Walden University

ScholarWorks
Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies
Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies
Collection

2018

Exploring Teachers' Perspective of Digital Literacy

Pedagogy: Implications for Future Practice
Kindra Xerez Sabado
Walden University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations

Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Educational Methods Commons,
Instructional Media Design Commons, and the Teacher Education and Professional Development
Commons

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
 Walden University

College of Education

This is to certify that the doctoral study by

Kindra Sabado

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,

and that any and all revisions required by
the review committee have been made.

Review Committee
Dr. Andrew Alexson, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty
Dr. Michelle McCraney, Committee Member, Education Faculty
Dr. Bonita Wilcox, University Reviewer, Education Faculty

Chief Academic Officer

Eric Riedel, Ph.D.

Walden University
2018
 Abstract

Exploring Teachers’ Perspective of Digital Literacy Pedagogy: Implications for Future

Practice

Kindra Xerez Sabado

MAEd, University of Phoenix 2004

BA, University of Hawaii, Manoa, 1995

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Walden University

June 2018
 Abstract

Pedagogy has not addressed the literacy shift from reading, writing, and speaking to

include cognitive digital literacy skills. Teachers lack the technological pedagogical

content knowledge to integrate digital literacy skills into student learning. Using a digital

literacy framework with 6 essentials skills, the purpose of this qualitative case study was

to investigate teachers’ (a) current understanding, knowledge and skills; (b) current

integration of digital literacy skills; (c) challenges they face in integration; and (d)

supports needed in shifting pedagogical practices to address change. Participants were 13

teachers from high school content areas. Data were gathered through focus groups

interviews, observations, and artifacts. Data were coded with MAXQDA software,

compared, organized, and refined based on the 4 research questions. Findings revealed

high levels of knowledge for the terms digital literacy and photovisual literacy.

Integration levels of digital literacy skills varied with more evidence in photovisual and

reproduction literacy. Five minor challenge themes (critical thinking; time; information

and technology literacy; infrastructure and access; and behavior and attitude) and 4 minor

support themes (professional development; planning and preparation time; observation

and feedback; and schoolwide focus and routines) emerged. Analysis of findings revealed

4 major themes: critical thinking, integrated professional development, effective use of

time, and infrastructure and schoolwide routines. Findings may affect positive social

change by engaging teachers in critical reflection through professional development

leading to improvements in teacher pedagogical practices related to furthering the digital

literacy skills of youth.

Exploring Teachers’ Perspective of Technology Pedagogy: Implications for Practice

by

Kindra Xerez Sabado

MAEd, University of Phoenix 2004

BA, University of Hawaii, Manoa, 1995

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Walden University

June 2018
 Dedication

In the spirit of life-long learning and discovery, this doctoral study is dedicated

first to my two daughters, Isabella and Realani. I learn from them as much or more as I

impart. Their curiosity, love, laughter and support have been my light. Second, to my

husband Erin, for his unconditional support, encouragement and patience on this

seemingly endless journey. Thank you for being my rock. Lastly, to my parents Katherine

and Richard, who instilled within in me a seeking mind and the will and courage to

explore anything and everything.

Thank you all for believing in me. This educational expedition would not have

been possible without your faith and unyielding support.

 Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to all those who have provided support,

encouragement, and guidance throughout this educational journey. A special thank you to

my committee chairs, Dr. Cythia High, Dr. Georgene Risko, Dr. Michelle McCraney, and

Dr. Andrew Alexson. I am grateful for your guidance, expertise and suggestions. To Dr.

Alexson, thank you especially for lightening the journey with your humor, wisdom and

openness. To my husband and children, thank you for your sacrifices and unconditional

love. I could never have embarked on this journey without all of you by my side.
 Table of Contents

Section 1: The Problem........................................................................................................1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................1

Definition of the Problem ..............................................................................................2

Rationale ........................................................................................................................5

Evidence of the Problem at the Local Level ........................................................... 5

Evidence of the Problem from the Professional Literature ................................... 11

Definitions....................................................................................................................13

Significance..................................................................................................................16

Guiding/Research Questions ........................................................................................17

Review of the Literature ..............................................................................................18

Digital Literacy Framework .................................................................................. 20

The Digital Gap in Education ............................................................................... 24

Current Teacher Trends ........................................................................................ 28

Student Perspective on Digital Literacy in the Classroom ................................... 32

Implications..................................................................................................................34

Summary ......................................................................................................................35

Section 2: The Methodology..............................................................................................37

Introduction ..................................................................................................................37

Research Design...........................................................................................................37

Approach ............................................................................................................... 37

Description ............................................................................................................ 38

i
 Participants...................................................................................................................40

Criteria for Selection ............................................................................................. 40

Participant/Researcher Working Relationship ...................................................... 42

Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................... 42

Data Collection ............................................................................................................44

Focus Group Interviews ........................................................................................ 45

Observations ......................................................................................................... 46

Document Study Data ........................................................................................... 47

Researcher’s Role and Potential Bias ................................................................... 48

Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................49

Collection Process................................................................................................. 49

Evidence of Quality .............................................................................................. 50

Discrepant Cases ................................................................................................... 51

Data Analysis Results ..................................................................................................52

Ensuring Credibility of Research Findings ........................................................... 54

Research Findings ........................................................................................................55

Current Teacher Knowledge of Digital Literacy (RQ1) ....................................... 55

Current Level of Digital Literacy Skill Implementation (RQ2) ........................... 61

Perceived Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3) ................................ 86

Identified Supports to Advance Digital Literacy Integration (RQ4) .................... 94

Conclusion .................................................................................................................102

Section 3: The Project ......................................................................................................105

ii
 Introduction ................................................................................................................105

Description and Goals ................................................................................................105

Rationale ....................................................................................................................106

Review of the Literature ............................................................................................108

Introduction ......................................................................................................... 108

Professional Development for Teachers ............................................................. 109

Technology Professional Development .............................................................. 111

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge ................................................ 112

Project Description.....................................................................................................113

Potential Resources and Existing Supports......................................................... 114

Potential Barriers and Solutions.......................................................................... 115

Proposal for Implementation and Timeline ........................................................ 116

Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................. 116

Project Evaluation Plan ..............................................................................................117

Implications for Social Change ..................................................................................117

Local Community ............................................................................................... 117

Far-Reaching ....................................................................................................... 118

Conclusion .................................................................................................................118

Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions...........................................................................120

Introduction ................................................................................................................120

Project Strengths ........................................................................................................120

Limitations and Recommendations for Remediation ................................................121

iii
 Recommendations for Alternative Approaches .........................................................122

Scholarship, Project Development, Leadership, and Change ....................................123

Scholarship.......................................................................................................... 123

Project Development........................................................................................... 124

