2016). 8146.0 Household use of information technology, Australia, 2014–15.
Canberra: ABS. Retrieved from www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs @.nsf/mf/8146.0

Australian Curriculum. (n.d.). Digital technologies in focus. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/

resources/digital-technologies-in-focus/

383
 Compilation of References

Avard, M. (2006, January 31). Civic Engagement in the Classroom. NSTA. Retrieved May 13, 2019, from https://www.
nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=52839

Baartman, L., & Bruijn, E. (2011). Integrating knowledge, skills and attitudes: Conceptualising learning processes toward
vocational competence. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 125–134. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.03.001

Bachore, M. M. (2015). Language learning through mobile technologies: An opportunity for language learners and
teachers. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(31).

Báez, C. P., Hennig, C., & Segovia, Y. (2013). Pedagogical models, collaborative work and interaction on online under-
graduate programmes in Colombia: Still some way to go. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 10(2), 431–445.

Baker, A., Jensen, P., & Kolb, D. (2002). Conversational learning: An approach to knowledge creation. Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.

Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and
motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), n1. doi:10.9743/JEO.2010.1.2

Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. The Elementary
School Journal, 90(4), 449–466. doi:10.1086/461626

Bandura, A. (2004). Article. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New
York, NY: Academic Press.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 PMID:847061

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2),
117–148. doi:10.120715326985ep2802_3

Baran, E. (2016). Investigating faculty technology mentoring as a university-wide professional development model.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(1), 45–71. doi:10.100712528-015-9104-7

Barnett, S., Jones, S. C., Caton, T., Iverson, D., Bennett, S., & Robinson, L. (2014). Implementing a virtual community
of practice for family physician training: A mixed-methods case study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(3), e83.
doi:10.2196/jmir.3083 PMID:24622292

Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning and
Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23.

Bartolome, L. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 64(2),
173–195. doi:10.17763/haer.64.2.58q5m5744t325730

Battelle for Kids. (2019). Portrait of a graduate: A first step in transforming your school system. Portrait of a Graduate.
Retrieved from https://portraitofagraduate.org/

Baucus, M. S., Norton, W. I. Jr, Baucus, D. A., & Human, S. E. (2008). Fostering creativity and innovation without
encouraging unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 97–115. doi:10.100710551-007-9483-4

Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. The Journal of Documentation, 57(2),
218–259. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000007083

Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knoble (Eds.), Digital literacies:
Concepts, policies and practices. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

384
Compilation of References

Bax, S. (2005). CALL – past, present and future. System, 31(1), 13–28. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00071-4

Baxter, P. E., & Jack, S. M. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice
researchers. Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–549.

Bayaktar, S. (2001). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in science education. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 173–188. doi:10.1080/15391523.2001.10782344

BBC News. (2008). Nasa investigates virtual space. Retrieved May 2019: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7195718.
stm

Bdiwi, R., De Runz, C., Faiz, S., Cherif, A.A. (2018). Smart learning environments. In Teacher’s role in assessing
classroom attention. Research in Learning Technology.

Beers, K. (2003). When Kids Can’t Read: What Teachers Can Do. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Beggs, T. A. (2000). Influences and Barriers to the Adoption of Instructional Technology. Academic Press.

Belenky, M. F., Mc Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing; The development
of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Belenky, M. F., Bond, L. A., & Weinstock, J. S. (1997). A tradition that has no name: Nurturing the development of
people, families, and communities. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Bellanca, J. A. (Ed.). (2010). 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Benade, L. (2017). Is the classroom obsolete in the twenty-first century? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(8),
796–807. doi:10.1080/00131857.2016.1269631

Benbow, J., Mizrachi, A., Oliver, D., & Said-Moshiro, L. (2007). Large class sizes in the developing world: What do
we know and what can we do? American Institutes for Research under the EQUIP1 LWA / US Agency for International
Development.

Benbunan-Fich, R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2006). Separating the effects of knowledge construction and group collaboration
in learning outcomes of web-based courses. Information & Management, 43(6), 778–793. doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.09.001

Bennis, D. (n.d.). What is democratic education? Institute of Democratic Education in America (IDEA). Retrieved from
http://democraticeducation.org/index.php/features/what-is-democratic-education/

Benton, S. L., & Pallet, W. H. (2013, Jan. 29). Class size matters. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.inside-
highered.com/views/2013/01/29/essay-importance-class-size-higher-education

Berdick, C. (2015). Reading, writing, ’arithmetic, ’programming: Should every school class be a computer coding class?
Slate. Retrieved from https://slate.com/technology/2015/04/building-coding-into-art-english-and-history-classes.html

Bergh, B., Edge, C., Cameron-Standerford, A., Imdieke, S., Standerford, N. S., & Reissner. (2014). (Re)Seeing our Teacher
Education Practices through Visual Literacy. American Reading Forum Annual Yearbook, 34. Retrieved from http://
americanreadingforum.org/yearbook/14_yearbook/documents/Bergh.ReSeeing_Our_Teacher_Education_Practices.pdf

Berlin, J. A. (1982). Contemporary Composition: The major pedagogical theories. College English, 44(8), 765–777.
doi:10.2307/377329

Berlin, J. A. (1992). Poststructural, cultural studies and the composition classroom: Postmodern theory in practice.
Rhetoric Review, 11(1), 16–33. doi:10.1080/07350199209388984

385
 Compilation of References

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009).
A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3),
1243–1289. doi:10.3102/0034654309333844

Bernhardt, P. E. (2015). 21st century learning: Professional development in practice. Qualitative Report, 20(1), 1–19.

Berrett, B., Murphy, J., & Sullivan, J. (2012). Administrator insights and reflections: Technology integration in schools.
Qualitative Report, 17(1), 200–221. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ973041.pdf

Berry, A. (2004). Self-study in teaching about teaching. In International Handbook of Self-Study Practices, Part Two.
Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6545-3_34

Berry, A. (2007). Tensions in teaching about teaching: Understanding practice as a teacher educator (Vol. 5). New
York, NY: Springer.

Bigham, S. G., Hively, D. E., & Toole, G. H. (2014). Principals’ and cooperating teachers’ expectations of teacher
candidates. Education, 135(2), 211–229.

Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Senta, R., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first
century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (pp. 76-66).
Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2

Bismack, A. S., Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A., & Palinscar, A. S. (2014). Connecting curriculum materials and teachers:
Elementary science teachers’ enactment of a reform-based curricular unit. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(4),
489–512. doi:10.100710972-013-9372-x

Blackley, S., & Sheffield, R. (2015). Digital andragogy: A richer blend of initial teacher education in the 21st century.
Issues in Educational Research, 25(4), 397–414.

Blackstock, D., Edel-Malizia, S., Bittner, K., & Smithwick, E. (2017). Investigating interactive video assessment tools
for online and blended learning. In International Conference on e-Learning (pp. 31-39). Academic Conferences Inter-
national Limited.

Blocher, J. M., Armfield, S. W., Sujo-Montes, L., Tucker, G., & Willis, E. (2011). Contextually based professional
development. Computers in Schools, 28(2), 158–169. doi:10.1080/07380569.2011.577398

Bloom, B. S. (1980). All our children learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systematic
reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3),
149–164. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3503_2

Bode, L., Vraga, E. K., Borah, P., & Shah, D. V. (2014). A new space for political behavior: Political social networking and
its democratic consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 414–429. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12048

Boghikian-Whitby, S., & Mortagy, Y. (2016). Student preferences and performance in online and face-to-face classes
using Myers-Briggs Indicator: A longitudinal quasi-experimental study. Issues in Informing Science and Information
Technology, 13, 89-109.

Boling, E. C., Holan, E., Horbatt, B., Hough, M., Jean-Louis, J., Khurana, C., & Spiezio, C. (2014). Using online tools
for communication and collaboration: Understanding educators’ experiences in an online course. The Internet and Higher
Education, 23, 48-55. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.07.002

386
Compilation of References

Bolsen, T., Evans, M., & Fleming, A. M. (2016). A Comparison of online and face-to-face approaches to teaching
introduction to American government. Journal of Political Science Education, 12(3), 302–317. doi:10.1080/1551216
9.2015.1090905

Booth, J. (2008). The influence of professional development in technology integration on teacher pedagogy and student
engagement in fourth and fifth grade elementary classrooms in an urban elementary school in the northeast (Order No.
3315153). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection.
(230711652). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.gardnerwebb.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/23

Bork, A. (2002). Interactive learning–interactive learning: Twenty years later. Contemporary Issues in Technology &
Teacher Education, 2(4), 605–611.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8),
3–15. doi:10.3102/0013189X033008003

Boss, S. (2019, January 22). It’s 2019. So why do 21st-century skills still matter? EdSurge. Retrieved from https://www.
edsurge.com/news/2019-01-22-its-2019-so-why-do-21st-century-skills-still-matter

Boston, W. (2019). The Outcomes Imperative for Adaptive Learning. Accountability, Online Education, Technology.
Retrieved March 2019: https://wallyboston.com/new-realities-in-higher-education/

Botsch, R. E., & Botsch, C. S. (2012). Audiences and outcomes in online and traditional American government classes
revisited. PS, Political Science & Politics, 45(3), 493–500. doi:10.1017/S104909651200042X

Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2014). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other.
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315042565

Bowcott, O., & Hern, A. (2018, April 10). Facebook and Cambridge Analytica face class action lawsuit. The Guardian.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/10/cambridge-analytica-and-facebook-face-class-action-
lawsuit

Bowman, J. (2017, February 11). Why Amazon.com Inc. is investing billions in India. The Motley Fool. Retrieved from
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/11/why-amazoncom-inc-is-investing-billions-in-india.aspx

Boyle, E. A., Connolly, T. M., & Hainey, T. (2011). The role of psychology in understanding the impact of computer
games. Entertainment Computing, 2(2), 69–74. doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2010.12.002

Bozionelos, N. (2004). Mentoring provided: Relation to mentor’s career success, personality, and mentoring received.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 24–46. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00033-2

Brand, J., Todhunter, S., & Jervis, J. (2017). DA: 18 Digital Australia Report. Eveleigh, Australia: Interactive Games
& Entertainment Association.

Branon, R. F., & Essex, C. (2001). Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education. Tech-
Trends, 45(1), 36–36. doi:10.1007/BF02763377

Breakstone, J., McGrew, S., Smith, M., Ortega, T., & Wineburg, S. (2018). Why we need a new approach to teaching
digital literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(6), 27–32. doi:10.1177/0031721718762419

Breuch, L. M. K. (2002). Post-process “pedagogy”: A philosophical exercise. Journal of Advanced Composition, 22(1),
119–150.

Breuer, J., & Bente, G. (2010). Why so serious? On the relation of serious games and learning. Journal for Computer
Game Culture, 4, 7–24.

387
 Compilation of References

Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer
self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. International Society for Technology in Education, 39(1),
22-43. Retrieved from www.iste.org/jrte

Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Hansen, N. (2011). Collaborative writing with web 2.0 technologies: Education students’
perspectives. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 73–103.

Brown-Jeffy, S., & Cooper, J. E. (2011). Toward a conceptual framework of culturally relevant pedagogy: An overview
of the conceptual and theoretical literature. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(1), 65–84.

Brown, P., Green, A., & Lauder, H. (2001). High skills: Globalization, competitiveness, and skill formation: globaliza-
tion, competitiveness, and skill formation. Oxford, UK: OUP. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199244188.001.0001

Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York,
NY: HarperCollins.

Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge.
Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belkapp Press.

Bryce, N. (2014). Teacher candidates’ collaboration and identity in online discussions. Journal of University Teaching
& Learning Practice, 11(1), 7.

Brzycki, D., & Dudt, K. (2005). Overcoming barriers to technology use in teacher preparation programs. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 619–641.

Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachers adoption and integration of information and communication
technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 8(1).

Buchanan, J. (2012). Telling Tales out of school: Exploring why former teachers are not returning to the classroom.
Australian Journal of Education, 56(2), 205–220. doi:10.1177/000494411205600207

Buckingham, D. (2010). Defining digital literacy. In Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen (pp. 59–71). VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.

Build the 21st century classroom infrastructure. (2018). T H E Journal, 45(2), 11-12.

Bullough, R. V. (1997). Practicing theory and theorizing practice in teacher education. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.),
Teaching about Teaching (pp. 13-31). London: Falmer Press.

Bullough, R. V. (1994). Personal history and teaching metaphors: A self study of teaching as conversation. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 21(1), 107–120.

Bullough, R. V. Jr, & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study research. Edu-
cational Researcher, 30(3), 13–21. doi:10.3102/0013189X030003013

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Occupational Outlook Handbook, Software Developers.
Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm

Butler, D., & Sellbom, M. (2002). Barriers to Adopting Technology for Teaching and Learning. Education Quarterly,
25(2), 22–28.

Byker, J., Good, A.J., Miller, E., & Kissel, B. (2018, Winter). Multicultural media authorship. 21st Century Learning
and Multicultural Education, 22-25.

388
Compilation of References

Cakir, R. (2012). Technology integration and technology leadership in schools as learning organizations. Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology

Calderhead, J. (1991). The nature and growth of knowledge in student teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(5-6),
531–535. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(91)90047-S

Calhoun, G., Draper, M., & Miller, C. (2013). Adaptable Automation Interface for Multi-Unmanned Aerial Systems
Control: Preliminary Usability Evaluation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.
10.1177/1541931213571008

Callaghan, V., Gardner, M., & Davies, M. (2008). Towards a Mixed Reality Intelligent Campus. In Intelligent Environments
of 08. University of Essex. Retrieved May 2019: https://www.academia.edu/11914123/TOWARDS_A_MIXED_REAL-
ITY_INTELLIGENT_CAMPUS

Callaghan, V., Gardner, M., Horan, B., & Scott, J. (2008). A Mixed Reality Teaching and Learning Environment. Hybrid
Learning and Education. Retrieved June 2019: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221116738_A-Mixed-Reality-
Teaching-and-the-Learning-Environment

Cameron-Standerford, A., Edge, C., & Bergh, B. (2016). Toward a framework for reading lived experiences as texts: A
four-year self-study of teacher education practices. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology
for professional inquiry (pp. 371–377). Herstmonceux, UK: S-STEP.

Capo, B. H., & Orellana, A. (2012). Web 2.0 technologies for classroom instruction: High school teachers’ perceptions
and adoption factors. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(4), 235.

Care, E., Kim, H., Vista, A. & Anderson, K. (2018). Education system alignment for 21st century skills: focus on assess-
ment. Centre for Universal Education at Bookings.

Care, E., & Luo, R. (2016). Assessment of transversal competencies, policy & practice Asia-Pacific region. Bangkok,
Thailand: UNESCO.

Carnevale, T., & Hines, M. (2006). The NEURON Book. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511541612

Carpenter, T. G., Brown, W. L., & Hickman, R. C. (2004). Influences of online delivery on developmental writing out-
comes. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(1), 14.

Carpini, M. X. D., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.

Carver, L. B. (2016). Teacher perception of barriers and benefits in K-12 technology usage. The Turkish Online Journal
of Educational Technology, 15(1), 110–116.

Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge
and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century US workforce. The Conference Board, Inc., the Partnership for 21st
Century Skills, Corporate Voices for Working Families, and the Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519465.pdf

Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among youth: A Comprehensive review of current in-
ternational research and its implications and application to policy and practice. School Psychology International, 34(6),
575–612. doi:10.1177/0143034313479697

CAST. (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, Version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.

389
 Compilation of References

Cejda, B. (2010). Online education in community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010(150), 7–16.
doi:10.1002/cc.400

Cervetti, G. N., Kulikowich, J. M., & Bravo, M. A. (2015). The effects of educative curriculum materials on teachers’ use
of instructional strategies for English language learners in science and on student learning. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 40, 86–98. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.10.005

Chadha, A. (2018a). Personalized Online Reflective Deliberations: No Significant Differences across Institution Type.
Journal of Institutional Research, 7, 60–74.

Chadha, A. (2018b). Peer Interactions: Extending Pedagogical Deliberations into the Virtual Hallway. International
Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 8(3), 1–17. doi:10.4018/IJOPCD.2018070101

Chadha, A. (2018c). Virtual Classrooms: Analyzing student and instructor collaborative experiences. The Journal of
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(3). doi:10.14434/josotl.v18i3.22318

Challinor, J., Marin, V., & Tur, G. (2017). The development of the reflective practitioner through digital storytelling.
International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 9(2/3), 186–203. doi:10.1504/IJTEL.2017.084498

Chang, C., & Wang, H. (2009). Issues of inquiry learning in digital learning environments. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 40(1), 169–173. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00850.x

Chan, T. W. (2010). How East Asian classrooms may change over the next 20 years. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 26(1), 28–52. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00342.x

Chapman, A., Randell-Moon, H., Campbell, M., & Drew, C. (2014). Students in space: Student practices in non-traditional
classrooms. Global Studies of Childhood, 4(1), 39–48. doi:10.2304/gsch.2014.4.1.39

Chen, C. (2010). The implementation and evaluation of a mobile self- and peer-assessment system. Computers & Educa-
tion, 55(1), 229–236. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.008

Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1999). Peer and teacher assessment of the oral and written tasks of a group project. Assess-
ment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(3), 301–314. doi:10.1080/0260293990240304

Chen, Y., & Tsai, C. (2009). An educational research course facilitated by online peer assessment. Innovations in Educa-
tion and Teaching International, 46(1), 105–117. doi:10.1080/14703290802646297

Cherner, T., & Curry, K. (2017). Enhancement or transformation? A case study of preservice teachers’ use of instructional
technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 17(2), 268–290.

Chin, K. & Chen, Y. (2013). A mobile learning support system for ubiquitous learning environments. 2nd International
Conference on Integrated Information, 73, 14–21. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.02.013

Cho, J., Ahmed, S., Keum, H., Choi, Y. J., & Lee, J. H. (2018). Influencing myself: Self-reinforcement through online
political expression. Communication Research, 45(1), 83–111. doi:10.1177/0093650216644020

Christian, D. (2013). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems. University of Aarhus.

Chu, S. K., & Kennedy, D. M. (2011). Using online collaborative tools for groups to co-construct knowledge. Online
Information Review, 35(4), 581–597. doi:10.1108/14684521111161945

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research
on curriculum (pp. 363–401). New York, NY: Macmillan.

390
Compilation of References

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories—stories of
teachers—stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24–30.

Clandinin, J. D. (1985). Personal practical knowledge: A study of teachers’ classroom images. Curriculum Inquiry, 15(4),
361–385. doi:10.1080/03626784.1985.11075976

Coiro, J. (2011). Talking about reading as thinking: Modeling the hidden complexities of online reading comprehension.
Theory into Practice, 50(2), 107–115. doi:10.1080/00405841.2011.558435

Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skills reading to
search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257. doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2

Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of research on new literacies. New York:
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781410618894

Coiro, J., Sekeres, D., Castek, J., & Guzniczack, L. (2014). Comparing the quality of third, fourth, and fifth graders’
social interactions and cognitive strategy use during structured online inquiry. Journal of Education, 194(2), 1–15.
doi:10.1177/002205741419400202

Colflesh, N. A. (1996). Piece-making: The relationships between women’s lives and the patterns and variations that emerge
in their talk about school leadership (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling
in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. T., & Sutton, I. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for con-
ducting mixed-methods research in Special Education and beyond. Learning Disabilities (Weston, Mass.), 4(1), 67–100.

Collinson, V. (2001). Intellectual, social, and moral development: Why technology cannot replace teachers. High School
Journal, 85(1), 35–44. doi:10.1353/hsj.2001.0015

Common Core. (2009). Why we are behind: What top nations teach their students but we don’t. Retrieved from http://
www.commoncore.org/_docs/CCreport_whybehind.pdf

Computer-assisted instruction. (2009). In Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.

com.source.unco.edu/entry/ebconcise /computer_assisted_intruction

Connolly, N., & McGuinness, C. (2018). Towards digital literacy for the active participation and engagement of young
people in a digital world. In M. Magkou, R. Schwalbach, & B. Spruyt (Eds.), Perspectives on youth: Young people in a
digitalised world, 4, 77. Council of Europe.

Constantakis, P. (2016). Integrating Digital Tools for Adult Learners: Four Critical Factors. Retrieved from https://
digitalpromise.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/03/dp-integrating_digital_tools.pdf

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design. Retrieved from https://books.
google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=X6KkCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=a+pedagogy+of+multiliteracies+lear
ning+by+design&ots=CbVjTVzYLj&sig=1_t2q77wnOW7hP6YvmaCz-QnFOA

Cornelissen, F., & van den Berg, E. (2014). Characteristics of the research supervision of postgraduate teachers’ action
research. Educational Studies, 40(3), 237–252. doi:10.1080/03055698.2013.870881

Cornu, B. (2010). Digital Natives in a Knowledge Society: New Challenges for Education and for Teachers. In ICT in
Teacher Education: Policy, Open Educational Resources and Partnership. UNESCO.

Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 49–51.

391
 Compilation of References

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2015). CAEP accreditation standards. Retrieved 30 March 2019
from http://caepnet.org/

Cox, S., & Graham, C. (2009). An Elaborated Model of the TPACK Framework. In Proceedings of Society for Informa-
tion Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/31291

Craft, A. (2008). Trusteeship, wisdom and the creative future of education? UNESCO Observatory: Journal of Multi-
Disciplinary Research in the Arts, 1(3), 1–20.

Craft, A., Chappell, K., & Twining, P. (2008). Learners reconceptualizing education: Widening participation through creative
engagement? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 235–245. doi:10.1080/14703290802176089

Craig, J. (2014). What Have We Been Writing About? Patterns and Trends in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
in Political Science. Journal of Political Science Education, 10(1), 23–36. doi:10.1080/15512169.2013.859086

Crampton, A., Ragusa, A. T., & Cavanagh, H. (2015). Exploring the role of technology in fostering sense of belonging
in students studying by distance. Sydney: Office for Learning and Teaching, Department of Education and Training.

Crawford, C., & Persaud, C. (2013). Community colleges online. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 75-82.
Retrieved from: http://www.cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/TLC/article/Download/7534/7600

Creer, A. (2018). Introducing everyday ‘digital literacy practices into the classroom: an analysis of multi-layered me-
dia, modes and their affordances. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 7(2), 131-139. Doi:10.7821/
naer.2018.7.265

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five traditions (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Crook, C. (2012). The “digital native” in context: Tensions associated with importing web 2.0 practices into the school
setting. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 63–80. doi:10.1080/03054985.2011.577946

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Ex-
plaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834. doi:10.3102/00028312038004813

Culp, K., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279307. doi:10.2190/7W71-QVT2-PAP2-UDX7

Curtner-Smith, M. (1996). The impact of an early field experience on preservice physical education teachers’ conceptions
of teaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(2), 224–249. doi:10.1123/jtpe.15.2.224

Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Gandara, P. (2015, March 11). Skills preparedness, equity must be part of 21st century education
policy priorities. The Hill. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/education/258881-skills-preparedness-
equity-must-be-part-of-21st-century

Darvin, R. (2018). Digital literacy, language learning, and educational policy in British Columbia. In C. Crandall & M.
Bailey (Eds.), Global perspectives on language education policies. New York, NY: Routledge.

392
Compilation of References

Dash, M. K. (2014). Technology Mediated Learning for Professional Development of Teachers. E-Learning in Teacher
Education: Experiences and Emerging Issues. Delhi: University of Delhi.

Davies, P. (2000). Computerized peer assessment. Innovations in Education & Training International, 37(4), 346–354.
doi:10.1080/135580000750052955

Davies, P. (2002). Using student reflective self-assessment for awarding degree classifications. Innovations in Education
& Training International, 39(4), 307–319. doi:10.1080/13558000210161034

Davies, W. M. (2008). ‘Not quite right’: Helping students to make better arguments. Teaching in Higher Education,
13(3), 327–340. doi:10.1080/13562510802045352

Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational
Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X034003003

Davis, E. A., Palinscar, A. S., Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Marulis, L. M., & Iwashyna, S. K. (2014). Designing educa-
tive curriculum materials: A theoretically and empirically driven process. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 24–52.
doi:10.17763/haer.84.1.g48488u230616264

Davis, E. A., Palinscar, A. S., Smith, P. S., Arias, A. M., & Kademian, S. M. (2017). Educative curriculum materials: Uptake,
impact, and implications for research and design. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 293–304. doi:10.3102/0013189X17727502

De Castell, S., & Jenson, J. (2003). Serious play. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(6), 649–665.
doi:10.1080/0022027032000145552

De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online
asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005

DeCoito, I., & Richardson, T. (2018). Using technology to enhance science literacy, mathematics literacy, or technology
literacy: Focusing on integrated STEM concepts in a digital game. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Information and technology
literacy: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 1561–1582). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-
1-5225-3417-4.ch080

Dede, C. (2010). Technological supports for acquiring 21st century skills. International Encyclopedia of Education, 3,
158-166.

Dede, C., Korte, S., Nelson, R., Valdez, G., & Ward, D. J. (2005). Transforming learning for the 21st century: An eco-
nomic imperative. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

DeJarnette, N. K., & Sudeck, M. (2016). Advocating for a cause: Civic engagement in the elementary classroom. Journal
of Social Studies Education Research, 7(1). doi:10.17499/jsser.27299

del Carmen Salazar, M. (2013). A humanizing pedagogy: Reinventing the principles and practice of education as a journey
toward liberation. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 121–148. doi:10.3102/0091732X12464032

Delacruz, S. (2014). Using Nearpod in elementary guided reading groups. TechTrends, 58(5), 63–70. doi:10.100711528-
014-0787-9

Denby, D. (2000). Evaluation of ‘Reacting to the past’. FIPSE, US Dept. of Education. Retrieved from www.barnard.
edu/reacting/Denby_Evaluation.pdf

Dendir, S. (2016). An online premium? Characteristics and performance of online versus face-to-face students in principles
of microeconomics. Journal of Education for Business, 91(2), 59–68. doi:10.1080/08832323.2015.1110555

393
 Compilation of References

Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Taylor, W. P., Barth, W. E., & Vaughn, S. (2014). An experimental evaluation of guided
reading interventions for primary-grade students at-risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational
Effectiveness, 7(3), 268–293. doi:10.1080/19345747.2014.906010 PMID:26779296

Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. (n.d.). ICT Skills Action Plan, 2014-2018. Retrieved from https://www.
education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/ICT-Skills-Action-Plan-2014-2018.pdf

Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations
and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140

DeTure, M. (2004). Cognitive style and self-efficacy: Predicting student success in online distance education. American
Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 21–38. doi:10.120715389286ajde1801_3

Dewey, C. (2014). The only guide to gamergate you will ever need. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.
washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/14/the-only-guide-to-gamergate-you-will-ever-need-to-read/

Dewey, J. (1903). Democracy in education. The Elementary School Teacher, 4(4), 193–204. doi:10.1086/453309

Dewey, J. (1923). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. London: Macmillan.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Dewey, J. (2005). Art as experience. New York: Penguin. (Original work published 1934)

Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Dezuanni, M. (2018). Minecraft and children’s digital making: Implications for media literacy education. Learning,
Media and Technology, 43(3), 236–249. doi:10.1080/17439884.2018.1472607

Dezuanni, M., Beavis, C., & O’Mara, J. (2015). Redstone is like electricity: Children’s performative representations in
and around Minecraft. E-Learning and Digital Media, 12(2), 147–163. doi:10.1177/2042753014568176

Díaz, L. A., & Entonado, F. B. (2009). Are the functions of teachers in e-learning and face-to-face learning environments
really different? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 331–343.

Dickey, M. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform
instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 67–83. doi:10.1007/BF02504866

Dickey, M. D. (2011). World of Warcraft and the impact of game culture and play in an undergraduate game design
course. Computers & Education, 56(1), 200–209. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.005

DigCompEdu. (2017). Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu). Retrieved from http://publications.
jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC107466/pdf_digcomedu_a4_final.pdf

Dimitriadis, G., & Kamberelis, G. (2006). Theory for Education. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
doi:10.4324/9780203958933

Dobler, E., & Eagleton, M. B. (2015). Reading the web: Strategies for Internet inquiry (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guil-
ford Press.

Dockstader, J. (1999). Teachers of the 21st century know the what, why, and how of technology integration. Technologi-
cal Horizons in Education, 26(6), 73–75.

394
Compilation of References

Dong, Y., Kavun, N., Senteney, M., & Ott, J. (2018). Interactive presentation tools using mobile devices. In E. Langran
& J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings for the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Confer-
ence (pp. 743-748). Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved
August 29, 2018 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/182605/

Dorvilas, C. (2018). Benefits of Immersive Learning. Retrieved June 2019: https://www.oculus.com/experiences/

rift/1552250918219351/

Dougherty, K. J. (2012). Transforming teaching and learning through the virtual classroom. The College Quarterly, 15(4).

Downing, K., & Chim, T. M. (2004). Reflectors as online extraverts? Educational Studies, 30(3), 265–276.

Drake, C., Land, T. J., & Tyminski, A. M. (2014). Using educative curriculum materials to support the development of
prospective teachers’ knowledge. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 154–162. doi:10.3102/0013189X14528039

Drapeau, P. (2014). Sparking student creativity: Practical ways to promote innovative thinking and problem solving.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Draper, R. J., Broomhead, P., Jensen, A. P., Nokes, J. D., & Siebert, D. (Eds.). (2010). (Re)Imagining content-area literacy
instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results?
A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course.
Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 312–331. doi:10.1177/0092055X12446624

Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation
on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3-4),
327–350. doi:10.100710464-008-9165-0 PMID:18322790

Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1990). Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow: Teacher Beliefs and Practices
Part I: Patterns of Change. Academic Press.

Dysthe, O. (2001). The mutual challenge of writing research and the teaching of writing. Keynote address to The Euro-
pean Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing (EATAW) and the European Writing Centre Association (EWCA).
University of Groeningen.

Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. ET
Magazine, 42(1), 5–13.

Ede, L. (1989). Writing as a social process. A theoretical foundation for writing centres? Writing Center Journal, 9(2), 3–13.

Edelson, D. (2001). Learning-for-Use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<355::AID-TEA1010>3.0.CO;2-M

Edge, C. (2011). Making meaning with “readers” and “texts”: A narrative inquiry into two beginning English teachers’
meaning making from classroom events. Retrieved from Graduate School Theses and Dissertations: http://scholarcom-
mons.usf.edu/etd/3722/

Edge, C. (2015). On the nature of experience in the education of prospective teachers: A philosophical problem. Inter-
national Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 13(1), 29-41. Retrieved from http://commons.nmu.
edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1210&context=facwork_journalarticles

395
 Compilation of References

Edge, C. (2017). (Mis)Reading the classroom: A two-act ‘play’ on the conflicting roles in student teaching. International
Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 16(1), 38-56. Retrieved from https://www.ijlter.org/index.
php/ijlter/article/view/850

Edge, C. (2018). A teacher educator’s meaning-making from a hybrid “Online Teaching Fellows” professional learning
experience: Toward literacy practices for teaching and learning in multimodal contexts. In S. Keengwe (Ed.), Handbook
of Research on Virtual Training and Mentoring of Online Instructors (pp. 76–109). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Edge, C., Cameron-Standerford, A., & Bergh, B. (2014). Using Self-Study to Navigate the Changing Seas of Standards-
Based Education. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Changing Practices for Changing Times: Past, Present and Future
Possibilities for Self-Study Research. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of Self-Study of Teacher Educa-
tion Practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England. Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland. Retrieved
from http://www.aera.net/SIG109/Conferences/PastCastleProceedings/tabid/15213/Default.aspx

Edge, C., Cameron-Standerford, A., & Bergh, B. (2019). Creating Access, Opportunity, and Ownership through Cross-
Cultural Meaning-Making in Academically Diverse Online Courses. In S. Keengwe & K. Kungu (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on Cross-Cultural Online Learning in Higher Education (pp. 42–65). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-
1-5225-8286-1.ch003

Edgenuity Supporting Personalized Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.edgenuity.com/wp-content/up-

loads/2017/06/Edgenuity-Supporting- Personalized-Learning.pdf

Edutopia. (2014). What is successful technology integration? Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/technology-

integration-guide-description

Eid, M. I. M., & Al-Jabri, I. M. (2016, August). Social networking, knowledge sharing, and student learning: The case
of university students. Computers & Education, 99, 14–27. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.007

Elstad, E., & Christophersen, K. A. (2017). Perceptions of digital competency among student teachers: Contributing to
the development of student teachers’ instructional self-efficacy in technology-rich classrooms. Education in Science,
7(1), 27. doi:10.3390/educsci7010027

Englund, T. (2006). Deliberative communication: A pragmatist proposal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 503–520.
doi:10.1080/00220270600670775

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Edu-
cational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. doi:10.1007/BF02299597

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational
Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39. doi:10.1007/BF02504683

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology
integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., & Tondeur, J. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs and uses of technology to support 21st
century teaching and learning. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs
(pp. 403–418). New York, NY: Routledge.

eSafety Commissioner. (n.d.). Safety parents and carers: Tips and advice on helping your child have safe and enjoyable
experiences online. Retrieved from https://www.esafety.gov.au/parents/big-issues/gaming

Ethirajan, A. (2019, May 11). The family networks behind the Sri Lanka bombings. BBC News. Retrieved from https://
www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48218907

396
Compilation of References

European Commission. (n.d.). Europe 2020 strategy. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/

europe-2020-strategy

Evans, C., Williams, J., & Metcalf, D. (2010). Using high- and low-technology tools to enhance self- and peer assessment
and feedback for preservice teachers. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(4), 55–60.

Evans, S., Steele, J., Robertson, S., & Dyer, T. (2017). Personalizing Post Titles in the Online Classroom: A Best Practice?
Journal of Educators Online, 14(2), n2. doi:10.9743/jeo.2017.14.2.1

Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of process. A critique and a proposal. College English, 48(6), 527–542.
doi:10.2307/376707

Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self assessments. As-
sessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 11(2), 46–66. doi:10.1080/0260293860110206

Fathema, N., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2015). Expanding the technology acceptance model (TAM) to examine faculty
use of learning management systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning
and Teaching, 11(2), 210–232.

Feldman, A., Paugh, P., & Mills, G. (2004). Self-Study through action research. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V.
K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices.
Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6545-3_24

Fenichel, M., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2010). Surrounded by Science: Learning Science in Informal Environments.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Ferguson, J., & Tryjankowski, A. M. (2009). Online versus face‐to‐face learning: Looking at modes of instruction in
Master’s‐level courses. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(3), 219–228. doi:10.1080/03098770903026149

Ffiske, T. (2019). Virtual Perceptions. Retrieved June 2019: https://www.virtualperceptions.com/benefits-virtual-reality-

training-learning/

Finlay, L. (2008). Reflecting on ‘reflective practice’. PBPL paper 52. Retrieved from https://www.open.ac.uk/opencetl/
sites/www.open.ac.uk.opencetl/files/files/ecms/web-content/Finlay-(2008)-Reflecting-on-reflective-practice-PBPL-
paper-52.pdf

Fisk, N. (2016). Framing internet safety: The governance of youth online. Cambridge, UK: MIT Press. doi:10.7551/
mitpress/10311.001.0001

Fletcher, J. F., Greenwood, J., Grimely, M., Parkhill, F., & Davis, N. (2012). What is happening when teachers of 11-13
year old students take guided reading: A New Zealand snapshot. Educational Review, 64(4), 425–449. doi:10.1080/00
131911.2011.625112

Fletcher, R., & Portalupi, J. (2001). Writing workshop: The essential guide. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication,
32(4), 365–387. doi:10.2307/356600

Ford, M. P., & Optiz, M. F. (2008). A national survey of guided reading practices: What we can learn from primary
teachers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(4), 309–331. doi:10.1080/19388070802332895

Forret, M., Fox-Turnbull, W., Granshaw, B., Harwood, C., Miller, A., O’Sullivan, G., & Patterson, M. (2013, December
4). Towards a pre-service technology teacher education resource for New Zealand. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 23(Dec), 473–487. doi:10.100710798-011-9199-8

397
 Compilation of References

Foulger, T. S., Graziano, K. J., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Slykhuis, D. A. (2017). Teacher Educator Technology Com-
petencies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(4), 413–448.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2012). Guided reading: The romance and the reality. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 268-
284. doi: 10.1002TRTR.01123

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2017). Guided reading: Responsive teaching across the grades (2nd ed.). Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.

Franciosi, S. J. (2012). Transformational leadership for education in a digital culture. Digital Culture & Education, 4(2),
235–247. Retrieved from http://www.digitalcultureandeducation.com/uncategorized/dce_4001_franciosi/

Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of
public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90–92. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.11.001

Freeman, M. (1995). Peer assessment by groups of group work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 20(3),
289–300. doi:10.1080/0260293950200305

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.

Fu, J. (2013). Complexity of ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implications. International Journal of
education and Development Using ICT, 9(1), 112-125.

Galeano, E. (2006). Upside down: A primer for the looking-glass world. New York: Macmillan.

Gallagher, S. (2002). Distance Learning at the Tipping point: Critical Success Factors to Growing Fully Online Distance
Learning Programs. Boston: Eduventures.

Galston, W. (2007). Civic Knowledge, Civic Education and Civic Engagement. Fountain of Youth: Strategies and Tactics
for Mobilizing America’s Young Voters, 95-112.

Gardiner, W., & Robinson, K. S. (2011). Peer field placements with preservice teachers: Negotiating the challenges of
professional collaboration. Professional Educator, 35(2), 1–11.

Gardner, D., & The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: the imperative for edu-
cational reform. an open letter to the American people. A report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education. Retrieved
from https://www.edreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/A_Nation_At_Risk_1983.pdf

Gardner, L. (2017, April). Can design thinking redesign higher ed? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://universityinnovationfellows.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Can-Design-Thinking-Redesign-Higher-Ed_-The-
Chronicle-of-Higher-Education.pdf

Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional development ef-
fective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
doi:10.3102/00028312038004915

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing
in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing
in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. doi:10.1080/08923640109527071

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not
enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. doi:10.120715389286ajde1903_2

398
Compilation of References

Garza Mitchell, R. L., Etshim, R., & Dietz, B. T. (2016). Online CTE in the community college. Career and Technical
Education Research, 41(3), 193–212. doi:10.5328/cter41.3.193

Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (7th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gee, J. P. (2007). Good videogames + good learning: Collected essays on videogames, learning, and literacy. New York,
NY: Peter Lang. doi:10.3726/978-1-4539-1162-4

Gee, J. P., & Green, J. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Re-
search in Education, 23, 119–169.