Leadership and Change ....................................................................................... 124

Analysis of Self as Scholar ........................................................................................125

Analysis of Self as Practitioner ..................................................................................126

Analysis of Self as Project Developer .......................................................................126

The Project’s Potential Impact on Social Change......................................................127

Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research ...............................128

Implications......................................................................................................... 128

Applications ........................................................................................................ 128

Directions for Future Research ........................................................................... 129

Conclusion .................................................................................................................129

References ........................................................................................................................131

Appendix A: Technology Professional Development Support Plan................................148

Appendix B: Digital Literacy Focus Group Interview Protocol ......................................176

Appendix C: Digital Literacy Observation Protocol .......................................................180

Appendix D: Document Study Digital Literacy Skill Rubric ..........................................183

Appendix E: National Institute of Health Certificate ......................................................184

iv
 List of Tables

Table 1. Focus Group Interviews: Content Area Overall Knowledge of Digital Literacy

Terms ................................................................................................................................ 56

Table 2. Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in Social Studies .... 62

Table 3. Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in Math .................. 63

Table 4. Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in Career & Technical

Education (CTE) ............................................................................................................... 64

Table 5. Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in Fine

Arts/PE/Health .................................................................................................................. 65

Table 6. Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in English Language

Arts.................................................................................................................................... 66

Table 7. Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in Science .............. 67

Table 8. Classroom Observation Findings: Summary of Integration of Digital Literacy

Skills by Department......................................................................................................... 70

Table 9. Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of Photovisual

Literacy Skills ................................................................................................................... 73

Table 10. Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of

Reproduction Literacy Skills ............................................................................................ 74

Table 11. Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of Branching

Literacy Skills ................................................................................................................... 76

Table 12. Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of

Information Literacy Skills ............................................................................................... 77

v
Table 13. Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of

Socioemotional Literacy Skills ......................................................................................... 79

Table 14. Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of Real-time

Thinking Skills .................................................................................................................. 80

Table 15. Focus Group Interview: Summary of Digital Literacy Skills Integration from

Comments ......................................................................................................................... 82

Table 16. Document Study Findings: Summary of Digital Literacy Skill Present by

Department........................................................................................................................ 83

Table 17. Summary: Content Area Overall Integration of Digital Literacy (RQ2) ......... 84

Table 18. Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3): Responses for “Critical

Thinking” .......................................................................................................................... 87

Table 19. Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3): Responses for “Time” ...... 88

Table 20. Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3): Responses for “Information

& Technology Literacy” ................................................................................................... 89

Table 21. Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3): Responses for

“Infrastructure & Access” ................................................................................................. 91

Table 22. Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3): Responses for “Behavior &

Attitude”............................................................................................................................ 92

Table 23. Summary of Minor Theme Challenges Identified by Teachers in Digital

Literacy Integration (RQ3) ............................................................................................... 94

Table 24. Supports Identified for Digital Literacy Integration (RQ4): Responses for

“Professional Development” ............................................................................................. 95

vi
Table 25. Supports Identified for Digital Literacy Integration (RQ4): Responses for

“Planning & Preparation Time” ........................................................................................ 97

Table 26. Supports Identified for Digital Literacy Integration (RQ4): Responses for

“Observations & Feedback” ............................................................................................. 99

Table 27. Supports Identified for Digital Literacy Integration (RQ4): Responses for

“Schoolwide Focus & Routines” .................................................................................... 100

Table 28. Summary of Minor Themes for Supports Identified by Teachers in Digital

Literacy Integration (RQ4) ............................................................................................. 101

Table 29. Four Major Themes Identified from Research .............................................. 103

vii
 1
Section 1: The Problem

Introduction

Youth are connected to the world electronically, and they are enveloped in a

constant flow of entertainment, information, and communication. Born into a ubiquitous

technological world, these digital natives daily receive and respond to a variety of stimuli

simultaneously through experiential learning (Ng, 2012). To exist in this digital

environment, these adolescents must develop a growing set of skills that allow them to

process this information and perform complex tasks. Currently, these youth are using

technologies repeatedly to advance their social agendas; yet, they may not use it to

develop academic, creative, or critical thinking (Comba, 2011; Nasah, DaCosta, Kinsell,

& Seok, 2010; Ng, 2012). Although this may be a priority to these digital natives,

participation in this new techno centric reality involves the development of complex

digital literacy skills. Their intellectual capacity to function in the global economy must

be expanded to include new digital competencies. As they mature, these youth need to

participate in authentic learning events and reflect on the experience to successfully

acquire new skills.

Adhering to the responsibility to build, enhance, and elevate the digital capacity

of the next generation of youth, teachers must adapt accordingly to meet the needs of

these digital natives. Based on the National Educational Technology Standards developed

by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), Calvani, Fini, Ranieri,

and Picci (2012) described a digitally literate learner as a person who can analyze and use

information gained collaboratively through digital media to demonstrate creativity and

 2
critical thinking while adhering to the ethical and social norms related to technology.

Learning tasks initiated in the classroom should address these skills, cognitively

challenging students to analyze and synthesize multiple modes of information by

incorporating technology as an educational tool. Although many students are adept at

accessing information electronically, they lack the ability to effectively and ethically

process and present the information (Greene, Yu, & Copeland, 2014). These attributes of

identifying and extracting key ideas to create new knowledge are mastery skills that need

to be taught (Ellis, Goodyear, Bluic, & Ellis, 2010). As technology advances in the

classroom, teachers are faced with the challenge of successfully integrating technology

with content and pedagogy to address digital literacy skills.

Definition of the Problem

Geographical boundaries have been decreased by technology, creating a new

intermingling of cultures that influences the development of these digital natives.

Existing in a media culture where technology innovations increase the flow of

information and the degree of social integration, students must learn to be critical

consumers of new knowledge. A part of this learning process includes the ability not to

just gather information, but to equip learners with the skills and knowledge needed to

actively construct and cocreate new knowledge (Chu, 2010; Fahser-Herro &

Steinkuehler, 2009). Calvani et al. (2012) indicated that high school students’ ability to

assess credibility of sites and process complex digital information is also low. Many

students seem to be adept at accessing information, but need to develop higher order

thinking and literacy skills.

 3
High school curriculum is not addressing the integration of digital competencies

into pedagogy. Through classroom observations and teachers’ conversations, the

principal of the school study site recognized the lack of effective technology integration

with curriculum (personal communication, April, 24 2014). Although teachers have

access to technology for use in the classroom, it is not being used as an effective

instructional tool for students to cultivate the intellectual competencies needed to

function effectively as global citizens (Fahser-Herro & Steinkuehler, 2009; Henderson,

2011). As a result, students inherently lack the cognitive digital literacy skills necessary

to function and compete with the pace, complexity, and intensity of technological society.