George, D. R., Dreibelbis, T. D., & Aumiller, B. (2013). How we used two social media tools to enhance aspects of active
learning. Medical Teacher, 35(12), 985–988. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2013.818631 PMID:23902318

Gershgorn, D. (2017). Everything you need to know about Apple’s AI chip. Retrieved June 2019: https://qz.com/1073036/
everything-you-need-to-know-about-apples-ai-chip/

Gershgorn, D. (2018). AI is the new space race. Here’s what the biggest countries are doing. Retrieved June 2019: https://
qz.com/1264673/ai-is-the-new-space-race-heres-what-the-biggest-countries-are-doing/

Gibson, D., Aldrich, C., & Prensky, M. (Eds.). (2007). Games and simulations in online learning: Research and develop-
ment frameworks. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-304-3

Gillies, R. M. (2007). Cooperative learning: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
doi:10.4135/9781483329598

Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Giriharadas, A. (2018). When market is our only language (K, Tippet, interviewer) [Audio file]. Retrieved from: https://
onbeing.org/programs/anand-giridharadas-when-the-market-is-our-only-language-nov2018/

Girod, M., Twyman, T., & Wojcikiewicz, S. (2010). Teaching and learning science for transformative, aesthetic experi-
ence. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 801–824. doi:10.100710972-009-9175-2

Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.
doi:10.2307/798843

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York:
Aldine.

Godt, P., Benelli, C., & Klein, R. (2000, February). Do preservice teachers given early field experiences and integrated
methods courses do better than students in the traditional teacher education program? A longitudinal plan to evaluate a
universities redesign of its teacher education program). Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Association
of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, IL.

Goertz, P. (2015, February 27). 10 signs of a 21st century classroom. Edutopia. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.
org/discussion/10-signs-21st-century-classroom

399
 Compilation of References

Gogoulou, A., Gouli, E., Grigoriadou, M., Samarakou, M., & Chinou, D. (2007). A web-based educational setting sup-
porting individualized learning, collaborative learning and assessment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
10(4), 242–256.

Goodwin, C. J. (2005). A history of modern psychology. Danvers, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Great School Partnership. (2016, August 25). 21st century skills. The Glossary of Educational Reform. Retrieved from
https://www.edglossary.org/21st-century-skills/

Greene, T., & Greene, J. (2018). Flipgrid: Adding voice and video to online discussions. TechTrends, 62(1), 128–130.
doi:10.100711528-017-0241-x

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and class-
room research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259. doi:10.3102/0013189X09336671

Greiner, C., & Smith, B. (2009). Analyses of selected specific variables and teacher attrition. Education, 129(4), 579–583.

Griffin, P., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2014). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach. Springer.

Groenendijk, R., Kooy, M., Coppen, P. A., Imant, J., & Van de Ven, P. H. (2013). Striving for literary development in
secondary literature learners” A teacher’s self-study. English Teaching, 12(3), 41–64.

Gross, K. (2012, May 1). Crosswalks. Retrieved February 19, 2019, from https://sites.ed.gov/ous/2012/05/crosswalks/

Guay, T. (1995). Web Publishing Paradigms. Information Technology Project Group.

Guðmundsdóttir, G. B., Loftsgarden, M., & Ottestad, G. (2014). Nyutdannede lærere: Profesjonsfaglig digitale kom-
petanse og erfaringer med IKT i lærerutdanningen. Oslo: Senter for IKT i utdanningen.

Guido, M. (2018, July 19). How to teach convergent and divergent thinking: definitions, examples, templates and more.
Prodigy. Retrieved from https://www.prodigygame.com/blog/convergent-divergent-thinking/

Guilfoyle, K. (1995). Constructing the meaning of teacher educator: The struggle to learn the roles. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 11–26.

Guillén-Gámez, F. D., Lugones, A., & Mayorga-Fernández, M. J. (2019). ICT use by pre-service foreign languages
teachers according to gender, age and motivation. Cogent Education6(1).

Gumbo, M., Makgato, M., & Müller, H. (2012). The impact of in-service technology training programs on technology
teachers. Journal of Technology Studies, 38(1), 23–33. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v38/
v38n1/pdf/gumbo.pdf

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated
conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. doi:10.1080/08923649709526970

Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R. A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education for democratic citizenship. The
Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 17–34. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00097.x

Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3/4), 381–391.
doi:10.1080/135406002100000512

Gut, D. M. (2011). Integrating 21st century skills into the curriculum. In G. Wan & D. M. Gut (Eds.), Bringing schools
into the 21st Century (pp. 137–157). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0268-4_7

Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_3

400
Compilation of References

Hachey, A., Conway, K., & Wladis, C. (2013). Community colleges and underappreciated assets: Using institutional data
to promote success in online learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 16(1), 1–18.

Hadjithoma-Garstka, C. (2011). The role of the principal’s leadership style in the implementation of ICT policy. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 311–326.

Hager, P., & Gonczi, A. (1996). What is competence? Medical Teacher, 18(1), 15–18. doi:10.3109/01421599609040255

Hamilton, M. L. (2004). Professional knowledge, teacher education and self-study. In International Handbook of Self-
Study Practices, Part One. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6545-3_10

Hamilton, E., Rosenberg, J., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR)
Model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441. doi:10.100711528-016-0091-y

Hammond, D. (2006). Constructing 21st-Century Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314.
doi:10.1177/0022487105285962

Han, B. C. (2017). Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and new technologies of power. New York: Verso Books.

Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research
designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 224–235. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.224

Harasim, L., & Stephen, T. (1996). Computer networking and scholarly communication in the 21st century. Academic Press.

Harris, M. & Cullen, R. (2008). Observing the learner-centered class. Florida Journal of Educational Administration
& Policy, 1(2).

Harste, J. C. (2000). Six points of departure. In B. Berghoff, K. A. Egawa, J. C. Harste, & B. T. Hoonan (Eds.), Beyond
reading and writing: Inquiry, curriculum, and multiple ways of knowing (pp. 1–16). Urbana, IL: National Council
Teachers of English.

Hastie, M., Hung, I. C., Chen, N. S., & Kinshuk. (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for educational interna-
tional collaboration. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 9–24. doi:10.1080/14703290903525812

Hauptman, A. (2007). Strategies for Improving Student Success in Postsecondary Education. Changing Direction: In-
tegrating Higher Education Financial Aid and Financing Policy. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.

Heitin, L. (2019, February 20). How Should Reading Be Taught in a Digital Era? Retrieved from https://www.edweek.
org/ew/articles/2016/11/09/how-should-reading-be-taught-in-digital-era.html

Henriksen, D. (2019). Expanding the paradigm: Bringing designerly perspectives into creativity scholarship. Creativity
Studies, 12(1), 15–33. doi:10.3846/cs.2019.6757

Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty (2nd ed.). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Herrnstien, R., & Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. Free Press.

Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps
and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
doi:10.100711423-006-9022-5

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2),
111–127. doi:10.120715326985ep4102_4

401
 Compilation of References

Higher Education Academy. (n.d.). Communities of Practice. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-

hub/communities-practice

Hinostroza, J. E. (2018). New challenges for ICT in education policies in developing countries: The need to account for
the widespread use of ICT for teaching and learning outside the school. In ICT-Supported innovations in small countries
and developing regions (pp. 99–119). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-67657-9_5

Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program.

Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (1987). Culture and cognition. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural Models in Language
& Thought (pp. 3–40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511607660

Holum, A., & Gahala, J. (2001). Critical issue: Using technology to enhance literacy instruction. Naperville, IL: North
Central Regional Education Laboratory.

Hong, K. S., Ridzuan, A. A., & Kuek, M. K. (2003). Students’ attitudes toward the use of the Internet for learning: A
study at a university in Malaysia. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 6(2), 45–49.

Horowitz, J. (2018). JPMorgan’s latest hire proves the bank is serious about artificial intelligence. CNN Business.
Retrieved March 2019: https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/03/investing/jpmorgan-artificial-intelligence-chief/index.html

Horowitz, J. M., & Graf, N. (2019, February 20). Most U.S. teens see anxiety, depression as major problems. Pew Re-
search Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/02/20/most-u-s-teens-see-anxiety-and-depression-
as-a-major-problem-among-their-peers/

Hoskins, B. (2011). Demand, growth, and evolution. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(1), 57-60. doi:10.10
80/07377363.2011.546267

Hougham, R. J., Nutter, M., & Graham’s, C. (2018). Bridging natural and digital domains: Attitudes, confidence, and interest
in using technology to learn outdoors. Journal of Experiential Education, 41(2), 154–169. doi:10.1177/1053825917751203

Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(4), 51–55.

Hrušecky, R., & Kalaš, I. (2010). Exploiting E-Learning in Future Teachers’ Education. In ICT in Teacher Education:
Policy, Open Educational Resources and Partnership. UNESCO.

Hudson, B., Hudson, A., & Steel, J. (2006). Orchestrating interdependence in an international online learning community.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 733–748. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00552.x

Hugenard, J., & McCormick, D. (1994). Electrophysiology of the Neuron. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved
from http://www.cnl.salk.edu/~arthur/MyFirstNEURON.html

Hung, D., Shu-Shing, L., & Lim, K. (2012). Authenticity in learning for the twenty-first century: Bridging the formal
and the informal. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 1071–1091. doi:10.100711423-012-9272-3

Hunter, F. (2019, February 25). Principals push back against ‘ridiculous’ blanket ban on phones in schools. Sydney
Morning Herald.

Huntington-Klein, N., Cowan, J., & Goldhaber, D. (2017). Selection into online community college courses and their
effects on persistence. Research in Higher Education, 58(3), 244–269. doi:10.100711162-016-9425-z

Hurtado, S. (2003). Preparing college students for a diverse democracy. Presentation made within the Chet Peters lecture
series. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University.

402
Compilation of References

Hurwitz, J., & Kirsch, D. (2019). Machine Learning: For Dummies. Retrieved June 2019: https://www.ibm.com/analyt-
ics/machine-learning?

Hutchison, A. (2012). Literacy teachers’ perceptions of professional development that increases integration of technol-
ogy into literacy instruction. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(1), 37–56. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2012.659894

Hutchison, A. C., & Woodward, L. (2018). Examining the Technology Integration Planning Cycle Model of Professional
Development to support teachers’ instructional practices. Teachers College Record, 120(10), 1–44.

Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technolo-
gies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 312–333.
doi:10.1002/RRQ.002

Iaquinta, A. (2006). Guided reading: A research-based response to the challenges of early reading instruction. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 33(6), 413–418. doi:10.100710643-006-0074-2

IDOE. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/overview.aspx

Inan, F. & Lowther, D. (2009). Factors affecting technology integration in k-12 classrooms: A path model. Education
Tech Research Development, 58, 137-154. doi:10.100711423- 009-9132-y

Inan, F., & Lowther, D. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154. doi:10.100711423-009-9132-y

INFOhio Early Literacy Task Force. (2017, October 16). Best Practices for Digital Reading. Retrieved from https://
www.infohio.org/images/ZOO_DOCS/toolkit/BestPracticesForReadingDigitalTex t.pdf

Instefjord, E., & Munthe, E. (2016). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology: An analysis of the emphasis
on digital competence in teacher education curricula. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 77–93.

Instefjord, E., & Munthe, E. (2017). Educating digitally competent teachers: A study of integration of professional
digital competence in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 37–45. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.016

International Literacy Association. (2018). Improving digital practices for literacy, learning, and justice: More than
just tools. Retrieved from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-improving-digital-
practices-literacy-learning-justice.pdf

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2013). Standards for Educators. Retrieved from https://www.
iste.org/standards/for-educators

International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). ISTE standards for students: A practical guide for learning
with technology. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/resources/product?ID=4073&ChildProduct=4074

International Teaching in Motion. (2017). What does a 21st century classroom look, sound, and feel like? Education
Rickshaw. Retrieved from https://educationrickshaw.com/2017/08/02/what-does-a-21st-century-classroom-look-sound-
and-feel-like/

Iscioglu, E. (2011). Perceived computer self-efficacy of secondary education teachers. The New Educational Review,
23(1), 189–198. Retrieved from http://www.educationalrev.us.edu.pl/vol/tner_1_2011.pdf#page=154

ISTE Standards for Educators. (2013). Retrieved February 19, 2019, from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators

Istenic Starcic, A., Cotic, M., Solomonides, I., & Volk, M. (2016). Engaging preservice primary and preprimary school
teachers in digital storytelling for the teaching and learning of mathematics. British Journal of Educational Technology,
47(1), 29–50. doi:10.1111/bjet.12253

403
 Compilation of References

Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittani, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P., & Tripp, L. (2008). Living and learning with
new media: Summary of findings from the digital youth project. Retrieved from http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/
files/report/digitalyouth-WhitePaper.pdf

Jackson, J. (2009). Game-based teaching: What educators can learn from videogames. Teaching Education, 20(3),
291–304. doi:10.1080/10476210902912533

Jaggars, S., & Xu, D. (2013). Predicting online student outcomes from a measure of course quality. Academic Press.

Jay, J., & Johnson, K. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73–85. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00051-8

Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of a participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/8435.001.0001

Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2007). Examining teachers’ beliefs about ICT in education: Implications of a teacher
preparation programme. Teacher Development, 11(2), 149–173. doi:10.1080/13664530701414779

John, S. P. (2015). The integration of information technology in higher education: A study of faculty’s attitude towards
IT adoption in the teaching process. Contaduría y Administración, 60(1), 230–252. doi:10.1016/j.cya.2015.08.004

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Interac-
tion Book Company.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2005, April). Mixed methods research: Is there a criterion of de-
marcation? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., & Shaik, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes
in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 29–49.

Jones, A. (2008). The rise of global work. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33(1), 12–26. doi:10.1111/
j.1475-5661.2007.00284.x

Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there a distinct new genera-
tion entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), 72.

Joyce, T., Crockett, S., Jaeger, D. A., Altindag, O., & O’Connell, S. D. (2015). Does classroom time matter? Economics
of Education Review, 46, 64–77. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.02.007

Kafai, Y. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Kame’enui, E.J., & Wallin, J.U. (2002). Information technology and literacy needs of special populations: Ode to FedEx
and Dairy Farmers. In International Handbook of Literacy and Technology (vol. 2). Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, Inc.

Kapp, K. (2012). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and
Education. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Karaduman, H., & Ozturk, C. (2014). The effects of activities for digital citizenship on students’ attitudes toward digital
citizenship and their reflections on students’ understanding about digital citizenship. Journal of Social Studies Educa-
tion Research, 5(1), 38-78.

Kaur, H. (2016). Role of ICT in Teacher Education. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 7.

404
Compilation of References

Kay, K. (2010). 21st century skills: Why they matter, what they are, and how we get there. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt
(Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. xiii - xxxi). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Kayler, M. & Sullivan, L. (2004). Integrating Learner-Centered Theory and Technology to Create an Engaging Pedagogy
for K – 12 Students and Teachers. Journal of Technology Integration in the Classroom, 3(1).

Kazu, I. Y. (2011). An Investigation of Factors Affecting the Use of Educational Technology in Turkish Primary Schools.
Education, 131(3), 510–524.

Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2009). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and
promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 560–565. doi:10.100710956-008-9123-5

Keller, J. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS Model approach. New York, NY: Springer
Science+Business Media, LLC. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3

Kellinger, J. (2017). A Guide to designing curricular games: How to “game” the system. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42393-7

Kennedy, J. (2015). Using TPCK as a scaffold to self-assess the novice online teaching experience. Distance Education,
36(1).

Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 173–192. doi:10.120715506878jobem5002_1

Kent, C., Laslo, E., & Rafaeli, S. (2016). Interactivity in online discussions and learning outcomes. Computers & Educa-
tion, 97, 116-128. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.002

Kenton, W. (2019, May 30). Neoliberalism. Investopedia. Retrieved from: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/

neoliberalism.asp

Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth: Teacher knowledge for 21st
century learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 127–140. doi:10.1080/21532974.2013.10784716

Kerr, A. (2011). Teaching and learning in large classes at Ontario universities: An exploratory study. Toronto Higher
Education Quality Council of Ontario.

Khromov S.S., Kameneva N.A. (2016). Modern approach to the formation and development of digital literacy in educa-
tion. Open Education, (1), 60-65. doi:10.21686/1818-4243-2016-1-60-65

Kılıç, A. E. & Yılmaz, R. (2019). Descriptive Analysis of the Articles Published in the Last10Years within the Context
of Lifelong Learning: A Meta-analysis. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 8(1), 322-359.

Kim, K. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education. EDUCAUSE Quarterly,
29(4), 22–30.

King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35. doi:10.1080/87567555.
1993.9926781

Kirkness, V., & Barnhardt, R. (1991). First Nations and higher education: The four R’s—Respect, relevance, reciprocity,
responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 1–15.

Kishan, N. (2010). Global Trends in Teacher Education. New Delhi: APH Publishing.

Knobel, M. (2008). Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.

405
 Compilation of References

Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2006, May 30). Digital literacy and digital literacies: Policy, pedagogy and research con-
siderations for education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, (1). Retrieved May 26, 2019, from https://www.idunn.no/
dk/2006/01/digital_literacy_and_digital_literacies_-_policy_pedagogy_and_research_cons

Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Cambridge Books.

Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knowles, M., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. (2015). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human
resource development (8th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Koehler, M. (2013). Technological pedagogical and content knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.tpack.org/

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in
Technology & Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Retrieved from https://www.citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-1-09/general/
what-is-technological-pedagogicalcontent-knowledge

Koh, J., Kim, Y. G., & Kim, Y. G. (2003). Sense of virtual community: A conceptual framework and empirical validation.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 75–94. doi:10.1080/10864415.2003.11044295

Koltay, T. (2011). The Media and The Literacies: Media Literacy. Information Literacy.

Koole, M. (2010). The web of identity: Selfhood and belonging in online learning networks. Seventh International
Conference on Networked Learning 2010.

Koontz, D.B. (2002). An Overview of Sense-making Research: Concepts, methods and results to date. Presented Paper
at the International Communication Association.

Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under
situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109–1121. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014

Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs
and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1020–1041. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.022

Kotz, D. M. (2015). The rise and fall of neoliberal capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kouwenhoven, G. W. (2003). Designing for competence: towards a competence based curriculum for the faculty of
education of the Eduardo Mondlane (Doctoral dissertation). Enschede: Twente University.

Kozan, K. (2016). The incremental predictive validity of teaching, cognitive and social presence on cognitive load.
Internet and Higher Education, 31, 11–19. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.003

Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning
outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311–328. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.78.2.311

Krajcik, J., & Delen, I. (2017). The benefits and limitations of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 28(1), 1–10. doi:10.1080/1046560X.2017.1279470

Krasny, M. E., & Tidball, K. G. (2009). Community gardens as contexts for science, stewardship, and civic action learn-
ing. Cities and the Environment, 2(1), 1–18. doi:10.15365/cate.2182009

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York: Routledge.