To compete globally, technology must be leveraged in education to engage students in

critical learning opportunities that prepare them for college and career. The high school

educational setting must reflect authentic learning that mirrors the real-world application

of these digital literacy skills, and high school teachers are not adapting pedagogy to

effectively address these digital literacy skills. To bridge the digital literacy gap between

teacher deficiencies and students’ needs, in this qualitative case study, I explored current

level of understanding, knowledge, and integration of digital literacy skills of high school

in-service teachers in order to identify challenges and supports they need to successfully

shift teaching practices.

To adequately prepare students to function after graduation, high school teachers

must transform current pedagogy to include content area concepts, skills, processes, and

resources relevant to information and communication technology (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-

Leftwich, 2010) and include digital literacy skills (Eshet-Alkalai, 2004; McLoughlin,
 4
2011). Educational systems and pedagogical practices have become out of date or

obsolete and are not meeting the learning needs of the new generation of tech savvy

students. It is not enough for students to be able to use the technology; ICT should be

used to facilitate student learning through active participation and collaborative

interaction with content and peers to further develop their ability to assess and assimilate

multiple sources of information related to discipline areas. The learning environment

must be structured to provide learning opportunities where students can begin to build

these skills.

There is a growing disparity between the classroom learning experiences provided

by the teacher to engage students in learning versus the real-world application of skills

required to compete in global economy. Teachers are not adequately preparing students

with these challenging, relevant learning experiences using technology to develop digital

literacy skills (Ellis et al., 2010; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Fahser-Herro &

Steinkeuhler, 2009; Lee & Tsai, 2010; Ng, 2012). There is a difference between

implementing technology as a teaching tool and integrating technology into teaching and

learning practices to engage students in authentic learning experiences. Simply

introducing various technical modalities into the classroom does not ensure successful

nor meaningful integration unless teachers are trained to use technology to enhance

student learning and transform their pedagogical practices (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler,

2009; Koc & Bakir, 2010; Tee & Lee, 2011). Without a blended approach, there is a

mismatch in the vision of educational leaders and how the application of digital literacy

skills is employed in the classroom to develop mental acuity and problem-solving skills.
 5
Although many teachers have increased their use of technology personally and

professionally, it has not been assimilated into pedagogical practices. Researchers (Harris

& Hoffer, 2011; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby, & Ertmer, 2010) have

suggested that teachers only use technology as a support of current practices and to target

communication and administration tasks rather than as an instructional resource. In what

is becoming defined as a second-level digital divide, teachers have been unable to bridge

the connection between past teaching practices and the current digital learning

environment (Project Tomorrow, 2013). From students’ perspective, teachers are stifling

learning due to their unsophisticated use and ineffective technology integration (Project

Tomorrow, 2013). Teachers’ lack of knowledge and skills surrounding this technological

divide will continue to grow until teacher practices and student learning needs are

interactively aligned.

Rationale

Evidence of the Problem at the Local Level

Teachers need to begin to weave technology, content, and pedagogy into the

educational platform to facilitate learning where students’ interaction with new

knowledge cultivates critical thinking and creativity. The U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Technology (2010) and the state department of education (DOE)

both advocated for a transformation in current educational practices to include authentic

learning through the integrated use of technology to enhance discipline literacy. This

requires an intentional shift in pedagogical practices, where teachers begin to make

meaningful connections with content and technology to construct new playgrounds of

 6
teaching and learning (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Harris et al., 2009; Lee &

Tsai, 2010). Described as technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK), this

combination of skills and knowledge pose a challenge for teachers because they often

lack the ability to effectively integrate discipline-specific technology to support students’

cognitive development (Harris et al., 2009). Improving technology pedagogy involves

teachers increasing their pedagogical knowledge through all facets of curriculum

development, implementation, and assessment practices (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,

2010). Effective integration of digital literacy skills with content is a skill that teachers

need learn. As technology evolves, ongoing support is needed in order to keep pace with

advances.

In alignment with the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), the state DOE devised

the Department of Education Educational Technology Plan with goals to build school

capacity and to prepare students to compete in the evolving economy, locally and

globally. Isolated geographically in the mid-Pacific, the islands rely on technology for

both industry and economics. Recognizing the gap between the advances of technology

used in the workforce and the lack of related educational experiences in the classroom,

the technology plan can begin to address this disconnect. Based on a vision to empower

learners, the mission for the plan is to provide a system that allows all learners access to

the global community. Incorporating the use of technology with professional

development and other supports, the seven underlying technology education goals

include the following:

 7
• Goal 1. Promote interagency coordination of technology programs and

resources

• Goal 2. Use technology to support national standards and the state Content

and Performance Standards (HCPS)

• Goal 3. Provide support resources needed for effective technology

integration

• Goal 4. Expand access to, and use of, the information infrastructure

• Goal 5. Ensure that technology and resources are implemented as planned

• Goal 6. Provide ongoing evaluation that guides future changes and plans

• Goal 7. Identify funding strategies and resources to support the plan.

The intent of the technology plan is to prioritize tasks and provide support and resources

for both teachers and students focused on connecting technology and standards-based

learning. Technology plays a role in academic achievement at the school level and

requires a paradigm shift on many levels.

Although the state DOE acknowledges that there is a need to provide public

schools with necessary software, hardware, and training to advance technology, support

is limited. Although some statewide technology training courses are offered, districts and

schools have a choice on whether to participate and must absorb the cost of courses and

travel at the school or teacher level. Online courses are available through Project Inspire,

a credit program designed to help teachers integrate technology in a standards-based

curriculum; however, school-level feedback indicates the need for on-site training and

school-based technology support personnel. The state is unable to keep up with demands
 8
due to high interest and limited qualified trainers. Many schools are in charge of creating

their own technology support plans that include professional development and school-

level technology coordinators.

As one of the vehicles for driving this change, the state DOE Strategic Plan 2011-

2018 was focused on the implementation of strategies and activities based on the

achievement of three overarching goals: (a) student success, (b) staff success, and (c)

successful systems of support. Inherent in the underlying core values and beliefs of these

goals is that stakeholders collaborate to create learning opportunities that integrate 21st

century resources and skills to ensure students leave school prepared. Real-world learning

environments should provide meaningful learning experiences relevant to students for

productive citizenship and career success. Objectives within each of the three goals

further define the parameters connected to successfully promoting academic excellence

with the necessary support systems.

Through tiered practices and structures, schools are required to align academic

and financial plans with the blueprint laid out in the state Technology Plan and Strategic

Plan. The most current state Technology Plan is in draft form with the latest version dated

2008. School leaders are tasked with coordinating goals and resources to support the plan

criteria. In informal conversations with the leadership team at the focus school, teachers

indicated several areas of concern related to addressing technology criteria within these

plans. Identified areas of concern included alignment of resources, infrastructure and

training support, ethical and effective use of technology, and finding the appropriate
 9
balance between teaching core content and digital literacy skills. Many teachers

recognize the need for reform, but are uncertain as to how to move forward productively.