Kress, G., & Jewitt, C. (Eds.). (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

406
Compilation of References

Kridel, C. (Ed.). (2010). Encyclopedia of curriculum studies (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412958806

Krumsvik, R. J. (2008). Situated learning and teachers’ digital competence. Education and Information Technologies,
13(4), 279–290. doi:10.100710639-008-9069-5

Krumsvik, R. J. (2012). The digital school and teacher education in Norway. In R. Schultz-Zander, B. Eickelmann,
H. Mozer, H. Niesyto, & P. Grell (Eds.), Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik 9 [The annual book of Mediapedagogy 9] (pp.
455–480). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer VS. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-94219-3_20

Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Teacher educators’ digital competence. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(3),
269–280.

Kucukalic, L. (2009). Mapping literature courses with google docs and “The Grid.”. English Language Notes, 47(1),
115–124. doi:10.1215/00138282-47.1.115

Kurt, S. (2013). Creating technology-enriched classrooms: Implementation challenges in Turkish education. Learning,
Media and Technology, 38(1), 1–17. doi:10.1080/17439884.2013.776077

Kusano, K., Frederiksen, S., Jones, L., Kobayashi, M., Mukoyama, Y., Yamagishi, T., & Ishizuka, H. (2013). The effects
of ICT environment on teachers’ attitudes and technology integration in Japan and the U. S. Journal of Information
Technology Education, 12(1), 29–43. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/111684/

Kuyatt, A., Holland, G., & Jones, D. (2015). An analysis of teacher effectiveness related to technology implementation
in Texas secondary schools. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 8(1), 63–70. doi:10.19030/cier.v8i1.9091

Kwok, R. C. W., & Ma, J. (1999). Use of a group support system for collaborative assessment. Computers & Education,
32(2), 109–125. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(98)00059-1

Kymes, A. (2005). Teaching online comprehension strategies using think-alouds. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
48(6), 482–500. doi:10.1598/JAAL.48.6.4

LaBoksey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Ham-
ilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching practices (pp. 817–869).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice,
34(3), 159–165. doi:10.1080/00405849509543675

Ladyshewsky, R. (2013). Instructor presence in online courses and student satisfaction. International Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 1–23. doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070113

Lai, M. K., & Schildkamp, K. (2012). Data-based decision-making: An overview. In K. Schildkamp, M. K. Lai, & L.
Earl (Eds.), Data-Driven Decision-Making Around the World: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 9-21). Springer.

Land, T. J., Tyminski, A. M., & Drake, C. (2015). Examining pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ reading of
educative curriculum materials. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 16–26. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.05.009

Langer, J. A. (2011). Envisioning knowledge: Building literacy in the academic disciplines. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.

Lankshear, C., & Knoble, M. (2008). Introduction. In C. Lankshear & M. Knoble (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts,
policies and practices. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

Lapsley, R., Kulik, B., Moody, R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Is identical really identical? An investigation of equivalency
theory and online learning. Journal of Educators Online, 5(1), n1. doi:10.9743/JEO.2008.1.3

407
 Compilation of References

Larson, D. K., & Sung, C. H. (2009). Comparing student performance: Online versus blended versus face-to-face. Journal
of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 31–42.

Latremouille, J., Bell, A., Kasamali, Z., Krahn, M., Tait, L., & Donald, D. (2016). kistikwânihk êsko kitêhk: Storying
Holistic Understandings in Education. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 14(1), 8–22.

Laurillard, D. (2007). The Kaleidoscope Scientific Vision for Research in Technology Enhanced Learning. Kaleidoscope
Network EU contract 507838.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355

Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning:
Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.
doi:10.3102/0034654307309921

Lawrence, S., & Abel, E. M. (2013). Comparing outcomes of a Web-based MSW course to face-to-face class outcomes:
Implications for social work education. Social Work Education, 32(6), 762–772.

Leboff, G. (2014). Stickier marketing: How to win customers in a digital age (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page Limited.

Lee, L., & Dziuban, C. (2002). Using quality assurance strategies for online programs. Educational Technology Review:
International Forum on Educational Technology Issues and Applications, 2(2).

Lee, C. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97–141. doi:10.3102/00028312038001097

Lee, J., & Spires, H. (2009). What students think about technology and academic engagement in school: Implications
for middle grades teaching and learning. AACE Journal, 17(2), 61–81. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/27007/

Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in
Teacher Education, 25(3), 87–97. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ835233.pdf

Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Nottingham, UK: National Col-
lege for School Leadership.

Lemoine, P., Seneca, S., & Richardson, M. (2019). Resilience for faculty development in global higher education. In A.
Elçi, L. Beith, & A. Elçi (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Faculty Development for Digital Teaching and Learning (pp.
481–504). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8476-6.ch024

Leu, D. J., Coiro, J., Castek, J., Hartman, D. K., Henry, L. A., & Reinking, D. (2008). Research on instruction and
assessment in the new literacies of online reading comprehension. In C. C. Block, S. Parris, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.),
Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 321–346). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new literacies of online research
and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 37–59. doi:10.1002/rrq.85

Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2017). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing
nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Education, 197(2), 1–18. doi:10.1177/002205741719700202

Levinson, M. (2017). Action civics in the classroom. National Council for the Social Studies, 78(2), 68-70. Retrieved
from http://www.c3teachers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Levinson.pdf

Levinson, A. M., & Barron, B. (2018). Latino immigrant families learning with digital media across settings and genera-
tions. Digital Education Review, 33, 150–169.

408
Compilation of References

Lewthwaite, S. (2011). Critical approaches to accessibility for technology‐enhanced learning. Learning, Media and
Technology, 36(1), 85–89. doi:10.1080/17439884.2010.529915

Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. (2009). Analyzing peer feedback in a technology-facilitated peer assessment. In C. D.
Maddux (Ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 213-222). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Light, R. J. (1992). Explorations with students and faculty about teaching, learning, and student life. Harvard Univ.
Graduate School of Education and Kennedy School of Government.

Li, L. (2017). The role of anonymity in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(4), 645–656.
doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1174766

Li, L., & Gao, F. (2016). The effect of peer assessment on project performance of students at different learning levels.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(6), 885–900. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1048185

Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiv-
ing peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525–536. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00968.x

Li, L., Liu, X., & Zhou, Y. (2012). Give and take: A re-analysis of assessor and assessee roles in technology-facilitated
peer assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 376–384. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01180.x

Li, L., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2005). Peer Assessment Support System (PASS). TechTrends, 49(4), 80–84. doi:10.1007/
BF02824115

Li, L., Steckelberg, A. L., & Srinivasan, S. (2008). Utilizing peer interactions to promote learning through a computer-
assisted peer assessment system. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(2), 133–148.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalisitc inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Linda, T. (2010). 21st century digital technology and children’s learning. In Reflective practice in Early Years. London:
Sage.

Linder-VanBerschot, J. A., & Summers, L. L. (2015). Designing instruction in the face of technology transience. Quar-
terly Review of Distance Education, 16(2), 107-118.

Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking-
styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420–432. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00198.x

Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities? Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 39(4), 377–397. doi:10.1080/15391523.2007.10782488

Littrell, A. B., Zagumny, M. J., & Zagumny, L. L. (2005). Contextual and Psychological Predictors of Instructional
Technology Use in Rural Classrooms. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(2), 37–47.

Littrell, A., Zagumny, M., & Zagumny, L. (2005). Contextual and psychological predictors of instructional technology
use in rural classrooms. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(2), 37–47.

Liu, X., & Li, L. (2014). Assessment training effects on student assessment skills and task performance in a technology-
facilitated peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(3), 275-292.

Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2017). Explaining technology integration in K-12 classrooms:
A multilevel path analysis model. Educational Technology Research and Development, McDermott, P., & Gormley, K.
A. (2015). Teacher’s use of technology in elementary reading lessons. Reading Psychology, 37, 121–146. doi:10.1080
/02702711.2015.1009592

409
 Compilation of References

Liu, S. Y., Gomez, J., & Yen, C. J. (2009). Community college online course retention and final grade: Predictability of
social presence. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2).

Loague, A., Caldwell, N., & Balam, E. (2018). Professors’ attitudes and perceptions about technology use in the class-
room. Alabama Journal of Educational Leadership, 5, 1–11.

Lokken, F., Womer, L., & Mullins, C. (2008). Distance education survey results: Tracking the impact of e-learning at
community colleges. Washington, DC: Instructional Technology Council.

Looi, C., & Sun, D. (2018). Boundary interaction: Towards developing a mobile technology-enabled science curriculum
to integrate learning in the informal spaces. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3). doi:10.1111/bjet.12555

Lorenzi, F., Dumer, L. C., Vernetti, R. F., Pereira, D. S., Reategui, E. B., & Epstein, D. (2019). Serious games tools to
support the literacy process. In A. Krassmann & E. Amaral (Eds.), Handbook of research on immersive digital games
in educational environments (pp. 112–130). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Lorenzo, G., & Ittelson, J. (2005). An overview of e-portfolios. Educause Learning Initiative, 1(1), 1-27.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Loughran, J. J., & Russell, T. (1997). Meeting student teachers on their own terms: Experience precedes understand-
ing. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings (pp. 164–181).
London: Falmer Press.

Loughran, J., & Northfield, J. (1998). A framework for the development of self-study practice. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.),
Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self- study in teacher education (pp. 7–18). New York, NY: Routledge.

Loureiro, M., Pombo, L., & Moreira, A. (2012). The quality of peer assessment in a wiki-based online context: A qualita-
tive study. Educational Media International, 49(2), 139–149. doi:10.1080/09523987.2012.703426

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449–521. doi:10.3102/00346543071003449

Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Strahl, D. J., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology integration “work” when key barriers
are removed? Educational Media International, 45(3), 195–213. doi:10.1080/09523980802284317

Lu, F., & Lemonde, M. (2013). A comparison of online versus face-to-face teaching delivery in statistics instruction for
undergraduate health science students. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 18(5), 963–973.
doi:10.100710459-012-9435-3 PMID:23238874

Luka, I. (2014). Design thinking in pedagogy. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 2, 63–74.

Luterbach, K. J., & Brown, C. (2011). Education for the 21-st century. International Journal of Applied Educational
Studies, 10(2), 14–32.

Lyke, J., & Frank, M. (2012). Comparison of student learning outcomes in online and traditional classroom environments
in a psychology course. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(3/4), 245.

Mac Callum, K., Jeffrey, L., & Na, K. (2014). Factors impacting teachers’ adoption of mobile learning. Journal of In-
formation Technology Education: Research, 13, 141–162. doi:10.28945/1970

Maher, D. (2019). Altered Realities: How virtual and augmented realities are supporting learning. In J. Keengwe (Ed.),
Handbook of research on innovative pedagogies and best practices in teacher education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

410
Compilation of References

Maher, D. (2013). Cyber safety and young people: From policy to practice. In R. Hanewald (Ed.), Cyber bullying to
cybersafety: Issues and approaches in educational contexts. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Ma, J., Han, X., Yang, J., & Cheng, J. (2014, October). Comparison of the Impact of Two Online Learning Promotion
Strategies on Group Interaction Activities. In 2014 International Conference of Educational Innovation through Tech-
nology (pp. 143-149). IEEE. 10.1109/EITT.2014.32

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude,
Learning, and Instruction, 3(1987), 223-253.

Malott, C. (2008). Chapter 4: Critical Pedagogy in Native North America: Western and Indigenous Philosophy in the
Schooling Context. Counterpoints, 324, 117-151.

Manjoo, F. (2019, May 1). The Uber I.P.O. is a moral stain on Silicon Valley. New York Times. Retrieved from https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/opinion/uber-ipo.html

Martens, P., Martens, R., Doyle, M. H., Loomis, J., & Agalarov, S. (2013). “Now it’s getting happier because it’s more
colorful”: First graders read and write picture books multimodally. The Dragon Lode, 31(2), 3–12.

Mataen, D. (2012). Africa–the ultimate frontier market: A guide to the business and investment opportunities in emerging
Africa. Petersfield, UK: Harriman House Limited.

Matsuda, P.K. (2002). Process and post process. A discursive history. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2003), 65-83.

Maynes, N., Julien-Schultz, L., & Dunn, C. (2010). Modeling and the Gradual Release of Responsibility: What Does It
Look Like in the Classroom? Brock Education Journal, 19(2), 65-77. Retrieved from https://brock.scholarsportal.info/
journals/brocked/home/article/view/136

McEwen, B. C. (2008). Preparing teachers for the 21st century classroom. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, L(10), 1–3.

McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Wang, K., Rathbun, A., . . . Ossolinski, M. (2018). The condition of
education 2018 (Report No. NCES 2018-144). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018144.pdf

McGarr, O. (2009). Education for sustainable development in technology education in Irish schools: A curriculum
analysis. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(3), 317–332. doi:10.100710798-009-9087-7

McGarr, O., & Clifford, A. M. (2013). ‘Just enough to make you take it seriously’: Exploring students’ attitudes toward
peer assessment. Higher Education, 65(6), 677–693. doi:10.100710734-012-9570-z

McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. London: Pen-
guin Books.

McKenna, M. C., Conradi, K., Young, C. A., & Jang, B. G. (2013). Technology and the common core standards. In L.
M. Morrow, T. Shanahan, & K. K. Wixson (Eds.), Teaching with the common core standards for English language arts,
PreK–2 (pp. 152–169). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

McLeod, S., & Graber, J. (2019). Harnessing technology for deeper learning. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

McLeod, S., & Shareski, D. (2018). Different schools for a different world. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psy-
chology, 14(1), 6–23. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1<6::AID-JCOP2290140103>3.0.CO;2-I

Meador, D. (2016). An Overview of Renaissance Learning Programs. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/

overview-of-renaissance-learning-programs-3194778

411
 Compilation of References

Means, B. (1994). Introduction: Using technology to advance educational goals. In B. Means (Ed.), Technology and
education reform: The reality behind the promise (pp. 1–22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mee, M., & Haverback, H. (2014). Commitment, preparation, and early career frustrations: Examining future attrition
of middle school teachers. American Secondary Education, 42(3), 39–51.

Mehta, R. (2017). What does it mean to be literate? Designing and implementing a framework of inclusive literacy prac-
tices in a rural context (PhD Dissertation). Michigan State University. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED580986

Mehta, R., & Henriksen, D. (2019). An embodied, dialogic endeavor: Towards a posthumanizing approach to creativity
with Dr. Kerry Chappell. TechTrends, 63(1), 1–7. doi:10.100711528-018-0357-7

Mehta, R., Keenan, S., Henriksen, D., & Mishra, P. (2019). Developing a rhetoric of aesthetics: The (often) forgotten
link between art and STEM. In M. Khine & S. Areepattamannil (Eds.), STEAM Education: Theory and Practice (pp.
117–141). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04003-1_7

Mehta, R., Mehta, S., & Seals, C. (2017). A holistic approach to science education: Disciplinary, affective, and equitable.
Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 36(3), 269–286.

Menon, M. (2014). E-Learning and Open Educational Resources for Teacher Development, E-Learning in Teacher
Education: Experiences and Emerging Issues. University of Delhi.

Merriam, S. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 3–14. doi:10.1002/ace.3

Mertler, C. (2008). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom. Sage (Atlanta, Ga.).

Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65.

Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting Active Learning. Strategies for the College Classroom. Jossey-Bass Inc.

Middleton, B. M., & Murray, R. K. (1999). The impact of instructional technology on student academic achievement in
reading and mathematics. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(1), 109.

Mihesuah, D. A., & Wilson, A. C. (Eds.). (2004). Indigenizing the academy: Transforming scholarship and empowering
communities. U of Nebraska Press.

Milgram, Takemura, Utsumi, & Kishino. (1994). Augmented Reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality con-
tinuum. Proceedings of Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies, 2351–34.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA)(2008Melbourne Declaration
on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Carlton: Curriculum Corporation.

Mishra, P., & Kereluik, K. (2011). What 21st century learning? A review and a synthesis. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra
(Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2011--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference
(pp. 3301-3312). Nashville, TN: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved Feb-
ruary 28, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/36828/

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008, March). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. In Annual meet-
ing of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 1-16). Academic Press.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.
Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

412
Compilation of References

Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Henriksen, D. (2011). The seven trans-disciplinary habits of mind: Extending the TPACK
framework towards 21st century learning. Educational Technology, 51(2), 22–28.

Mishra, P., & Mehta, R. (2017). What we educators get wrong about 21st-century learning: Results of a survey. Journal
of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 3(1), 6–19. doi:10.1080/21532974.2016.1242392

Montero, M. K., Newmaster, S., & Ledger, S. (2014). Exploring early reading instructional strategies to advance the print
literacy development of adolescent SLIFE. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(1), 59–69. doi:10.1002/jaal.318

Morais, B. (2015). Can an English teacher learn to code? The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/
tech/annals-of-technology/can-an-english-teacher-learn-to-code

Moran, S., Cropley, D., & Kaufman, J. (2014). The ethics of creativity. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
doi:10.1057/9781137333544

Morris, L. V., Wu, S. S., & Finnegan, C. L. (2005). Predicting retention in online general education courses. American
Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 23–36. doi:10.120715389286ajde1901_3

Mudd, A., Summey, T., & Upson, M. (2015). It takes a village to design a course: Embedding a librarian in course design.
Journal of Library and Information Sciences in Distance Learning, 9(1-2), 69-88. doi:10.1080/1533290X.2014.946349

Muir-Herzig, R. (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers & Education, 42(2), 111–131. doi:10.1016/
S0360-1315(03)00067-8

Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1994). The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messages from a physics methods
class. Journal of Teacher Education, 45(2), 86–95. doi:10.1177/0022487194045002002

Murchú, D. Ó., & Sorensen, E. K. (2004). Online master communities of practice: Collaborative learning in an intercul-
tural perspective. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 7(1).

Myers, B. (2018). Women and minorities in tech, by the numbers. WIRED. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/
computer-science-graduates-diversity/

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and
cultures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Council for Accreditation for Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming Teacher Education Through Clinical
Practice: A National strategy to prepare effective teachers. Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and
Partnerships for improved student learning. Author.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common
Core State Standards for English language arts/literacy. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for
Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.

National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st
century. Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, James Pellegrino and Margaret L. Hilton,
eds. Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences
and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Writing Project. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nwp.org/

Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perceptions of distance learners in cyberspace. American Journal
of Distance Education, 14(2), 15–35. doi:10.1080/08923640009527052

413
 Compilation of References

Nayak, G., & Sylva, K. (2013). The effects of a guided reading intervention on reading comprehension: A study on
young Chinese learners of English in Hong Kong. Language Learning Journal, 41(1), 85–103. doi:10.1080/09571736
.2011.625214

Nelson, M. J., Voithofer, R., & Cheng, S. (2019). Mediating factors that influence the technology integration practices
of teacher educators. Computers & Education, 128, 330–344. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.023

Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. American Journal of
Distance Education, 16(2), 99–113. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602_4

Neumann, M. M., Finger, G., & Neumann, D. L. (2017). A conceptual framework for emergent digital literacy. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 45(4), 471-479. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.ulib.uits.iu.edu/10.1007/s10643-016-0792-z

Neuman, S. B., & Gambrell, L. B. (2015). Disruptive innovations in reading research and practice. Reading Research
Quarterly, 50(1), 7–12. doi:10.1002/rrq.93

Newbill, P., & Baum, L. (2013). Design Creativity. Learning and Leading with Technology, 41(4), 17–19. Retrieved
from http://www.learningandleadingdigital.com/learning_leading/201212#pg19

Newby, P. (2010). Research Methods for Education. Harlow, UK: Pearson.

Newton, L., & Newton, D. (2014). Creativity in 21st-century education. Prospects, 44(4), 575–589. doi:10.100711125-
014-9322-1

Ng, W. (2011). Why digital literacy is important for science teaching and learning. Teaching Science: The Journal of
the Australian Science Teachers Association, 57(4), 26–32.

Nir, A., Ben-David, A., Bogler, R., Inbar, D., & Zohar, A. (2016). School autonomy and 21st century skills in the Israeli
educational system: Discrepancies between the declarative and operational levels. International Journal of Educational
Management, 30(7), 1231–1246. doi:10.1108/IJEM-11-2015-0149

Nolan, J. F. (1982). Professional laboratory experiences: The missing link in teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 33(4), 49–53. doi:10.1177/002248718203300412

Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2012). Framework for basic skills. Retrieved from https://www.udir.
no/contentassets/fd2d6bfbf2364e1c98b73e030119bd38/framework_for_basic_skills.pdf

NSW Department of Education, (2019). Review of the non-educational use of mobile devices in NSW schools. Retrieved
from https://education.nsw.gov.au/about-us/strategies-and-reports/media/documents/mobile-phone-review.pdf

NSW Education Standards Authority. (2017). Digital literacy skills and learning report. Sydney, Australia: NSW Edu-
cation Standards Authority.

Obanya, P. (2002). Revitalizing Education in Africa. Stirling-Horden Publishers (Nig.) Ltd.

Oblinger, D. (2004). The Next Generation of Educational Engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 8, 1–18.

Office of Educational Technology. (n.d.). ConnectED. Retrieved May 6, 2019, from https://tech.ed.gov/connected/

Ofoefuna, M. O. (2007). Functional Approach to Educational TechnologyIsaac Boro Press.

Okojie, M. C. P. O., Olinzock, A. A., & Okojie-Boulder, T. C. (2006). The pedagogy of technology integration. The
Journal of Technology Studies, 32(2), 66–71. doi:10.21061/jots.v32i2.a.1

414
Compilation of References

Olan, E. L., & Edge, C. (2018). Critical friends as co-authors: Pushing boundaries and crossing borders together. In D.
Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Pushing boundaries and crossing borders: Self-study as a means for knowing pedagogy (pp.
461-467). Herstmonceux, UK: S-STEP.

Olan, E. L., & Edge, C. (2019). Collaborative meaning-making and dialogic interactions in critical friends as co-authors.
Studying Teacher Education, 15(1), 31–43. doi:10.1080/17425964.2019.1580011

Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market
to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345. doi:10.1080/02680930500108718

Olsson, L. (2006). Implementing use of ICT in teacher education. In Education for the 21st Century: Impact of ICT and
Digital Resources. Chicago: Springer.

Omwenga, E., & Nyabero, C., & Okioma. (2016). Assessing the influence of the PTTC Principal’s competency in ICT
on the teachers’ integration of ICT in teaching Science in PTTCs in Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(35),
142–148.

Ong, A. (2007). Neoliberalism as a mobile technology. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32(1), 3–8.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2007.00234.x

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Students, computers, and learning: Making the
connection. Retrieved from doi:10.1787/9789264239555-en

Osei, T. A. (2007). Survey of ICT and Education in Africa: Nigeria Country Report. Osumah, U. (2003). Internet Use
in Nigeria: A Status Report. Journal of Information, 32(1).

Otero, N., Milrad, M., Santos, A. J., Verssimo, M., & Torres, N. (2011). Challenges in designing seamless learning
scenarios: Affective and emotional effects on external representations. International Journal of Mobile Learning and
Organisation, 5(1), 15–27.

Paciga, K. (2019). Emergently digital in grade two: Another case of “3.6 minutes per day?”. Journal of Literacy &
Technology, 20(1), 119–149.

Palinscar, A., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cogni-
tion and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. doi:10.12071532690xci0102_1

Panda, B. N., & Basantia, T. K. (2005). ICT for Quality Control in Classroom. ICT.

Panigrahi, M. R. (2016). ICT Integrated Teacher Education. Commonwealth Essays and Studies.

Pan, S. C., & Franklin, T. (2011). In-service teachers’ self-efficacy, professional development, and web 2.0 tools for
integration. New Horizons in Education, 59(3), 28–40. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ955543.pdf

Paper versus slate. (1901). The Education Circular, 4(1), 172.

Papinczak, T., Young, L., & Groves, M. (2007). Peer assessment in problem-based learning: A qualitative study. Advances
in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 12(2), 169–186. doi:10.100710459-005-5046-6 PMID:17072771

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy, a needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational
Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. doi:10.3102/0013189X12441244

Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique
forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100. doi:10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77

415
 Compilation of References

Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. New
York, NY: Penguin Books.

Parkay, F. W., & Hass, G. (2000). Curriculum planning (7th ed.). Needham Heights, MAAllyn & Bacon.

Parkin, H. J., Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., & Thorpe, L. (2012). A role for technology in enhancing students’
engagement with feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(8), 963–973. doi:10.1080/02602938.2
011.592934

Partners, T. (2015). Learning for life: The opportunity for technology to transform adult education. Part I: Interest in
and aptitude for technology. Retrieved from http://tytonpartners.com/ tyton-wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Learning-
for- Life_The-Oppty-for-Tech-to-TransformAdult-Education_March-20151.pdf

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/
overview/skills-framework/352

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2019). Together, we can realize the power and promise of 21st century learning for
every student. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework

Patterson, J. (2015). 21st century learning initiatives as a manifestation of neoliberalism. In K. Sturges (Ed.), Neo-
liberalizing Educational Reform. Bold Visions in Educational Research (pp. 213–237). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-977-7_9

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Quantitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Saint Paul,
MN: Sage Publishing.

Paul, R. (2001). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Academic Press.

Peacock, S., & Cowan, J. (2016). From presences to linked influences within communities of inquiry. International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5), 267–283. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2602

Pearson. (2015). Student mobile device survey national report: Students in grades 4-12. Retrieved from https://www.
pearsoned.com/wp-content/uploads/2015-Pearson- Student-Mobile-DeviceSurvey-Grades-4-12.pdf

Pečar, M. (2016). Analysis of an asynchronous online discussion as a supportive model for peer collaboration and reflec-
tion in teacher education. Journal of Information Technology Education, 15.

Penland, J., Laviers, K., Bassham, E., & Nnochiri, V. (2018). Virtual Learning: A Study of Virtual Reality for Distance
Education. In Handbook of Research on Blended Learning Pedagogies and Professional Development in Higher Educa-
tion. IGI Global.

Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. (2007). What makes professional development effec-
tive? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.
doi:10.3102/0002831207308221

Peters, M. (1999). Neoliberalism. In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education. Available online at: http://www.
vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/neoliberalism.htm

Peterson-Ahmad, M. B., Pemberton, J., & Hovey, K. A. (2018). Virtual learning environments for teacher preparation.
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 54(4), 165–169. doi:10.1080/00228958.2018.1515544

Pettersson, F. (2018). On the issues of digital competence in educational contexts–a review of literature. Education and
Information Technologies, 23(3), 1005–1021.

416
Compilation of References

Pew Research Center. (2014). Digital life in 2025. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/03/PIP_Re-
port_Future_of_the_Internet_Predictions_031114.pdf

Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology. Academic Press.

Pickersgill, T. (2019). Exploring Immersive Technology in the Healthcare Industry in 2019. Retrieved June 2019: https://
www.thinkladuma.com/

Pidgeon, M. (2016). More than a checklist: Meaningful Indigenous inclusion in higher education. Social Inclusion, 4(1),
77-91.

Pinnegar, S. (1998). Introduction to Part II: Methodological perspectives. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing
Teaching Practice: Self-Study in Teacher Education (pp. 31–33). London: Falmer.

Pittman, T., & Gaines, T. (2015). Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth grade classrooms in a Florida school
district. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(4), 539–554. doi:10.100711423-015-9391-8

Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with pre-
paring tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863–870.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.024

Poole, D. M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: A case study. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 33(2), 162–177. doi:10.1080/08886504.2000.10782307

Potter, S. L., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2012). Technology integration for instructional improvement: The impact of
professional development. Performance Improvement, 51(2), 22–27. doi:10.1002/pfi.21246

Pratt, Y., & Danyluk, P. (2017). Learning What Schooling Left Out: Making an Indigenous Case for Critical Service-
Learning and Reconciliatory Pedagogy within Teacher Education. Canadian Journal of Education, 40(1), n1.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816

Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me mom—I’m learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon Publishers.

Prensky, M. (2007). Digital game based learning. New York, NY: Paragon House.

Prensky, M. (2011). Comments on research comparing games to other instructional methods. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher
(Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 251–280). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.

Prensky, M. (2012). From digital natives to digital wisdom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Prensky, M. (2012). From digital natives to digital wisdom: Hopeful essays for 21st century learning. London, UK:
Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483387765

Prins, F., Sluijsmans, D., Kirschner, P., & Strijbos, J. W. (2005). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: A
case study. Assessment, 30(4), 417–444.

Project Tomorrow. (2012). Personalizing the classroom experience: Teachers, Librarians and Administrators connect
the dots with digital learning. In Project Tomorrow: Speak Up (pp. 1–11). Retrieved from www.tomorrow.org/speakup/

Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N., & Stouffer, J. (2017). Teaching literacy: Reading. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.),
Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed.; pp. 1217–1267). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Qiu, M., & McDougall, D. (2013). Foster strengths and circumvent weaknesses: Advantages and disadvantages of online
versus face-to-face subgroup discourse. Computers & Education, 67, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.005

417
 Compilation of References

Rabin, S. (2009). Introduction to Game Development (2nd ed.). Herndon, VA: Cengage Learning.

Ramos, P. H. (2005). If Not Here, Where? Understanding Teachers Use Of Technology In Silicon Valley Schools. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 39–64. doi:10.1080/15391523.2005.10782449

Rana, N. (2012). A study to access teacher educators’ attitudes towards technology integration in classrooms. MIER
Journal of Educational Studies, Trends & Practices, 2(2), 190–205. Retrieved from http://mierjs.in/ojs/index.php/mjestp/
article/viewFile/74/50

Ranieri, M., & Bruni, I. (2018). Digital and media literacy in teacher education: Preparing undergraduate teachers
through an academic program on digital storytelling. InHandbook of research on media literacy in higher education
environments (pp. 90-111). IGI Global.

Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F. (2016). Argumentation methods in educational contexts: Introduction to the special issue.
International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 142–149. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.006

Recesso, A., Wiles, D., Venn, M., Campbell, W. A., Jr., & Padilla, M. (2002). Teacher induction and technology inte-
gration: Is there a critical element missing in existing induction models? Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 467502)

Redding, S. (2013). Getting personal: The promise of personalized learning. In M. Murphy, S. Redding, & J. Twyman
(Eds.), Handbook on innovations in learning (pp. 113–130). Philadelphia: Center on Innovations in Learning, Temple
University; Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Retrieved from: http://www.centeril.org/

Redecker, C (2017). Digital competence framework for educators (DigCompEdu). Brussels: BE: European Union.

Rehmat, A. P., & Bailey, J. M. (2014). Technology integration in a science classroom: Preservice teachers’ perceptions.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 744–755. doi:10.100710956-014-9507-7

Reid, D., & Reid, E. (2015). Mentorship in Technology-rich, 21st Century Classroom. In J. Keengwe, J. Mbae, & G.
Onchwari (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Global Issues in Next-Generation Teacher Education (pp. 246–259). Her-
shey, PA: IGI Global.

Reid, P. (2017). Supporting instructors in overcoming self-efficacy and background barriers to adoption. Education and
Information Technologies, 22(1), 369–382. doi:10.100710639-015-9449-6

Reisinger, D. (2012, May 18). Facebook sued for $15 billion over alleged privacy infractions. CNET. Retrieved from
https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-sued-for-15-billion-over-alleged-privacy-infractions/

Ren Learning, . (2015). Special report: Trends in student outcome measures: The role of individualized math practice
Wisconsin Rapids. Author. Available online http://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R005814992DD18B1.pdf

Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2016). The Power of Interest for Motivation and Engagement. New York, NY: Routledge;
Retrieved from http://search-ebscohost-com.proxy.ulib.uits.iu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1100829
&site=ehost-live

Republic of Kenya (2019). Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2019 on A Policy Framework for Reforming Education, Training
and Research for Sustainable Development. Government Printers.

Reynolds, N., Dolmange, J., Bizzell, P., & Hersberg, B. (2011). The Bedford bibliography for teachers of writing (7th
ed.). Bedford: St. Martin’s.

Rich, E. (2010, October 11). How do you define 21st-century learning? Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.
edweek.org/tsb/articles/2010/10/12/01panel.h04.html

418
Compilation of References

Riddett-Moore, K., & Siegesmund, R. (2014). The visual space of literacy in art education. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.),
Teaching dilemmas & solutions in content-area literacy, grades 6-12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Riessman, C. K. (2002). Analysis of personal narratives. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of Interview
Research: Context & Method (pp. 695–710). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Riessman, C. K. (2005). Narrative analysis. In Narrative, memory & everyday life (pp. 1–7). Huddersfield, UK: Univer-
sity of Huddersfield. Retrieved from https://www.student.gu.se/infoglueCalendar/digitalAssets/1771183328_Bifogad-
Fil_Chapter_1_-_Catherine_Kohler_Riessman.pdf

Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Cavanaugh, C. (2012). An investigation of factors influencing student use of technol-
ogy in K-12 classrooms using path analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(3), 229–254. doi:10.2190/
EC.46.3.b

Robertson, S. L. (2020). Digital Pedagogy for the 21st Century Educator. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Handbook of Research on
Innovative Pedagogies and Best Practices in Teacher Education (pp. 258–275). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-
1-5225-9232-7.ch015

Robey, E. (1992). Opening the doors: Using technology to improve education for students with disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.worldcat.org/title/openingthe-doors-using-technology-to-improve- education-for-students-withdisabilities/
oclc/747250825

Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory into Prac-
tice, 47(3), 220–228.

Robinson, J. (1999). Computer-assisted peer review. In S. Brown, J. Bull, & P. Race (Eds.), Computer-assisted assess-
ment in higher education (pp. 95–102). London: Kogan Page.

Rojas‐Drummond, S., Mazón, N., Littleton, K., & Vélez, M. (2014). Developing reading comprehension through col-
laborative learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(2), 138–158. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01526.x

ROK. (2016). National Information Communication and Technology Policy. Retrieved from http://icta.go.ke/pdf/
National-ICT-Policy-20June2016.pdf

Røkenes, F. M., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2016). Prepared to teach ESL with ICT? A study of digital competence in Norwegian
teacher education. Computers & Education, 97, 1–20.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age. Alexandria, VA: Association for Cur-
riculum Development.

Rosefsky Saavedra, A., & Opfer, V. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching. Phi Delta Kap-
pan, 94(2), 8–13. doi:10.1177/003172171209400203

Rosenblatt, L. (1978/1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale,
IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Rosenblatt, L. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical
models and processes of reading (4th ed.; pp. 895–927). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as exploration. New York: MLA. (Original work published 1938)

Rosenblatt, L. (2005). Making meaning with text: Selected essays. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

419
 Compilation of References

Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(5), 262–268. do
i:10.1080/00220671.1995.9941309

Ross, D. (2017, April 24). Empowering our students with 21st century skills for today. Getting Smart. Retrieved from
https://www.gettingsmart.com/2017/04/empowering-students-21st-century-skills/

Ross, M. B., & Welsh, M. P. (2007). Formative Feedback to Improve Learning on a Teacher Education Degree using a
Personal Learning Environment. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 2(3), 34–39.

Rosvik, S. (2010). Learning and Teaching in a Digital Society with Digital Tools. ICT.

Rowntree, D. (1995). Teaching and learning online: A correspondence education for the 21st century? British Journal
of Educational Technology, 26(3), 205–215. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.1995.tb00342.x

Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

Rushkoff, D. (2012). Code literacy: A 21st century requirement. Edutopia. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/
blog/code-literacy-21st-century-requirement-douglas-rushkoff

Rushkoff, D. (2019, March 21). What if Mark Zuckerberg had stayed in school? Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.
com/s/douglas-rushkoff/what-if-mark-zuckerberg-had-stayed-in-school-321aa3129af5

Rushkoff, D. (2010). Program or be programmed. Ten commands for a digital age. Berkeley, CA: Soft Skull Press.
doi:10.2307/j.ctt207g7rj

Russell, T. (1998). Introduction to Part 1: Philosophical perspectives. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing teach-
ing practice: Self-Study in teacher education (pp. 5–6). London: Falmer Press.

Sahin, T. (2003). Student teachers’ perceptions of instructional technology: Developing materials based on a constructivist
approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 67–74. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00305

Salen, K., Torres, R., Wolozin, L., Rufo-Tepper, R., & Shapiro, A. (2011). Quest to learn: Developing the school for
digital kids. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Säljö, R. (1996). Mental and physical artifacts in cognitive practice. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans
and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 83–96). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Salmani Nodoushan, M., & Deeson, E. (2015). Teaching for creativity in the common core classroom. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 46(5).

Salyer, D. (2015). Reading the web: Internet guided reading with young children. The Reading Teacher, 69(1), 35–39.
doi:10.1002/trtr.1380

Saroyan, A., & Trigwell, K. (2015). Higher education teachers’ professional learning: Process and outcome. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 46, 92–101. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.03.008

Savage, A. J., & Brown, D. S. (2014). Examining past studies of the effects of classroom technology implementation in
terms of student attitude and academic achievement. Global Education Journal, 4, 20–27.

Savin-Baden, M. (2016). The impact of transdisciplinary threshold concepts on student engagement in problem-based
learning: A conceptual synthesis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 10(2). doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1588

Sawchuk, S. (2009). Motives of 21st-century-skills group questioned. Education Week, 29(14), 18–21.

420
Compilation of References

Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in
education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(3).

Schiller, F. (2016). On the aesthetic education of man. Penguin.

Schneider, R. M. (2013). Opportunities for teacher learning during enactment of inquiry science curriculum materi-
als: Exploring the potential for teacher educative materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(2), 323–346.
doi:10.100710972-012-9309-9

Schrum, L., Strudler, N., & Thompson, A. (2011). ICTs and Teacher Competencies. Policy brief. UNESCO. Retrieved from
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000216691?posInSet=10&queryId=131d494b-2c29-457e-bc42-7be6c37daaed

Schuchardt, A. M., Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Schunn, C. D., Stein, M. K., & Reynolds, B. (2017). How much professional
development is needed with educative curriculum materials? It depends on the intended student learning outcomes.
Science Education, 101(6), 1015–1033. doi:10.1002ce.21302

Schwartz, D., Tsang, J., & Blair, K. (2016). The ABCs of How We Learn. W.W. Norton & Company.

Scott, J. A., & Halkias, D. (2016). Consensus Processes Fostering Relational Trust Among Stakeholder Leaders in a
Middle School: A Multi-Case Study. International Leadership Journal, 8(3).

Scully, A. (2012). Decolonization, reinhabitation and reconciliation: Aboriginal and place-based education. Canadian
Journal of Environmental Education, 17, 148–158.

Selwyn, N. (2016). Digital downsides: Exploring university students’ negative engagements with digital technology.
Teaching in Higher Education, 21(8), 1006–1021. doi:10.1080/13562517.2016.1213229

Senapaty, H. (2005). Need for Information and Communication Technologies Penetration into a New Paradigm of Learn-
ing. In ICT Initiatives Quality Improvement in Elementary Education. GoI Project.