Although funds have been allocated and improvements to school infrastructures

statewide have started, it has not yet filtered through to include classroom technology

within the focus school’s district. Access to computers, projectors, interactive white

boards, visual presenters, and various computer programs are limited, and they restrict

the teachers’ ability to align technology components into schoolwide instruction and

collaborate with grade level or content area peers. School leaders at the focus school

recognized the need for differentiated professional development based on current

infrastructure and teacher skills. The leadership team believed that to begin to build site

capacity, further collaboration was also needed with teachers to identify current digital

literacy skills, outline common terms, definitions, and key digital literacy skills to be

emphasized and taught schoolwide (personal communication, April 24, 2014). The

principal also expressed thoughts regarding training needs to address ethical technology

behavior for both students and teachers, as well as provide guidelines for balancing

instruction on content standards and digital literacy skills (personal communication, April

24, 2014). The mentor coordinator and technology coordinator affirmed that teachers

have a range of technology skills and are challenged in preparing lessons to engage

students in interacting with content using technology (personal communication, April 18,

2016). The leadership team agreed that technology is used more for delivery of

information rather than as a learning tool. Teachers are not adapting pedagogy to

effectively integrate digital literacy skills into authentic student learning. Further research
 10
is needed to determine current knowledge and integration of technology and digital

literacy skills.

Incorporating digital literacy skills into pedagogy is also a requirement of the new

Common Core State Standards adopted by 45 states across the United States (National

Governors Association, 2010). Designed to reflect real-world application of the

knowledge and skills needed to graduate college and be career-ready, two anchor

standards in the writing strand for Research to Build and Present Knowledge are

dedicated to incorporating technology into curriculum and instruction:

• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.7: Conduct short as well as more sustained

research projects based on focused questions, demonstrating understanding of the

subject under investigation (National Governors Association, 2010, para. 24).

• CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.8: Gather relevant information from multiple print

and digital sources, assess the credibility and accuracy of each source, and

integrate the information while avoiding plagiarism (National Governors

Association, 2010, para. 25).

These standards require teachers to incorporate technology effectively into teaching

practices. Teachers need to begin extending their knowledge of appropriate and effective

uses of technology to promote these digital literacy skills, challenging the traditional

method of both teaching and learning. Technology in the classroom should address the

CCSS Anchor Standards to enhance student learning by enabling them to interact with

content to construct new knowledge that applies to real situations (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-

Leftwich, 2010). This shifts the focus of technology from an entertainment tool into an
 11
educational framework.

Evidence of the Problem from the Professional Literature

Social media, computers, cellular phones, electronic tablets, televisions, game

consoles, and other innovative technology sources inundate youth on a daily basis.

Described as the generation immersed in technology, these digital natives use media to

feed their social and personal interests (Ng, 2012). Although these youth have the ability

to navigate the Internet and access information for personal reasons, they lack the skills

and motivation to use media for scholarly purposes. Growing up exposed to a digital

environment does not mean that they have been taught how to employ the cognitive skills

necessary for mindful learning (Ng, 2012). In an investigation of two independent studies

on the digital literacy skills of high school and college students, Eshet-Alkalai and Chajut

(2010) found that even though students could access information and use technology, it

did not equate to sophisticated use of technology in digital environments. Students were

able to access information online, but evaluating and putting the information to good use

remained a challenge. Meneses and Momino (2010) reported that 72.4% of the 6,602

students surveyed between the ages of 11 and 18 received more Internet training in the

context of tutoring, self-teaching, home, and with peers than in the formal classroom

learning environment. Meneses and Momino also identified that students had more

opportunities to access the Internet outside of the school setting than in school. Equal

access to technology and effective integration in an educational setting are integral

components in affecting change.

As facilitators of learning, high school teachers need to shift pedagogy practices

 12
to incorporate these digital literacy skills so students graduate prepared to function in

these digital environments. In a study of 54 secondary schools in Australia, Neyland

(2011) identified several incongruities of educationalists’ perception of the importance of

information and technology skills and actual use in schools. After evaluating the

implementation levels of online learning within the high school system, Neyland found

that although many teachers viewed this style of learning as effective and were interested,

they did not have the resources, time, or skills to learn the technology or help other

teachers. Furthermore, Lee and Tsai (2010) implied that teachers might not have the

sufficient technological pedagogy needed to link these resources with instructional

materials and objectives. Despite increased access to technology and training, many

teachers still have not built the necessary skills and knowledge needed to change how

they teach (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Fahser-Herro & Steinkeuhler, 2009;

Voogt, Erstad, Dede, & Mishra, 2013). This may be contributing to the lack of change in

teaching practices.

Through goals and recommendations in the five essential areas of teaching,

learning, assessment, productivity, and infrastructure, the National Education Technology

Plan (NETP, 2010) was designed to leverage the use of technology to meet the changing

needs of these digital natives. Educators are challenged with the task of transforming the

current system by improving their expertise and connection to resources to engage

learners in experiences that mirror their daily lives. Through collaborative and continuous

professional development; a comprehensive, sustainable infrastructure; and a transparent

action plan, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology (2010)
 13
paved the path for educational reform that coordinates systematic efforts to address these

areas in need of change. Efforts to actualize this reform require a shift in both

professional and personal practices of the entire education system with an emphasis on

teachers who are already in the classroom.

In-service teachers are already immersed in this challenge as they try to maintain

current knowledge of technology while no longer actively enrolled in a formal education

program. Researchers (Fahser-Herro & Steinkuehler, 2009; Spaulding, 2010) showed that

in-service programs and teachers lag behind preservice teachers in the educational use of

technology. Although teachers may have some background knowledge and skills

regarding digital literacy and technology use, experiences, beliefs, and knowledge may

vary. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore the current level of

understanding, knowledge, and integration of digital literacy skills of high school in-

service teachers and to identify challenges and supports they need to successfully shift

teaching practices. Information from focus group interviews, observation, and documents

were used to design a system to support the reform in pedagogy necessary to actualize

change related to digital literacy skills.

Definitions

For the purposes of this study, the following terms and definitions were used:

Common Core State Standards: The knowledge and skills students should have

within their K-12 education careers so that they will graduate high school able to succeed

in entry-level, credit-bearing academic college courses and in workforce training

 14
programs (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief

State School Officers, 2010).

Digital immigrants: People, not born in the digital era, who have developed

technology skills over time (Prensky, 2001).