Serafini, F. (2015). Multimodal literacy: From theories to practices. Language Arts, 92(6), 412–423.

Serce, F. C., Swigger, K., Alpaslan, F. N., Brazile, R., Dafoulas, G., & Lopez, V. (2010). Online collaboration: Collab-
orative behavior patterns and factors affecting globally distributed team performance. Computers in Human Behavior,
27(1), 490–503. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.09.017

Sezgin, E. Y., & Ulus, L. (2017). The early literacy at preschool education: The book or the e-book? TOJET: The Turk-
ish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(4). Retrieved from http://ulib.iupui.edu/cgi-bin/proxy.pl?url=http://
search-proquest-com.proxy.ulib.uits.iu.edu/docview/1988915859?accountid=7398

Shaffer, D. (2000). Social and personality development (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
doi:10.1057/9780230601994

Shamim, F., Negash, N., Chuku, C., & Demewoz, N. (2007). Maximising learning in large classes: Issues and options. Ad-
dis Ababa: The British Council. Retrieved from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/ELT-16-screen.pdf

Shanahan, T. (2013). Letting the text take center stage: How the Common Core State Standards will transform English
Language Arts instruction. American Educator, 37(3), 4–11.

Sharp. (2018). Collaborative Digital Literacy Practices among Adult Learners: Levels of Confidence and Perceptions of
Importance. International Journal of Instruction, 1(11), 153-166. doi:10.12973/iji.2018.11111a

421
 Compilation of References

Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in
fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175–190. doi:10.1016/j.
iheduc.2006.06.005

Sheehan, L. (2017). Virtual Reality in Your OT Practice. OT Potential. Retrieved June 2019: https://otpotential.com/
blog/virtual-reality-and-occupational-therapy

Sheldon, L. (2011). The Multi-player classroom: Designing coursework as a game. Herndon, VA: Cengage Learning.

Shell, D., Husman, J., Turner, J., Cliffel, D., Nath, I., & Sweany, N. (2005). The impact of computer supported col-
laborative learning communities on high school students’ knowledge building, strategic learning, and perceptions of
the classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(3), 327–349. doi:10.2190/787L-BCBQ-20FN-FW6C

Sherman, L. W. (1986). Cooperative versus competitive educational psychology classrooms: A comparative study.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(3), 283–295. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(86)80008-7

Shermer, E. T. (2014). Review. The Journal of Modern History, 86(4), 884–890. doi:10.1086/678713

Shimazoe, J., & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: Understanding & overcoming resistance to coopera-
tive learning. College Teaching, 58(2), 52–57. doi:10.1080/87567550903418594

Shoffner, M. (2009). Personal attitudes and technology: Implications for preservice teacher reflective practice. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 36(2), 143–161.

Shute, V. (2011). Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support learning. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.),
Computer games and instruction (pp. 503–524). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.

Sidel, S., Walters, J., Kirby, E., Olff, N., Powell, K., Scripp, L., & Veenama, S. (1997). Portfolio practices: Thinking
through the assessment of children’s work. Washington, DC: National Education Association Publishing Library.

Silver, L. (2019, May 13). Social media users in 11 countries see false information online. Pew Research Center. Retrieved
from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/13/misinformation-and-fears-about-its-impact-are-pervasive-in-
11-emerging-economies/

Simonite, T. (2019). The best algorithms struggle to recognize black faces equally. WIRED. Retrieved from https://www.
wired.com/story/best-algorithms-struggle-recognize-black-faces-equally/

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. M. (Eds.). (2014). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of
distance education. IAP.

Simpson, L. (2014). Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation. Decolonization, 3(3).

Singh, J. D. (2014). ICT Enabled Teacher Education in Context of New Millennium. Scholarly Journal for Interdisci-
plinary Studies, 2(14).

Sinha, U. (2010). SIFT: Theory and practice. AI Shock. Retrieved June 2019: https://aishack.in/tutorials/sift-scale-
invariant-feature-transform-introduction/

Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web‐based and classroom
instruction: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 623–664. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00049.x

Sluijsmans, D. (2002). Establishing learning effects with integrated peer assessment tasks. Retrieved from
http://78.158.56.101/archive/palatine/files/930.pdf

422
Compilation of References

Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher
education: effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 27(5), 443–454.
doi:10.1080/0260293022000009311

Sluijsmans, D., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Martens, R. L. (2004). Training teachers in peer-assessment
skills: Effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 59–78.
doi:10.1080/1470329032000172720

Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., & Angeles, J. (2000). Teachers’ Tools for the 21st
Century: A Report on Teachers’ Use of Technology. Statistical Analysis Report. Academic Press.

Smith, R. (2014). Transformations in ELT: contexts, agents and opportunities. In NELTA Conference Proceedings 2013.
Kathmandu, Nepal: Nepal English Language Teachers’ Association.

Smith, B. L. N. (2018). Public transparency, student privacy, and technological persuasion in education: Refining some
concerns of opt out. Thresholds in Education, 41(3), 19.

Smith, B., & MacGregor, J. (1992). What is collaborative learning? In A. Goodsell, M. Maher, V. Tinto, B. Smith, & J.
MacGregor (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 9–22). University Park, PA: National
Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, Pennsylvania State University.

Smith, H., Cooper, A., & Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment: A case for student
and staff development. Innovations in education and teaching international, 39(1), 71–81. doi:10.1080/13558000110102904

Smith, P. A., & Owens, E. W. (2010). Examining barriers to integrate technology in elementary teacher education pro-
grams. Journal of Technology Integration, 2(1), 59–74.

Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2016). Digest of education statistics 2015 (NCES 2016-014). Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

South, J., Sykora, C., Stoeckl, S., Liesch, J., & Malespinna, E. (2018, September). Crosswalk: Future ready librarians
framework and ISTE standards for educators. Retrieved from the International Society for Technology in Education on
November 19, 2018, from https://www.iste.org/docs/isteu-docs/iste-standards-e_frl-crosswalk_6-2018_v7-2.pdf

Spaeth, A. D., & Black, R. S. (2012). Google Docs as a form of collaborative learning. Journal of Chemical Education,
89(8), 1078–1079. doi:10.1021/ed200708p

Specia, M., & Mozur, P. (2017, October 27). A war of words puts Facebook at the center of Myanmar’s Rohingya crisis.
The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/world/asia/myanmar-government-facebook-
rohingya.html

Squire, K. (2011). Video games and learning: Teaching and participatory culture in the digital age. NY: Teachers Col-
lege Press.

Srivathsan, K.R. (2010). Vedyadhara Open (E) Learning Enviornment. Celebrating 25 Years of Excellence. IGNOU.

Standerford, N. S., Sabin, J. M., Anderson, D., Edge, C., Lubig, J., & Cameron-Standerford, A. (2012). Minding the gap:
Navigating chasms of confusion and fogs of frustration—A Problems Court. American Reading Forum Annual Yearbook,
32. Retrieved from http://americanreadingforum.org/yearbook/12_yearbook/volume12.htm

Statista. (2019). Smartphone ownership in Australia as of March 2018, by age. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/
statistics/730101/australia-smartphone-ownership-by-age/

423
 Compilation of References

Steinke, L., & Putnam, A. (2011). Mentoring teachers in technology education: Analyzing the need. The Journal of
Technology Studies, 37(1), 41-49.

Stephan, W. G., & Vogt, W. P. (Eds.). (2004). Education programs for improving intergroup relations: Theory, research,
and practice. Teachers College Press.

Stepneski, K. (2019). Teaching Cultural Competencies Through Virtual Reality. Online and Distance Education News.
Retrieved June 2019: https://online-distance.ncsu.edu/teaching-cultural-competencies-through-virtual-reality/

Steven, S.D. (2005). Dilemmas in the Study of Information exploring the Boundaries of Information Science. New York:
Greenwood press.

Stevens, V., & Verschoor, J. (2017). Coding and English language teaching. The Electronic Journal for Teaching English
as a Second Language, 21(2), 1–15.

Stitzlein, S. M., & West, C. K. (2014). New forms of teacher education: Connections to charter schools and their ap-
proaches. Democracy & Education, 22(2), 2.

Stolle, E. (2008). Teachers, literacy, & technology: Tensions, complexities, conceptualizations & practice. In Y. Kim, V.
Risko, D. Compton, D. Dickinson, M. Hundley, R. Jimenez, K. Leander & D. Wells-Rowe (Eds.), 57th yearbook of the
National Reading Conference (pp. 56–69). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.

Storyjumper. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.storyjumper.com/

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded
theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sung, Y. T., Wu, M. D., Chen, C. K., & Chang, K. E. (2015). Examining the online reading behavior and performance
of fifth-graders: Evidence from eye-movement data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–15. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00665
PMID:26074837

Sung, Y., Chang, K., Chiou, S., & Hou, H. (2005). The design and application of a web-based self- and peer-assessment
system. Computers & Education, 45(2), 187–202. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.002

Sung, Y., Chen-Shan Lin, J., Chi-Lung Lee, J., & Chang, K. (2003). Evaluating proposals for experiments: An ap-
plication of web-based self-assessment and peer assessment. Teaching of Psychology, 30(4), 331–333. doi:10.1207/
S15328023TOP3004_06

Suto I., Eccles, H., & Cambridge Assessment. (2014). The Cambridge approach to 21st Century skills: definitions,
development and dilemmas for assessment. A paper presented at the IAEA Conference, Singapore. Retrieved from
http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/461811-the-cambridge-approach-to-21st-century-skills-definitions-
development-and-dilemmas-for-assessment-.pdf

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous
online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306–331. doi:10.1080/0158791010220208

Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communi-
ties: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
23(4), 359–383. doi:10.2190/W4G6-HY52-57P1-PPNE

Szeto, E. (2014). A comparison of Online/Face-to-face students’ and instructor’s experiences: Examining blended syn-
chronous learning effects. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4250–4254. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.926

424
Compilation of References

Takwale, R. (2014). Life Long Learning for Development with ‘anyone, anytime, anywhere’ access to ‘quality of education
for all’ with tech-MODE. In E-learning in Teacher Education: Experiences and Emerging Issues. University of Delhi.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the Net Generation is changing your world. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Taylor, J. M., Dunn, M., & Winn, S. K. (2015). Innovative orientation leads to improved success in online courses.
Online Learning, 19(4), 112-120.

TED TALK Do Schools Kill Creativity. (2006). In YouTube. Retrieved June 10, 2019 from https://www.ted.com/talks/
ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity?language=en

Teo, T. (2009). The impact of subjective norm and facilitating conditions on pre-service teachers’ attitude toward computer
use: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 40(1), 89–109. doi:10.2190/EC.40.1.d

Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers &
Education, 57(4), 2432–2440. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008

Terosky, A. L., & Heasley, C. (2015). Supporting online faculty through a sense of community and collegiality. Online
Learning, 19(3), 147–161.

Tezci, E. (2011). Turkish primary school teachers’ perceptions of school culture regarding ICT integration. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 429.

Thiel Foundation. (n.d.). The Thiel Fellowship. Retrieved from https://thielfellowship.org/

Thompson, S. (2015). Policy insights: Australian students in a digital world. Australian Council for Educational Research, 3.

Thompson, S. S. (2003). Using technology to promote critical thinking through the natural sciences. TecKnowLogia,
5(1), 38–39.

Thornton, K. (2018, July 25). Fostering divergent thinkers. Nine Billion Schools. Retrieved from https://9billionschools.
org/theblog/2018/7/25/fostering-divergent-thinkers

Thoughtful Learning. (2019). What are 21st century skills? Thoughtful Learning. Retrieved from https://k12.thoughtful-
learning.com/FAQ/what-are-21st-century-skills

Tierney, R. J. (2018). Toward a model of global meaning making. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(4), 397–422.
doi:10.1177/1086296X18803134

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational
Research, 45(1), 89–125. doi:10.3102/00346543045001089

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. University of Chicago Press,
5801 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60637.

Tinto, V. (1993). Building community. Liberal Education, 79(4), 16–21. PMID:10124451

Todd, R. W. (2006). Why investigate large classes? KMUTT Journal of Language Education, 9, 1-12. Retrieved from
https://www.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/reflections/article/view/114271

Tomlinson, C., & Sousa, D. (2011). Differentiation and the Brain: How Neuroscience Supports the Learner-Friendly
Classroom. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

425
 Compilation of References

Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575. doi:10.100711423-016-9481-2

Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research,
68(3), 249–276. doi:10.3102/00346543068003249

Topping, K. (2010). Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment. Learning and
Instruction, 20(4), 339–343. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.003

Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between
postgraduate Students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169. doi:10.1080/713611428

Toulouse, P. (2016). What Matters in Indigenous Education. Measuring What Matters.

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills. Learning for life in our times. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Trimbur, J., Bizzell, P., Knoblauch, C. H., Brannon, L., & Spellmeyer, K. (1994). Taking the social turn: Teaching writ-
ing post process. College Composition and Communication, 45(1), 108–118. doi:10.2307/358592

Trinidad, S., Sharplin, E., Lock, G., Ledger, S., Boyd, D., & Terry, E. (2010). Developing strategies at the pre-service
level to address critical teacher attraction and retention issues in Australian rural, regional and remote schools. Educa-
tion in Rural Australia, 21(1), 111–120.

Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy, 11(1), 1-15.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Truth and reconciliation commission of Canada: Calls to
action. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Tsai, C., Lin, S. J., & Yuan, S. (2002). Developing science activities through a networked peer assessment system.
Computers & Education, 38(1/3), 241–252. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00069-0

Tsai, C., Liu, E., Lin, S. J., & Yuan, S. (2001). A networked peer assessment system based on a vee heuristic. Innovations
in Education and Teaching International, 38(3), 220–230. doi:10.1080/14703290110051415

Tu, C. H. (2002). The impacts of text-based CMC on online social presence. Journal of Interactive Online Learning,
1(2), 1–24.

Tu, C. H. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. International Journal on E-
Learning, 1(2), 34–45.

Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal
of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2

Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization, 1(1), 1–40.

Tucker, S. (2001). Distance education: Better, worse, or as good as traditional education? Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration, 4(4).

Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 101–124. doi:10.100711423-007-9050-9

U.S. Department of Education (2000). Teachers’ Tools for the 21st Century: A Report on Teachers’ Use of Technology.
NCES 2000–102. National Center for Education Statistics.

426
Compilation of References

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning
powered by technology (National Education Technology Plan 2010). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://
www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in educa-
tion: 2017 national education technology plan update. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Advancing Educational Technology in Teacher Preparation: Policy Brief. U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/teacherprep/

UNESCO. (2011). Media and Information Literacy (MIL). Curriculum and Competency framework. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2011). UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2016). School and teaching practices for twenty-first century challenges: lessons from Asia-Pacific Region.
Regional synthesis report. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000244022

Urciuoli, B. (2008). Skills and selves in the new workplace. American Ethnologist, 35(2), 211–228. doi:10.1111/j.1548-
1425.2008.00031.x

Urtel, M. G. (2008). Assessing academic performance between traditional and distance education course formats. Journal
of Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 322–330.

Vachris, M. A. (1997). Teaching economics in a virtual classroom. Virginia Economic Journal, 2(3), 17–26.

Valadez, J. R., & Durán, R. P. (2007). Redefining the digital divide: Beyond access to computers and the Internet. High
School Journal, 90(3), 31–44. doi:10.1353/hsj.2007.0013

Valdez, G., McNabb, M., Foertsch, M., Anderson, M., Hawkes, M., & Raack, L. (2000). Computer-based technology
and learning: Evolving uses and expectations. Retrieved from http://www.ncrel.org/tplan/cbtl/toc.htm

Vallera, F. (2019). Durkheim said what? Creating talking textbooks with augmented reality and project-based activities.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(3), 290–310. doi:10.1080/15391523.2019.1617809

Vallera, F., & Lewis, M. (2019). Andragogical design considerations for online multicultural education. In J. Keengwe
& K. Kungu (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Cross-Cultural Online Learning in Higher Education (pp. 364–383).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8286-1.ch018

Van de Oudeweetering, K., & Voogt, J. (2018). Teachers’ conceptualization and enactment of twenty-first century
competences: Exploring dimensions for new curricula. Curriculum Journal, 29(1), 116–133. doi:10.1080/09585176.2
017.1369136

van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Designing student peer assessment in higher education: Analysis
of written and oral peer feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(2), 135–147. doi:10.1080/13562510500527685

Van Dusen, G. (1998). Technology: Higher education’s magic bullet. The NEA Higher Education Journal. Retrieved
from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/abf4/b41084f39f15d6d13ffdb84322a902ed3228.pdf

Van Eck, R. (Ed.). (2010). Gaming and cognition: Theories and practice from the learning sciences (pp. 152–168).
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-717-6

Vanassche, E., & Kelchtermans, G. (2015). The state of the art in self-study of teacher education practices: A systematic
literature review. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(4), 508–528. doi:10.1080/00220272.2014.995712

427
 Compilation of References

Vandenberg, P., Hum, S., & Clary-Lemon, J. (2006). Critical introduction. In P. Vandenberg, S. Hum, & J. Clary-Lemon
(Eds.), Composition theory for writing teachers. Urbana, IL: National Council for Teachers of English.

Vaughan, N. (2010). A blended community of inquiry approach: Linking student engagement and course redesign. The
Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 60–65. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.007

Viadero, D. (1997). A tool for learning: In technology counts. Education Week, 17(11), 12–18.

Vickers, J. C., & Shae, P. (2017). Future directions for social presence. In A. L. Whiteside, A. G. Dikkers, & K. Swan
(Eds.), Social presence in online learning (pp. 191–206). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Visser, L., Plomp, T., Amirault, R. J., & Kuiper, W. (2002). Motivating students at a distance: The case of an international
audience. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 94–110. doi:10.1007/BF02504998

Visser, M. (2012). Digital literacy definition. ALA Connect.

Visual Thinking Strategies. (2018). Retrieved from https://vtshome.org

Von Gillern, S., & Alaswad, Z. (2016). Games and game-based learning in instructional design. International Journal
of Technologies in Learning, 23(4), 1–7. doi:10.18848/2327-0144/CGP/v23i04/1-7

Vu, T., & Dall’Alba, G. (2007). Students’ experience of peer assessment in a professional course. Assessment & Evalu-
ation in Higher Education, 32(5), 541–556. doi:10.1080/02602930601116896

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (Rev. Ed). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. In The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.

Wagner, E. (2014). Big Data, Analytics and Reflections on Student Success. WCET Frontiers.

Wagner, T. (2008). Rigor redefined. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 20–25.

Wakama. W.T. (2009). Technology and Environment in the role of Technology in the Industrial Development of Nigeria.
Ibadan: HEB ltd.

Walsh, M. (2009). Pedagogic potentials of multimodal literacy. In L. W. H. Tan & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of
research on new media literacy at the K-12 level: Issues and challenges (pp. 32–47). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-120-9.ch003

Walters, L., Green, M., Goldsby, D., & Parker, D. (2018). Digital storytelling as a problem-solving strategy in mathematics
teacher education: How making a math-eo engages excites 21st century students. International Journal of Technology
in Education and Science, 2(1), 1–16.

Wang, Q., & Zhang, N. (2011). Teaching large classes in China – English as a foreign language. Retrieved from www.
ntu.edu.vn/Portals/96/.../Teaching%20large%20classes%20%287%29.pdf

Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self- efficacy beliefs for technology
integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 231–250. doi:10.1080/15391523.2004.10782414

Wastiau, P., Blamire, R., Kearney, C., Quittre, V., Van de Gaer, E., & Monseur, C. (2013). The use of ICT in education:
A survey of schools in Europe. European Journal of Education48(1), 11–27.

428
Compilation of References

Watson, C. A. (2018). Digital Literacy: Detecting fake news in a post-truth era. Continuing Legal Education Presentation,
8. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=cle

Watty, K., McKay, J., & Ngo, L. (2016). Innovators or inhibitors? Accounting faculty resistance to new educational
technologies in higher education. Journal of Accounting Education, 36, 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.jaccedu.2016.03.003

Weber, J. M., & Lennon, R. (2007). Multi-course comparison of traditional versus Web-based course delivery systems.
Journal of Educators Online, 4(2).

WebQuest. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebQuest

Welker, A. P. (2012). A comparative analysis between English 1020 course outcomes taught online and face-to-face.
University of Colorado at Denver.

Welsh, M. (2012). Student perceptions of using the PebblePad e-portfolio system to support self- and peer-based forma-
tive assessment. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(1), 57–83. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2012.659884

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press.

Wen, M., & Tsai, C. (2008). Online peer assessment in an in-service science and mathematics teacher education course.
Teaching in Higher Education, 13(1), 55–67. doi:10.1080/13562510701794050

Wessner, M., & Pfister, H. R. (2007). Points of cooperation: Integrating cooperative learning into web-based courses. In
The role of technology in CSCL (pp. 21–46). Boston, MA: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-71136-2_3

Whitton, N. (2010). Learning with digital games: A practical guide to engaging students in higher education. New York
City, NY: Routledge.

Whitworth, S. A., & Berson, M. J. (2002). Computer technology in the social studies: An examination of the effective-
ness literature (1996-2001). Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 2(4), 471–508.

Wicks, D., Craft, B. B., Mason, G. N., Gritter, K., & Bolding, K. (2015). An investigation into the community of in-
quiry of blended classrooms by faculty learning community. Internet and Higher Education, 25, 53–62. doi:10.1016/j.
iheduc.2014.12.001

Willis, J. (2007). Creating a working model for technology integration through a lesson planning WebQuest. Electronic
Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 5, 25–33.

Wladis, C., Conway, K. M., & Hachey, A. C. (2015). The online STEM classroom—Who succeeds? An exploration of
the impact of ethnicity, gender, and non-traditional student characteristics in the community college context. Community
College Review, 43(2), 142–164. doi:10.1177/0091552115571729

Wolff, B. G., Wood-Kustanowitz, A. M., & Ashkenazi, J. M. (2014). Student performance at a community college:
Mode of delivery, employment, and academic skills as predictors of success. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching
/ MERLOT, 10(2).

Workshop on ‘Digitization of Instructional Materials in Teacher Education’ produces resource persons development. (2018
July 5). Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/harare/about-this-office/single-view/news/workshop_on_digitiza-
tion_of_instructional_materials_in_te/

Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ perceptions and
practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173–207.

Wu, C., & Kao, H. (2008). Streaming videos in peer assessment to support training pre-service teachers. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 45–55.

429
 Compilation of References

Wu, Y. T., & Wang, L. J. (2015). The exploration of elementary school teachers’ Internet self-efficacy and information
commitments: A study in Taiwan. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 211–222.

Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Good, J., & McLean, T. (2017). Computational thinking in teacher education. In P. Rich & C. Hodges
(Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 205–220). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
3-319-52691-1_13

Yekini, N. A. (2014). ICT (Concepts and Application). Self-Directed and Learning Approach. Hasfem Publication.

Yenawine, P. (2013). Visual thinking strategies: Using art to deepen learning across school disciplines. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Education Press.

Yokota, J., & Teale, W. H. (2014). Picture books and the digital world: Educators making informed choices. The Reading
Teacher, 67(8), 577. Retrieved from http://ulib.iupui.edu/cgi-bin/proxy.pl?url=http://search-proquest-com.proxy.ulib.
uits.iu.edu/docview/1523712650?accountid=7398

Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-
based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89–99. doi:10.1177/0022487109347671

Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2005). Integration and adaptation: Approaches to the student retention and achievement puzzle.
Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(1), 46–59. doi:10.1177/1469787405049946

Zhang, Z. & Martinovic, D. (2008). ICT in teacher education: Examining needs, expectations and attitudes. Academic
Press.

Zhang, D., & Zhou, L. (2003). Enhancing e-learning with interactive multimedia. Information Resources Management
Journal, 16(4), 1–14. doi:10.4018/irmj.2003100101

Zhao, Y. (1998). The effects of anonymity on computer-mediated peer review. International Journal of Educational
Telecommunications, 4(4), 311–345.

Zhao, Y. (2007). Social studies teachers’ perspectives of technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 15(3), 311.

Zheng, B., Warshauer, M., Lin, C., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis
and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1052–1084. doi:10.3102/0034654316628645

Zheng, Y., Wang, J., Doll, W., Deng, X., & Williams, M. (2018). The impact of organisational support, technical sup-
port, and self-efficacy on faculty perceived benefits of using learning management systems. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 37(4), 311–319. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2018.1436590

Zhou, M., & Brown, D. (2015). Educational Learning Theories (2nd ed.). Academic Press.

430
 431

About the Contributors

Jared Sagini Keengwe is a Professor at the University of North Dakota (UND) and currently serves
as the coordinator of the Elementary Education program. He is the editor-in-chief of two IGI Global
Book Series: “Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development” (AHEPD) and “Advances
in Early Childhood and K-12 Education” (AECKE). Keengwe has published more than 35 reference
books and several publications in refereed journals. His research interests focus on digital technologies
and learner-centered pedagogy in teacher education. His work was honored with the UND Foundation/
McDermott Faculty Award for Excellence in Academic Advising. He was a recipient of the North Da-
kota Spirit Faculty Achievement Award in recognition of significant contributions in teaching, research,
and service. At the national level, Keengwe was one of the 10 recipients selected to receive the 2010
American Educational Research Association (AERA) Teacher Education Travel Award. More recently,
Prof. Keengwe was a recipient of the Carnegie African Diaspora Fellowship.

Grace Onchwari is an Associate Professor at the University of North Dakota, USA, where she teaches
a variety of graduate and undergraduate courses in early childhood education. She has previously served as
the coordinator of the early childhood program. Her research focuses on teacher professional development,
immigrant children, Head Start, and mentor-coaching. Dr. Onchwari’s academic background includes a
postgraduate diploma in education, Masters in child development and early childhood education and a
doctoral degree in curriculum instruction with an early childhood education emphasis. Dr. Onchwari has
researched and authored articles and book chapters with a focus on these areas. She is also the co-editor
of multiple books including “Handbook of Research on Engaging Immigrant Families and Promoting
Academic Success for English Language Learners” and “Handbook of Research on Learner-Centered
Pedagogy in Teacher Education and Professional Development.”

***

Awoyemi R. Akinade is a Systems Librarian/Analyst at Adeyemi Federal College of Education,

Ondo, Nigeria. He holds a Bachelor in Library and Information Science and Master of Information
Science Degrees from Africa Regional Centre for Information Science, University of Ibadan. He has
vast experience in Librarianship with special interest in Electronic Information Systems, Information
Retrieval and Library Automation. He has published over thirty articles in reputable foreign and in-
digenous Journals and presented papers in many local and international conferences. He is a Member,
Nigerian Library Association; Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, London and
Librarians’ Registration Council of Nigeria. He is also a recipient of IFLA/FAIFE grants for Librarians’


 About the Contributors

Intervention and Prevention Project on HIV/AIDs in Nigeria. He is presently The Acting College Librar-
ian, Adeyemi Federal College of Education, Ondo, Nigeria. His current research examines adoption and
use if innovative mobile technologies in academic libraries.

Maycie Asher is a senior at Indiana-University-Purdue-University, Columbus. She will graduate

in May 2020 with a Bachelor’s Degree in Elementary Education with a concentration in Mathematics.
She is currently a teacher candidate for IUPUC’s Division of Education, and is excited to begin student
teaching. This research has expanded her understanding of the uses and benefits of digital and paper texts
in the classroom for her future teaching contexts. She aspires to bring this new knowledge to elemen-
tary classrooms, to share her love for education. Maycie hopes to build on the group’s current study by
examining the impact of paper and digital texts on English Language Learners’ reading comprehension.

Richard Awoyemi has a Bachelor of Degree in Linguistics and Languages from Adekunle Ajasin
Universuty, Ondo State, Nigeria. He is a Graduate Assistant in the Federal College of Education, Ondo,
Nigeria. His Research interests are mainly in the evolution and integration of ICT in Education and most
particularly in Language Use in the 21st Century. He is a research-oriented linguist and readily eager
to acquire more introspective knowledge about his field of study and other contemporary researches
pertaining to education extensively.

Kelli Bippert is an Assistant Professor of Literacy Education at Texas A&M University Corpus
Christi. Dr. Bippert was a classroom teacher for 15 years, teaching grades 4 through 8. She holds both
Texas Master Reading Teacher and Reading Specialist Certifications. Dr. Bippert earned her Ph.D. in
Interdisciplinary Learning & Teaching from UTSA with a concentration in literacy education. Dr. Bip-
pert’s research and scholarship center on adolescent literacy, cultural perceptions of struggling adolescent
readers, technology-based reading interventions, and the integration of popular culture/ media texts to
support in-school literacies. She has been published in Reading Psychology, Research in Middle Level
Education, and The Reading Professor.

Anita Chadha is a professor at the University of Houston-Downtown. She teaches at both the gradu-
ate and undergraduate levels. She has two areas of research. On is on online civic engagement while the
other area of research is on electoral reform.

Edwin Creely is a lecturer in the Faculty of Education at Monash University in Melbourne, Austra-
lia. He is an educator, academic, and writer with an interest in creativity, poetry, literacy (L1 and L2),
theory and philosophy, digital pedagogy and new technologies, and learning. His current projects focus
on creativity, risk and failure in policy and practice, poetry pedagogy, academic literacies, learning with
digital technologies, critical discourse analysis and ethnography. Core to Edwin’s work is his interest in
innovation and creative practices and bringing new models and perspectives to educational research and
practice. He also has an abiding interest in phenomenology and its applications in educational research.
Edwin has published widely and is a regular at international conferences.

432
About the Contributors

Karen Dunlap is a Professor of Curriculum and Instruction in the Teacher Education Department
at Texas Woman’s University. She received a B.S. in Elementary Education/Reading from Stephen F.
Austin State University, M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction from Stephen F. Austin State University,
and an Ed.D. in Educational Leadership/Curriculum Focus from the University of Texas at El Paso. She
has served in public education for over 25 years as an elementary teacher, instructional specialist, campus
administrator, and in central office administration. In higher education, her primary responsibility lies
in working with preservice teachers at both the graduate and undergraduate level. Her research interests
include pre-service teacher education, assessment of/for learning, and utilization of pedagogical best
practices when integrating instruction and technology. Her teaching specializations include instruction
and assessment practices, classroom management, andragogy, and supervision of elementary student
teachers.

Christi Edge is a teacher educator and an Associate Professor of Education at Northern Michigan
University, where she teaches undergraduate secondary education methods courses, graduate K-12 lit-
eracy and literature courses, and coordinates the graduate reading programs. She has served as Northern
Michigan University’s Extended Learning and Community Engagement Scholar (2017-2019), focusing
on design and delivery for online teaching and learning. In 2016, she received the university’s Excellence
in Teaching Award. Prior to academe, Christi taught high school English language arts and reading.
Her research addresses teachers’ meaning making from classroom events, multimodal literacy, narrative
inquiry, and methodology for the self-study of teaching and teacher education practices.

Susan Elwood is an Associate Professor of Teacher Education at Texas A&M University Corpus
Christi. Dr. Elwood is the Program Coordinator of the Instructional Design and Educational Technology
program. She is currently on the Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD)
advisory board. Dr. Elwood’s research interests include augmented reality, STEM education, technology
integration in informal and formal learning environments, communities of inquiry in online learning
environments, and technology in teacher education. Some of her publications have been in the journals
of Educational Technology and Society, the International Journal of Information and Communication
Technology Education, and Education and Information Technologies.

Payten Ewing is an undergraduate student at Indiana University—Purdue University Columbus. She

is graduating in May 2020 with a Bachelor’s Degree in Elementary Education with a concentration in
Mathematics. Payten is focused on teaching elementary grade levels or middle school mathematics in the
future, and has a passion for education and food scarcity. In the future, she would love to conduct research
on the impact of food scarcity connected to the performance of students in elementary settings. Payten
hopes to use digital literacy to inform students, families, and local communities about food scarcity and
its impact on education via digital texts.

Rebecca Fredrickson currently serves as an Associate Professor and Undergraduate Program Coor-
dinator in the Curriculum and Instruction Program. She earned her doctorate in Educational Leadership
and undergraduate degree in Theatre and Special Education from Stephen F. Austin State University and
her master’s degree in Educational Leadership at the University of Texas at Tyler. Rebecca teaches under-
graduate and graduate courses in educational theory, diversity, gender and education, and instruction and
assessment. Her research is focused on mentoring and collegiality as well as differentiated instruction.

433
 About the Contributors

Wykeshia Glass is an Assistant Professor in Early Childhood Education and Graduate Director in
the Department of Human Sciences at North Carolina Central University. Dr. Glass received her Bach-
elor of Science degree in Child Development from Alcorn State University and Master of Science and
Doctorate degree in Early Childhood Education from Jackson State University. Currently, as an Assistant
Professor at NCCU, Dr. Glass teaches undergraduate and graduate courses, advise graduate students and
engage in scholarly research and professional development. Grounded in ecological and developmental
frameworks, her graduate work focused on early childhood education as it relates to preschooler’s early
learning environments and quality of childcare centers. Following graduation, she continued her research
in the areas of how childcare experiences are linked to children’s academic readiness and later school
success. Her current research focuses primarily on early childhood education, children perception of
their educational settings, and parental involvement.

Danah Henriksen is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership and Innovation in the Mary
Lou Fulton College at Arizona State University. She received her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology
and Educational Technology from Michigan State University. Her research examines the intersection
of creativity, technology, and design in education. Her work has been presented at conferences such as
AERA, SITE and CPED, and published in peer-reviewed journals such as Teachers College Record,
Thinking Skills & Creativity, and Educational Technology & Society, and practitioner venues such as
Educational Leadership and Art Education Journal. She serves as the creativity working group leader at
EDUsummIT—a UNESCO global consortium of leaders in policy, practice, and scholarship in education,
and is co-Chair of the Creativity SIG for SITE. Dr. Henriksen has taught and developed courses across
varied topics and contexts, and has been recipient of the AT&T Award for technological-pedagogical
innovation.

Desiree Hickman currently resides in Houston, Texas with her daughter where she serves as an
Instructional Coach for a Montessori campus in Houston ISD. Dr. Hickman also teaches grad level
courses at Jackson State University. Dr. Hickman received her Bachelor of Science degree in Elementary
Education from Alcorn State University in 2005. She went on to obtain her Master of Science degree in
Elementary Education from Jackson State University. In 2012 Dr. Hickman received her Doctorate of
Education in Early Childhood. Dr. Hickman’s research focused on diagnostic assessments and student
achievement, which drives her work in coaching teachers to excellence.

Amanda Hurlbut is an Assistant Professor of Curriculum and Instruction in the Teacher Education
Department at Texas Woman’s University. She received a B.S. in Interdisciplinary Studies from the
University of North Texas, M.Ed. in Educational Leadership from Dallas Baptist University, and Ph.D.
in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of North Texas. She has served in public education
for over 15 years as an elementary teacher, instructional specialist, campus administrator, and teacher
educator. Her primary research interests include practice-based pre-service teacher education, authentic
field experiences, formative assessment for learning, and technology integration in K-12 and higher edu-
cation settings. Her teaching specializations include foundations of education, instruction and assessment
practices, classroom management, and supervision of elementary student teachers.

434
About the Contributors

Ephantus Kaugi is a lecturer in the Department of Educational Management, Policy and Curriculum
Studies, Kenyatta University and a director Tredgrow Africal Ltd, an educational consultancy firm. He
holds a PhD (Curriculum studies), Master of Education and Bachelor of Education (Home Economics))
degrees from Kenyatta University. Kaugi has 31 years of educational practice. He has taught both in
High School and Primary Teacher Training College for 7 years (1988-1995) before he was promoted
on merit to the position a District Education Officer with the ministry of education where he served
for 15 years (1995-2010). Kaugi is an experienced educational researcher and consultant both in Kenya
and Somaliland. He has presented conference papers locally and internationally. Kaugi benefited from
the Commonwealth of learning training programme for university lecturers on the integration of ICT
in teaching and learning.

Janna Jackson Kellinger is an associate professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston in the
Curriculum and Instruction department and, in that capacity, is the program director of the Middle/Sec-
ondary Education program. Previously, she taught high school English outside of Atlanta, GA. She has
written extensively on game-based teaching including her 2017 book A Guide to Designing Curricular
Games. At this point, she has designed five game-based courses. While she herself lacks the time to
become a true gamer, her nine-year old twins have inherited her passion for video games.

Alice Wanjira Kiai holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics and English Language Teaching from the
University of Warwick, a Master’s degree in Linguistics, and a Bachelor of Education degree in Lin-
guistics and Literature from the University of Nairobi. She is a writer of English language textbooks
and materials for use in schools, and is interested in researching materials development and the teaching
and learning of academic writing in higher education. She is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of
Language and Communication Studies at The Technical University of Kenya.

Kennard Laviers is currently developing a virtual reality program for Sul Ross State University
and has already incorporated VR elements to the school’s computer science program. Laviers received
his bachelor’s degree in computer science from the University of Texas at El Paso in 2000, his master’s
degree in computer science from the Air Force Institute of Technology in 2003, and his Ph.D. from the
University of Central Florida where he focused on multi-agent learning using Artificial Intelligence.
Laviers has worked as a military officer for 22 years and has been an Assistant Professor of computer
science for seven years.

Lan Li is an Associate Professor of Classroom Technology at Bowling Green State University, USA
and holds a Ph.D. in Educational Studies from University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA. Her research in-
terests include technology-facilitated teaching and learning, technology preparation in teacher education,
and e-learning. Lan Li is enthusiastic about integrating her teaching and research interests with service
opportunities that serve the educational needs of surrounding and global communities.

Charity M. Limboro is a lecturer in the department of Educational Management, Policy and Cur-
riculum Studies, Kenyatta University and an independent consultant. Limboro is an educationist with
25 years of teaching experience at high school and University sectors of education in Kenya. She taught
English and literature at the secondary school level for 12 years (1993-2005) before joining higher edu-
cation (2006-update) as a teacher trainer in the field of curriculum studies. She is a seasoned researcher

435
 About the Contributors

and expert in monitoring and evaluation with a credible track record of scholarship. She has presented
conference papers locally and internationally. Limboro has written and published papers in the broad
area of quality education, girls’ education, gender and learning outcomes. Her latest publications are
focused on teacher education, inequalities in education, and learning outcomes.