Digital literacy: The ability to use technical, cognitive, and socioemotional skills

to understand and assimilate information in a digital environment (Bawden, 2001; Eshet

2012; Gilster, 1997).

Digital natives: Generation of youth, born into the digital era, who speak the

native language of technology (Prensky, 2001).

Disciplinary literacy: Literacy skills as they relate to content areas, such as

mathematics, science, history, career and technical education, literature, and other

subjects (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008).

Educational technologies: Technology predominately used by students to interact

with various forms of information and communicate with peers, teachers, and other

audiences (Hechter & Vermette, 2014).

Information and communication technology (ICT): The technological software,

hardware, and communication facilities used as tools in education (Berce, Lanfranco, &

Vehovar, 2008; Wang & Woo, 2007).

In-service teachers: Licensed teachers who are actively employed in an

educational institution.
 15
Instructional technologies: Predominately teacher-driven technology that teachers

use for instruction, assessment, and communication with students, parents,

administration, and other teachers (Hechter & Vermette, 2014).

Literacy: A fundamental act of cognition that involves the ability to read and

write with meaning in a native language (Ferrari, 2012; Gilster, 1997; New London

Group, 1996).

Pedagogical knowledge: Knowledge teachers have about teaching methods,

practices, and processes related to student learning, classroom management, and lesson

planning (Koehler, Mishra, & Cain, 2013).

Pedagogical content knowledge: Knowledge of pedagogical practices as

applicable to content where the teacher translates information, determines presentation

methods, and modifies instructional materials as appropriate to learner needs and

background knowledge (Koehler et al., 2013).

Technology: A set of means for instruction and learning that includes devices,

systems, and tools that provides opportunity for learners to access, manipulate, represent,

and communicate information and ideas (U.S. Department of Education Office of

Educational Technology, 2010).

Technological knowledge: Requires knowledge beyond basic computer literacy

where a person can continually adapt to changes in technology and apply it personally

and professionally to achieve a goal (Koehler et al., 2013).

 16
Technological content knowledge (TCK): The knowledge and understanding of

the influence and limitations of the interactions between discipline-specific content and

technology (Koehler et al., 2013, p. 16).

Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK): Knowledge and understanding of

the relationship between the constraints and limitations of education technology tools and

how they affect pedagogy within disciplines (Koehler et al., 2013).

Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): The understanding of

how teaching with technology requires knowledge of how content concepts are

represented with technology, teaching and learning strategies associated with technology,

students’ background knowledge, and how everything can be built upon and connected to

help students develop new epistemologies (Koehler et al., 2013).

Significance

This intrinsic and instrumental qualitative case study was significant because it

has the potential to transform pedagogical practices of in-service teachers to include

digital literacy skills connected to 21st century learning. With the continuous progress of

both technology and the concept of literacy, in-service teachers are challenged with

keeping pace and adapting content and curriculum. Having already completed

compulsory education and licensure requirements, these teachers must advance their

knowledge and skills in connecting literacy and technology to adequately prepare

students for post high school reality. Through focus group interviews, teacher

observations, and curriculum planning document analysis, information was gathered to

determine current teacher practices and perceived needs to transform teaching and
 17
learning. This research can contribute to the body of knowledge related to in-service

secondary school teachers and their understanding and practices surrounding digital

literacy skills.

This study was significant to the local setting because I provided information

from the teachers’ perspective that can be used to develop an onsite professional

development plan with additional supports to help them overcome challenges in teaching

new literacies. Bringing a variety of knowledge, skills, and beliefs to the classroom,

teachers may not even realize the extent to which they are already integrating technology

and addressing digital literacy skills. Teachers have insight into both personal and student

strengths and deficiencies related to technology and digital literacy skills. Awareness of

both their personal skills and abilities and student practices will allow them to identify

areas for growth. Data gathered during this project study can be used to identify gaps in

knowledge and practice and seek to align content and pedagogy and transform teaching

and learning in this secondary school. Additionally, local administrators, district

resources teachers, and other curriculum support personnel can use the information and

professional development plan for practical application in other district high schools.

Guiding/Research Questions

The concept of literacy has shifted over the years from basic reading, writing, and

speaking practices to a multifaceted skill set that includes the integration of digital

literacy skills. Effective social and academic communication skills now transcend

personal interactions and often require digital literacy skills to use electronic technologies

to convey information. Educators in all content areas and grade levels must recognize this
 18
shift in literacy skills and modify curriculum and instruction to address this literacy gap.

In an effort to focus progress, this purpose of this case study was to identify in-service

teacher needs in developing digital literacy pedagogy by exploring their current level of

understanding, knowledge, and challenges. The research questions guiding the study

were as follows:

1. RQ1: What are high school teachers’ current level of understanding,

knowledge, and skills related to essential digital literacy skills?

2. RQ2: How are high school teachers currently integrating the essential

digital literacy skills into curriculum, instruction, and assessment across

content areas?

3. RQ3: What challenges do teachers currently face in effectively integrating

the essential digital literacy skills into authentic learning opportunities?

4. RQ4: What kind of support, knowledge, and skills do teachers feel is

essential for them to initiate or advance their use of technology into

curriculum to create discipline-specific learning opportunities that build

students’ essential digital literacy skills?

Review of the Literature

There are four main sections of this literature review that provide a context for

digital literacy in this study. In the first section, I focus on setting a foundation for digital

literacy considering definitions central to the framework. In the second section, I identify

the gaps in education related to digital literacy. In the third section, I examine digital

literacy skills from the teachers’ perspective and explore teacher practice in the classroom
 19
as it relate to integrating these skills. The fourth section provides a review of literature

connected to students’ knowledge and ability to use technology to further their digital

competence.

The research for this study was retrieved primarily from three sources: the

Walden University’s online databases, Google Scholar, and World Wide Web. Databases

accessed within the Walden Library included SAGE Premier, ERIC, Education Research

Complete, ED/IT Digital Library, and ProQuest Dissertations. In addition, several books

were also reserved and downloaded using Ebrary. References from within literature

reviewed provided supplemental resources, most of which were then accessed using

Google Scholar. Key words and phrases that guided searches included digital literacy,

digital literacy defined, digital literacy framework, digital literacy secondary schools,

digital competencies, digital divide, second level digital divide, digital skills, digital

natives, information and communication technology (ICT)/secondary schools, in-

service/teachers and technology integration/secondary schools, in-

service/teachers/digital literacy/secondary schools, and in-service teachers/technology

pedagogy. On occasions, key authors such as Paul Gilster, Yorem Eshet-Alkalai, Colin

Lankshear, Michele Knobel, and Dave Bawden, were also researched. Most research was

conducted using the 5-year parameter when this study began in 2013; however, as the

years to conclude this project study increased, more relevant and recent research has been

added. Primary resources related to the definition and framework of digital literacy dated

as early as 1997. Information acquired using the Internet included state and federal

government reports, local school reports, technology trend reports, and national
 20
technology and education standards. Finally, various qualitative research and case study

literature was reviewed to form the foundation for methodology and design application

for this project study.

Digital Literacy Framework

The convergence of data in the form of text, graphics, audio, and video from

multiple forms of media are erasing the boundaries of the conventional definition of

literacy. The conceptual boundaries of literacy have traditionally been limited to basic

knowledge of reading and writing skills in a native language from linear printed formats

(Ferrari, 2012; Gilster, 1997; New London Group, 1996). Although still an act of

comprehension, the influx of technology and social media has created a dynamic set of

core competencies that are needed to be digitally literate. The concept of digital literacy

includes the ability to process linear information with and navigate through multiple

resources using technology (Bawden, 2001; Gilster, 1997). It is no longer a simple

dichotomy of literate versus illiterate, but a continuum that spans from basic reading and

writing to critical thinking and reasoning.

Although deictic by nature, since the 1990s, a variety of authors have associated

the term digital literacy with comprehending multimedia and hypertext (Bawden, 2001).

Gilster (1997) referred to digital literacy as the “ability to understand and use information

in multiple formats from a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers”

(p.1). Gilster believed that it is not just about accessing the information, but the mindset

associated with processing, connecting, and assimilating ideas regardless of format.

Eshet-Alkalai and Chajut (2009) further expanded on this definition to include social and
 21
emotional skills. For the purposes of this project study, digital literacy was defined as the

ability to use technical, cognitive, and socioemotional skills to understand and assimilate

information in a digital environment (Bawden, 2001; Eshet 2012; Gilster, 1997). From a

holistic viewpoint, the range covers the competencies necessary to be literate in a digital

environment.

Eshet-Alkalai (2004) and Eshet (2012) identified key competencies that outline a

conceptual framework for digital literacy and align with the complex cognitive,

socioemotional, and technical skills necessary to function in a digital environment. This

holistic model was established to provide guidelines for future designers and researchers

to plan for effective digital learning. This framework was validated by researchers

(Aviram & Eshet-Alkalai, 2006; Eshet-Alkalai & Amichai-Hamburger, 2004; Eshet-

Alkalai & Chajut, 2009) and revised to incorporate missing skills. Originally comprised

of five digital thinking skills, Eshet (2012) revised the framework to include “six digital

thinking skills: (a) Photo-visual, (b) Reproduction, (c) Branching, (d) Information, (e)

Socio-emotional, and (f) Real-time thinking skills” (p. 268).

The first digital thinking skill, photovisual literacy, refers to the cognitive skill of

decoding visual images and graphics and using them to think (Eshet, 2012; Eshet-Alkalai,

2004). Images, symbols, icons, and graphics are used to portray a variety of messages and

users must be able to read and interpret them to construct meaning. Users with high

photovisual skills are able to translate these messages fluently, and possess intuitive-

associative thinking and memory (Eshet, 2012). Without this skill, users are in danger of

being misled due to misinterpretations, assumptions, and perceptions. Photovisual

 22
thinking increases the complexity of literacy where users must not only understand the

messages, but think visually, evaluate media, and perform tasks to communicate.

Related to this ability to read visuals is the skill of editing and reproducing

product from existing information in multiple media formats. The reproduction of digital

skills require users to combine independent, established pieces of information in any

media form to create new meaning or product in both art and writing (Eshet, 2012; Eshet-

Alkalai, 2004; Gilster, 1997). Writing involves rearranging and organizing preexisting

sentences and information to construct new meaning, while artwork must be manipulated

or edited to craft a new piece. Users must have multidimensional and synthetic thinking

skills to reorganize text and syntax and manipulate art material into an authentic, creative

piece of work that reflects original ideas (Gilster, 1997). Developing reproduction

literacy skills require combining both ethical and cognitive thinking.

With the advent of information-based technology, knowledge construction has

moved away from the traditional linear representation via print to a modern hypermedia

format (Gilster, 1997). This new digital environment provides users with freedom to

navigate through the Internet. This new environment also includes the challenge of

accessing information in a nonorderly fashion. Branching digital skills allow users to

maintain orientation and purpose, despite their elaborate paths through the various

domains (Eshet, 2012; Eshet-Alkalai, 2004). One of the challenges associated with this

navigation are hyperlinks. These links lead users to tiers of information that they must

read, track, analyze, and include in their knowledge construction (Bawden, 2001; Gilster,

1991). People with branching digital skills can use them to form mental mind maps and
 23
models to think metaphorically and create abstract representations as they navigate

Internet cyber structure (Eshet, 2012; Eshet-Alkalai, 2004). Users must improve

searching and organization skills and create personal information strategies to be

successful in managing this multimedia flow.

The exposure to multiple facets of digital material leads to the fourth component

of the framework, information digital skills. Although the skill of evaluation is not new to

literacy, the exponential increase in access to information necessitates that users assess

content and make informed judgments (Bawden, 2001; Gilster 2001). Information digital

literacy refers to the users’ ability to question and filter multiple facets of information by

identifying false, biased, irrelevant, and erroneous content prior to assimilation (Eshet,

2012; Eshet-Alkalai, 2004). Critical consumers of information are cognizant of their

thought process and are able to assess the credibility of sources and draw appropriate

conclusions. This allows consumers to establish a cache of reliable information from

which they can create authentic meaning and products (Gilster, 1991). This new

dimension of thinking is becoming a needed skill to become a literate information

consumer.

The fifth component of the digital literacy framework moves beyond the cognitive

arena into social and emotional skills. With the Internet expanding the knowledge-sharing

and digital communication domain through chat rooms, discussion groups, social

networks, and other online collaborative communities, Eshet-Alkalai (2012) identified

socioemotional digital literacy as the one of most complex skills. Socioemotional literate

users are adept at evaluating evidence and thinking abstractly, sharing knowledge with
 24
others, and collaborating to coconstruct new knowledge (Eshet, 2012; Eshet-Alkalai,

2004). Understanding social etiquette and interacting with peers and other members of

the community also applies to the digital environment for users to be successful in

sharing knowledge. Additionally, users must be mature, analytical thinkers who

demonstrate proficiency in photovisual, branching, and information digital skills (Eshet,

2012; Eshet-Alkalai, 2004). Combining these four skills allows users to safely and

actively participate and communicate in cyberspace.

The final skill in the scope of the framework covers the users’ senses in response

to stimuli. Eshet (2012) referred to real-time digital skill as the ability to divide attention

between simultaneous text, images, and sound occurring on screen while still reacting

accordingly. This includes processing the excess stimuli, staying on task, and responding

to stimuli in real-time (Eshet, 2012). This chaotic sense of reality can lead users astray if

they lack the ability to think critically and effectively while processing simultaneously

stimuli. In the digital environment, users must develop this critical skill in order to

successfully operate and perform in this high-speed setting.