Laura B. Liu is an Assistant Professor and ENL Program Coordinator in the Division of Education
at Indiana University-Purdue University, Columbus. She completed her doctoral degree in multicultural
teacher education at The George Washington University and her postdoctoral degree on teacher educa-
tion faculty international professional development at Beijing Normal University’s Center for Teacher
Education Research, where she served as an Assistant Professor (2014-2015). Laura began her teaching
career as a high school ENL program coordinator and World Literature teacher and earned her National
Board Certification in teaching English Language Arts. Her research focuses on glocalization, teacher
glocal development, and the integration of cultural and ecological diversity and sustainability in teacher
education curricula. Laura integrates art-based approaches in her teaching and research, and has published
a children’s book series on cultural and ecological sustainability.

Xiongyi Liu is an Associate Professor of Educational Psychology and Research Methods in the De-
partment of Curriculum and Foundations at Cleveland State University, USA. Dr. Liu received a Ph.D. in
Educational Psychology from University of Nebraska-Lincoln and previously held a research professor
position at University of Maine-Orono. Her research interests include computer-supported collaborative
learning, serious games in STEM education, self-regulation and motivation, and technology-facilitated
interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder. Dr. Liu has established international collabora-
tions in many of her research endeavors.

Damian Maher is a senior lecturer at the School of International Studies and Education in the Faculty
of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). Damian’s research interests
are located mainly around a STEM focus in primary, secondary and tertiary settings with an emphasis
on the use of technology. He has published over 40 journal articles and book chapters and has worked on
numerous research projects. Damian teaches in the pre-service program at the university and has been
involved in education, starting as a teacher, for 30 years. He has worked at many schools in Australian
states and territories including South Australia, Northern Territory, Tasmania, Victoria, and NSW.

Peter Getyngo Mbugua is a Lecturer in the department of Languages and Literature at United States
International University -Africa. He has taught courses in English Language and Linguistics for over
10 years in several Universities in East Africa. A significant portion of this experience is in teaching
pre-service teachers and he has administratively coordinated teaching practicum for the same cohort.
His research interests are eclectic and cover linguistics, discourse analysis, academic writing, teacher
education, communication and behavior change studies; the uniting theme being empowering individuals
and communities to be more effective in their circles of influence.

Sarah McMahan is an Associate Professor of Curriculum and Instruction and the Co-Director of the
Texas Woman’s University New Teacher Academy. Dr. McMahan teaches undergraduate and graduate
courses in the Department of Teacher Education as well as serves a student teacher supervisor for pre-
service teachers in the DFW area. Her teaching specializations include instructional strategies, learning

436
About the Contributors

theories, and effective classroom management practices. Dr. McMahan has 15 years of experience in
education, including serving as a secondary social studies teacher before entering academia. Dr. Mc-
Mahan’s research is focused on mentoring new teachers and developing school/university partnerships.
Her honors and awards include receiving the 2014 TWU Distinction in Teaching Award, College of
Professional Education Outstanding Teacher and Mentor Award, Dr. G. Ann Uhlir Fellowship in Higher
Education Award, ATE Clinical Practice Fellowship, Ted Booker Memorial Award for Outstanding Con-
tributions to Teacher Education, and TWU Senior Class Favorite Faculty Award for several semesters.

Rohit Mehta is an Assistant Professor of Secondary Curriculum with Instructional Technology in

the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Kremen School of Education and Human Develop-
ment, California State University, Fresno. His research inquiries focus on humanizing and decolonizing
existing educational practice, especially in language arts and STEM areas. He is an educator and artist
working on the intersections of creativity, epistemology, and power to better understand social justice
and equity through education. He works closely with teachers to help design creative and equitable
literacy practices. He has published in internationally acclaimed journals such as Thinking Skills and
Creativity, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, Tech Trends, and Journal of Digital Learning
in Teacher Education.

Aimee Myers currently works as an Assistant Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at Texas
Woman’s University. Her research focus centers on culturally responsive teaching and supporting diver-
sity through equitable and inclusive approaches. She began her career as an educator teaching English
Language Arts to middle school and high school students. After teaching for nine years, she worked at
the K20 Center for Educational and Community Renewal. During this time, she a phase coordinator and
secondary content specialist for a federal GEAR UP grant that supported underserved urban schools.

Daniel Otieno is a Lecturer in the Department of Educational Management Policy and Curriculum
Studies at Kenyatta University, Kenya. He has taught Educational Leadership for over ten years in Uni-
versities. He has published articles in peer reviewed journals in the fields of values-based leadership,
digital literacy, blended learning and strategic management. He lecturers in the fields of Educational
Management, Educational Research, Monitoring and Evaluation and use of ICT in Education. His
primary research focus is on integration of ICT in education, values-based leadership, organizational
performance and the use of emerging pedagogies to support digital education and the development of
21st century competencies. His current research examines internationalization in higher education and
sustainable development of education in emerging economies.

Jennifer (Jenny) L. Penland is currently Director/ Associate Professor of the School of Education
with Shepherd University. She has worked with Sul Ross State University, WWCC, TAMU-C and with
her doctoral Alma Mater, Lamar University in Texas. Penland has been published in such journals as
The Qualitative Report, Journal of Mentoring & Tutoring, Fourth World Journal, XanEdu, Journal of
Teaching and Teacher Education - University of Bahrain, IGI’s Handbook of Research on Educational
Technology Integration and Active Learning, Handbook of Research on Promoting Cross-Cultural Com-
petence and Social Justice in Teacher Education and Handbook of Research on Pedagogical Models for
Next Generation Teaching and Learning. Penland continues her research interests centered on cultural
resilience, has produced two cultural films and will also be presenting papers in 2019 at the 4th Canadian

437
 About the Contributors

International EduTeach Conference, the Ireland International Conference on Education and the London
International Education Conference.

Kayla Pride is currently a senior at Indiana University- Purdue University, Columbus in Columbus,
Indiana. She is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in Elementary Education with a concentration in Language
Arts. Kayla’s passion for teaching young minds stems from her high school, school-to-work program and
volunteering in local Kindergarten classrooms. Her love for children helped drive her desire to identify
the optimum method for learning, based on paper or digital books in the classroom. Kayla is interested
in conducting further research projects that will make her a better teacher and benefit her future students,
classroom, and school.

Doug Reid is a researcher and educator interested in supporting student learning in online and
blended learning environments. He got his PhD in the field of Educational Computing at Edith Cowan
University (Perth, Western Australia). His doctoral research focused on online teacher capabilities and
delivery of distance learning opportunities. In the past, Doug has worked as a K12 teacher, a professor,
an instructional designer, and professional development facilitator. He has designed and overseen many
projects that involved processed n education, instructional design, videoconferencing and supervising
educators. He has delved deeply into using mobile technology to support student learning and develop-
ing online courses using appropriate instructional development processes. More recently, he has delved
deeply into Indigenous education and data analytics.

Shawn Robertson is an Associate Professor in the Child Study Department at St. Joseph’s College.
He is a former middle school and high school English teacher and has served as an Assistant Principal,
Principal and Chief Academic Officer. He holds a BA from SUNY Cortland, a MS in English Education
from Queens College, a MA in Education from Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, and a Doctorate
in Educational Leadership and Administration from St. John’s University. He is a consistent presenter
to local, national and international audiences in the areas of pedagogy and technology integration. He
has authored several articles and book chapters, and is a self-described “tech-geek” who has a passion
for teaching educators how to successfully bridge the digital divide through leveraging technology in
the classroom.

Bashir Sadat is a doctoral student in the Teaching, Learning, and Technology program at Lehigh
University, United States. He is interested in using various technologies in classrooms and developing
technological solutions for all learners. After having classes related to VR, AR, and AI, and their usage
in different settings, Bashir has been searching for ways to integrate these technologies into adult learn-
ing situations and classroom environments. Bashir came from a computer science background with an
undergraduate degree in computer science, having focused on coding and the technical implementation
of technology into learning. He also recently completed his Masters in Instructional Technology from
Lehigh University.

Farah L. Vallera teaches instructional technology and teacher education as a Professor of Practice
in Lehigh University’s Teaching, Learning, and Technology graduate degree program and is a practic-
ing instructional design consultant in higher education. She received a Ph.D. from Lehigh University in
Teaching, Learning, and Technology, where her focus was on using innovative educational technology

438
About the Contributors

in the design and dissemination of STEM-integrated agricultural literacy curriculum for elementary
students. She also has an M.A. and B.A. in sociology from Lehigh University and Centenary College,
respectively. Aside from her teaching and research in instructional design, mobile technology, and blended
learning, she develops multicultural competence and diversity awareness course and training materials
and enjoys practicing urban agriculture and volunteering as an agricultural educator for diverse audiences.

Jennifer H. Van Allen is an Assistant Professor of Literacy Studies within the School of Education
at Lehman College, City University of New York, where she teaches graduate level literacy courses. She
previously taught and served as a classroom teacher and literacy coach in elementary grade classrooms
and schools. Her research interests include digital literacies, open education, and literacy teacher prepa-
ration in the 21st-century. Her research has been published in Reading Psychology, Journal of Literacy
& Technology, and Language & Literacy Spectrum, among others. She supports technology integration
efforts at schools within New York City by providing professional development and working directly
with teachers.

Patrick Wachira holds a joint appointment in the departments of Mathematics and Teacher Education
at Cleveland State University, USA. His teaching experience includes teaching mathematics content and
Mathematics education courses for elementary and middle school teachers. His main research interests
are in the preparation of teachers to teach mathematics in a way that develops understanding facilitated
by appropriate and effective integration of technology in learning. In addition, his research focuses on
teaching mathematics in a way that is culturally responsive.

Vassiliki “Vicky” I. Zygouris-Coe is a Professor of Education at the School of Teacher Education,

in the College of Community Innovation & Education, University of Central Florida where she teaches
graduate level literacy courses. Her research focuses on disciplinary and digital literacies for 21st-century
teaching and learning. She has also developed large-scale online professional development in reading
for K-12 educators in Florida and she continues to support school districts in literacy initiatives. Her
research has been published in a variety of scholarly national and international journals. Dr. Zygouris-
Coe has extensive editorial experiences and external funding record.

439
440
Index
21St Century Skills 1-12, 14, 16-17, 78-89, 91, 142,
145, 147, 152, 154-156, 161, 230, 232, 239-240,
242, 274, 283, 359-364, 366-370, 372, 374-378,
380-381
A 123, 226
Adaptive Release 7-11, 15, 115-119, 123
Andragogy 8, 15, 89, 91-92, 149, 152, 210
Anonymity In Peer Assessment 16, 257, 260
Artificial Intelligence 1-3, 5, 10, 15, 87, 92-95, 97,
103, 107
Artificial Intelligence Processors 15, 107
B Digital Citizenship 3-4, 14, 32, 144, 153, 155
Blended Learning 2-3, 5, 7-8, 11-12, 17, 26, 46, 104,
149, 172-173, 175, 181-182, 187, 263, 327
Boolean Logic 1, 9-10, 14-15, 118, 123, 214, 222, 227
Branching 4, 15, 123, 231
C Digital Story Telling 1, 8-9, 18, 29, 36-37, 46
Cloud Base 28
Collaborative Learning 2, 4-5, 4, 7, 9, 14, 23, 28, 45,
69, 143, 145, 150, 155, 243, 256, 258, 273, 313,
317, 324-325, 327
Competency-Based Curriculum 1-2, 7, 14, 142-143,
148, 155
Computational Thinking 1, 3-4, 14, 214, 216-217,
226-227, 376, 381
Conditional Statements 14, 227
Constructive 3, 5, 7, 10, 16, 133, 247, 249, 251, 260, 263
Content Knowledge 2-6, 2-4, 8-9, 18, 20, 31, 37, 51-52,
54-55, 64, 66, 72-73, 76-77, 80, 158, 240-241,
246, 298
Critical Pedagogy 1-3, 5-7, 10-11, 14-15, 156-158,
160-162, 165-166, 168-170, 185


Critical Thinking 1-13, 19, 25, 31, 33, 36, 80-82, 88,
110, 145, 150, 157, 161-163, 167-168, 194-195,
217, 230, 236, 247, 249-250, 253, 283, 298, 301,
305, 314, 317, 337, 352, 357-362, 368-369
Curricular Games 1-4, 9-11, 15, 109-112, 117-120,
D
Design Thinking 1, 3, 6-13, 15, 78, 80, 83-92, 371,
375, 379
Differing Institutions 1, 3, 9, 12, 20, 300, 302, 308-
311, 319
Digital Assessment Portfolio 4, 6, 6-7, 9, 11, 28
Digital Competency 2, 9, 11, 18, 30, 37, 39, 41, 46
Digital Instruction 4, 7, 15, 145, 148, 170
Digital Literacy 1-12, 1-2, 4, 14, 18, 20-23, 20, 26,
29-32, 31, 34, 39-41, 43-46, 48, 52, 55, 67-69, 75,
77, 80, 82, 125-127, 139, 142-144, 146, 148-153,
155, 229, 236, 283-284, 297-298, 361
E
Early Career Teacher 2-3, 5, 17, 172-173, 175, 187
Ecological Diversity 18, 141
Educative Curriculum Materials 3, 5-6, 17, 20-21, 23,
31, 49, 51-52, 63, 66-67, 69-72, 74-77
Educator Preparation Program 4, 8, 28
E-Learning 2-3, 5, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 21, 26, 41, 44-45,
104, 106-107, 122, 148, 186, 246-247, 312, 314-
318, 325, 330-333, 335, 342, 346-347, 354
Envisionment 26, 213
Extensive Reading 19, 21, 25, 352, 354, 358
Index

F Mentorship Program 17, 187

Mixed Reality 1-4, 6, 9, 16, 93-96, 98, 101, 103, 108
Formative Assessment 1, 4-5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, 205, Modes Of Instruction 1-5, 8-12, 20, 300-304, 307-
245, 252, 259-260 311, 314, 319

G N
Graphics Processing Unit 15, 107 Narrative Inquiry 1, 5, 25, 209, 334, 338, 357-358
Guided Reading 2, 6-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18-19, 21-23, Non-Playing Characters (Npcs) 6, 15, 114, 123
31, 48, 52-56, 58-59, 61-62, 64-65, 67-69, 71-73,
75-77, 133 O
H Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) 8, 14, 221, 227
Online Deliberation 4, 20, 303, 319
Higher Education 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, 12-13, 20, 25, 39, Online Research And Comprehension Skills 1-3, 6-7,
43-46, 90-92, 96, 103-104, 106, 110-111, 121, 9-12, 14, 17-21, 23, 31, 47-49, 52-53, 55-58, 60,
148, 152-153, 185-186, 209, 212, 252, 256-259, 63-67, 69, 77
261-262, 265, 269, 274-277, 311-315, 317-319,
334, 337-338, 355-358, 367, 379 P
Hype Cycle Of Innovation 2, 15, 94, 107
Paper Text 4, 9, 18, 127, 132, 141
I Pedagogical Knowledge 1-4, 3-4, 8, 31, 47, 49-50, 54,
77, 158, 201, 229
ICT 1-11, 13-16, 31, 37-38, 41-45, 142-143, 146-147, Pedagogical Medium 2, 16, 94, 108
149, 154, 240, 282-288, 290-292, 294-298, 321- Peer Assessment 1-11, 16, 245-260
323, 326-328, 330-333 Peer Pressure 11, 16, 255, 260
Information Communication Technology 2, 18, 299, Pre-Service Teacher 2-4, 4, 17, 46, 172-173, 187, 283
322 Professional Learning Communities 4, 6, 15, 50, 83, 92
Inheritance 8, 14, 221, 227
Intensive Reading 25, 358 R
Internet Reciprocal Teaching 8, 12, 22, 31, 54, 58, 68, 77
ISTE Standards 2-4, 6-7, 6, 11, 28, 72, 266-267, 275-276 Reflective Practice 3, 12, 17, 21, 25, 41, 153, 155, 182,
185-187, 336, 354, 358
L Rubric-Based Assessment 16, 260

Learner-Centered Pedagogy 17, 187 S

Learner-Centred Approach 25, 358
Learning Management System (LMS) 6-7, 11, 15, Screencastify.Com 6, 18, 129, 141
114-115, 123, 193, 198, 327 Serious Digital Games 5, 18, 33, 46
Leveling Up 6, 15, 114, 123 Sift Features 5, 16, 97, 108
Lifelong Learning 2, 4-5, 9-10, 14, 17, 38, 105, 143, Simulated Neuron 16, 108
145-146, 153, 155, 187, 367 STEM 1-5, 14-15, 18, 31, 41, 46, 82, 124-125, 127,
Looping 3, 6, 11, 14, 119, 216, 219, 227 319, 372-373, 379
Lowercase New Literacies Theory 6, 31, 52, 77 Storyjumper.Com 6, 18, 129, 140-141
Student-Centered Learning 15, 17, 170, 187, 237
M
Machine Learning 5, 16, 97, 104, 107-108
Makerspace 10, 15, 87, 92
Making Meaning 9, 20, 26, 207, 209, 211, 213, 329
Mediated Learning 13, 331, 333

441

T Technology Integration 1-9, 4, 6, 11-12, 11, 14-15,
Teacher Education 1-14, 1-2, 4-6, 12, 16-18, 20, 23,
25-26, 25-28, 30, 34, 36-38, 40, 42-47, 50, 66,
69-70, 72, 74, 76-77, 80, 85, 89-90, 105, 109,
129, 137, 143, 148-149, 152, 154, 156, 169,
171-176, 179, 182, 184-190, 192-193, 195-196,
198, 205, 207-212, 229, 239, 241, 243, 245-249,
251-253, 255, 257-262, 267, 269, 275, 277, 282,
297-299, 316-318, 321-323, 325-329, 331-333,
378-379, 381
Teacher Guidance 1, 3-4, 7, 9-13, 18, 124, 126-127,
130, 132-135, 141
Teaching And Learning 1-11, 2, 6, 14-19, 17, 21-22,
26, 31, 35, 38, 42-43, 49-50, 53, 71, 76-77, 91,
103, 144, 148, 150-151, 156-159, 165, 170-171,
175-176, 187, 190-191, 195, 198, 201, 205, 208-
209, 212, 228-229, 231, 233-234, 237-241, 256,
263, 282-288, 290-291, 296-299, 313, 315-318,
321-323, 326-328, 334-337, 347, 350, 352, 354-
356, 359, 372-373, 378
Teachlive Lab 18-19, 28
Technological Knowledge 3, 8, 14, 18, 31, 54, 60, 64,
77, 158, 230
442
Index
17-18, 17, 20, 22-23, 26, 26-28, 28, 31, 47-52, 60,
63-64, 66, 68-69, 71-73, 75, 77, 81-82, 85, 88-90,
172, 185-186, 188-189, 201, 206-207, 228-234,
238-244, 262-263, 265-267, 275-276, 282-284,
288-290, 292-293, 295-296, 299
Technology-Rich Classrooms 2, 17, 41, 187
Think Alouds 12, 18, 21, 31, 58, 64, 67, 77
Transaction 26, 213
Transformative Learning 26, 213
U
Uppercase New Literacies Theory 6, 31, 52, 77
V
Validity Of Assessment 16, 260
Virtual Learning Environment 5-6, 10, 13, 325-326,
330, 333
W
Web-Based Peer Assessment 1-11, 16, 245-255, 257,
260