The Digital Gap in Education

As people adapt to new digital trends in the face of advancing technologies,

varying levels of skill related to accessing and interacting with the tools and information

are needed. The divide was originally identified as a digital divide or gap between those

who could access technology and those who could not (Hargittai, 2002; Reinhardt,

Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011; Wei & Hindman, 2011). Now known as the second level

digital divide (SLDD), the new definition has been refined to include how technology is
 25
being used to access information (Wei & Hindman, 2011). Users must not only be able to

operate the technical tools, but successfully navigate the web to perform tasks. In a study

of users from ages 18-80, Hargittai (2002) found that there was a generation gap in

abilities to complete tasks on the Internet with more skill evident in the younger

generation. Users from 18- 20 were able to complete more tasks in a timely manner than

those 30 and older (Hargittai, 2002). Education level and time spent online were also

predictors in skill level (Hargittai, 2002). Participants with higher education and more

prior experience are more innovative and comfortable extracting material online

(Hargittai, 2002; Wei & Hindman, 2011). There is a variation in people’s online skills

with exposure, education, and age as contributing factors relating to the digital divide.

Researchers (Chapman, Masters, & Pedulla, 2010; Fasher-Herro & Steinkuehler,

2009; Goode, 2010; Henderson, 2011; Voogt et al., 2013) claimed that SLDD was

evident in the K-12 setting in both the United States and abroad. In a review of research

surrounding new literacy classroom practices in the United States, Fahser-Herro and

Steinkuehler (2009) found that although the access gap may be lessening, the skill gap is

widening between students’ in-home technology use compared to technology instruction

in schools. At home, students had experienced more in-depth communication, built

stronger relationships, and had more variety in choice of technology while classroom

instruction was concentrated on drill and practice, information retrieval, or completing

work previously started. Henderson (2011) also noted a gap in how teachers and students

perceived the usefulness and purpose of technology and found that teachers were more

focused on the computer as a tool rather than on developing relevant aspects of literacy in
 26
processing information. Overall, chances to develop digital literacy were superficial and

lacking in “authentic content creation opportunities, shared expertise, and dynamic

multimodalities” (Fahser-Herro & Steinkuehler, 2009, p. 58). Teachers must broaden

their approach to instruction in developing students’ digital competencies to address more

complex literacy skills.

Scholars (Chapman et al., 2010; Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010; Reinhardt et al.,

2011) who examined socioeconomic status as a factor in teachers’ ability to use

technology found similar results. Although teachers have adequate access to technology

for personal use and classroom instruction, there were inequalities in their technical

abilities and use of technology in instruction. Teachers in high needs (HN) schools

reported that they use technology less in instruction (Gray et al., 2010), and use was basic

and did not promote higher order thinking skills (Chapman et al., 2010; Reinhardt et al.,

2011). In contrast, teachers in non-HN schools reported more frequent use and

demonstrated integrated advanced thinking skills. Gray et al. (2010) found that fewer

than 52% of teachers engaging their students in the education use of technology.

Reinhardt et al. (2011) further noted that, regardless of high needs status, teachers’

perception of use did not match reality. Differences in teacher technology background,

experience, and pedagogy must be considered to design differentiate support.

A gap in proficiency and use is also evident when examining the trends in digital

fluency of high school students and those in their first year of undergraduate school.

Scholars from Canada (Smith, Given, Julien, Ouellette, & DeLong, 2013) and the United

Kingdom (Miller & Bartlett, 2012) demonstrated that students performed poorly when
 27
required to access and analyze quality information, recognize bias, and verify sources

when using technology. In an information literacy test, 19% of 103 12th grade students

achieved proficiency with a mean score of 50.7% (Smith et al., 2013). Although a

majority of primary and secondary teachers regarded information literacy as a critical

skill they believed they taught, they rated student performance in the same area as poor to

average (Smith et al., 2013). Students are still struggling with complex tasks involving

digital literacy, and teachers need more support with integrating strategies to enhance

digital learning.

There are further inequalities between what colleges expect students to know and

actual skill. Goode (2010) found that although university students in California were

entering college with an ingrained sense of technology for social and academic purposes,

digital competencies were varied, and many still lacked critical skills. Goode concluded

that students with low technology efficacy were less likely to enroll in courses with

challenging technology requirements, thereby increasing the margin of knowledge and

skill between other more tech savvy students. Additional scholars (Jones, Ramanau,

Cross, & Healing, 2009; Waycott, Bennett, Kennedy, Dalgarno, & Gray, 2010) of first-

year undergraduate students also supported the differences in students’ and teachers’

technology use. Although students primarily use computers and mobile devices for

communication, social networking, and access to materials for courses, teachers viewed

technology as an administrative tool and means to augment student learning. Waycott et

al. (2010) concluded that although teachers and students may use similar technology, they

engage in activities for different reasons. There is a difference between education

 28
technologies and everyday technologies, and teachers need to consider this when

planning curriculum. Understanding the divide between how students currently use

technology and the complex skills required to participate in 21st century is necessary for

practitioners to make changes to academic curricula and pedagogy.

Current Teacher Trends

The conflux of students, teachers, and technology in the educational setting has

created new academic trends. The academic profile of learning has shifted as teachers

have tried to adapt to this progression and innovation of technology and redefine how

digital technologies fit into curriculum, instruction, and assessment. While data (Bradley

et al. 2010) demonstrated that teachers’ use of technology both in and out of the

classroom has increased, the application towards digital literacy is still lacking (Meneses

& Momino, 2010; Fahser-Herro & Steinkuehler, 2009). Affecting both in-service and

preservice teachers, several contributing factors have constrained progress.

In-service vs. Preservice Teachers. When comparing technology use, self-

efficacy, and classroom integration between in-service and preservice, researchers have

found similarities and differences. In a study of 112 preservice teachers and 118 in-

service teachers, Spaulding (2010) concluded that there was a significant difference in

confidence levels related to completing basic and complex computer tasks with

preservice teachers self-reporting more confidence in their abilities to adapt instruction

and impact learning using technology. Additionally, preservice teachers demonstrated

more readiness and competency regarding integrating technology into the classroom.
 29
Scholars (DeSantis & Rotigel, 2014; Moore-Hayes, 2011; Pan & Franklin, 2011)

presented different findings related to technology integration and self-efficacy. When

tasked with evaluating software for teaching and learning and determining which

educational technologies to use in supporting instruction, both preservice and in-service

teachers felt they were less than adequately prepared to merge technology and pedagogy

(Moore-Hayes, 2011). Although DeSantis and Rotigel (2014) indicated little difference in

self-efficacy between the two groups of teachers, further evidence from scholars

(Desantis & Rotigel, 2014; Pan & Franklin, 2011) demonstrated that participants in both

groups believed they were more competent in the application of basic technology tools

than advanced tools. Basic tools (Web 1.0) included skills such as word processing, drill

and practice, and web searches, while advanced tools (Web 2.0) consisted more of

collaboration, application, and integration of knowledge to create or design products. In a

study involving 461 in-service teachers, Pan & Franklin (2011) also concluded that most

participants rarely used these Web 2.0 tools and reported low confidence in their abilities.

Additionally, participating teachers stated that they have limited resources, knowledge,

experience, and support, which discourages them from embracing these tech tools.

Without the application of advanced technology tools in the classroom, students lack the

opportunity to strengthen their digital literacy skills. The combination of these results

indicated the need to further explore teacher perception and how they are applying

educational technologies to further student learning.

DeSantis and Rotigel (2014) also noted significant differences in how teachers at

various career levels approach and use technology. Results from their survey evinced that
 30
preservice and early career teachers focused more on using the Internet for

communication, social networking, and entertainment while veteran teachers used it more

for software productivity and educational research purposes. DeSantis and Rotigel (2014)

concluded that as teachers advanced in their career levels, technology use also shifted as

teachers increased Internet use for productivity and less on communication. Although this

demonstrated a shift in teachers’ mindset and use, the development of digital literacy

skills called for a combination of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 skills including communication,

collaboration, entertainment, and productivity. Evidence from the research indicated that

there is a generational difference in technology use between preservice and in-service

teachers that invite further investigation.

Teacher Perceptions. Teachers faced many challenges as they attempted to

maintain pace with the constant flux of technology and resources in the educational

setting. Although they incurred curricular revisions periodically according to state and

federal mandates, technology changes so frequently and swiftly, many teachers were

reluctant to assimilate these new tools and resources into pedagogy (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-

Leftwich, 2010). Stakeholders from the students to the community have expectations that

the learning environment has been adapted to embrace new competencies related to the

latest digital trends. To close this expectation gap (Mize & Rogers, 2012), teachers’

perceptions of technology related to the academic environment must be considered and

addressed in order to facilitate more authentic learning.

Although studies have been conducted abroad about teachers perceptions and

factors affecting integration of technology in education in Africa (du Plessis & Webb,
 31
2012; Ramorola, 2013), Spain (Badia, Meneses, & Sigalés, 2013; Gisbert-Cervera &

Álvarez, J, 2015), Malaysia (Afshari, Bakar, Luan, Samah, & Fooi, 2009), Taiwan (Lee

& Tsai, 2010), Australia (Honan, 2012); Singapore (Chai, 2010), and the United

Kingdom (Hansford & Adlington, 2008; Perrotta, 2013), limited studies have been

conducted on secondary teachers in the Unites States. Results of research performed

suggested several factors affecting adoption should be considered to advance digital

literacy instruction. These dynamics included perceived usefulness and attitude towards

technology (Capo & Orellana, 2011; Hutchison & Reinking, 2011); limited time and

training (Hutchison & Reinking, 2011; Kirkscey, 2012); and administrative and other

supports (Hutchison & Reinking, 2011). In a study that spanned 31 states and included a

range of teachers from K – 12, Hutchison & Reinking (2011) found a gap in participants’

perception of the importance of technology and integration into instruction. Although

teachers believed that use of technology was important, instructional practices rarely

demonstrated integration. Additionally, teachers viewed technology as a delivery tool

instead of a means for students to meet a curricular goal or standard, indicating that use is

more teacher-centered rather than student-centered. Capo and Orellana (2011) supported

these findings, noting that more than 50% of 137 teachers surveyed from five high

schools had no plans to integrate Web 2.0 tools into instructions even though they

thought it might improve student learning. Participants indicated concerns that centered

on liability, feasibility, perceived usefulness, and compatibility with classroom

instruction and content goals. Capo & Orellana (2011) and Hutchison & Reinking (2011)
 32
concluded that teachers’ beliefs and attitudes were the most important factors to

successful technology integration.

Findings from Project Tomorrow (2013) documented this digital conversion

progression in the classroom demonstrating the need for continued support in several

areas. In the 2012 national trend analysis report of 102,070 educators spanning 8,000

schools, 55% of administrators and teachers indicated a growing concern about having

sufficient access to devices and Internet (Project Tomorrow, 2013). Although 55% of

administrators were concerned about teachers lacking knowledge of high quality digital

content to support learning, teachers expressed more varied concerns regarding learning

the use of tablets, student devices, mobile applications, and integration into curriculum

and instruction (Project Tomorrow, 2013). Results of the study demonstrated growth

since 2008 with 45% of teachers developing interactive lessons that integrate technology

(Project Tomorrow, 2013). In order to sustain this digital conversion, both teachers and

administrators recognized the need for high quality professional development and support

to address these issues and begin building instructional capacity.

Student Perspective on Digital Literacy in the Classroom

Results of research on students also indicated a need for change in this digital

conversion movement. In a study of high school students in Texas (Boriack, Alford,

Brown, Rollins & Waxman, 2012) and recent graduates in New York (Esposito,

Impagliazo, Podell, Bracchio, & Morote, 2011), researchers found that students did not

believe they were receiving adequate technology knowledge to prepare them for college.

Lacking appropriate skills in “creative, communication-based, netiquette, and tools-based

 33
technology” (Esposito et al., 2011, p. 612), 47 – 54% of students felt their high school

learning experiences were not aligned with college expectations. Comparatively, results

from a detailed analysis of hardware, software, and internet skills (HSIS) and analyzing

and information gathering skills (AIGS) demonstrated that students perceived a decrease

in their abilities over a two year period (Boriack et al., 2012). Disaggregated by core

subject areas, students reported learning with technology more frequently in English than

in other courses (Boriack et al., 2012) and rated teacher technology competence lower in

math and science courses (Dornisch, 2013). Lack of confidence in teacher ability and

opportunities to practice and master technology skills in the secondary setting created a

deficiency as students tried to access 21st century learning and advance their

technological knowledge.

Stefl-Mabry, Radlick, & Doane (2010) found that high school and middle school

students perceived teachers were not using ICT effectively in classroom instruction.

Results from focus group interviews of 48 students indicated that they believed Internet

access and computer use was restrictive, infrequent, and hindered their ability to

complete assignments (Stefl-Mabry et al., 2010). Students further believed that teachers

were challenged technologically and lacked skills to successfully integrate ICT into

classroom instruction which created a disconnect between teacher-student relationship

and learning. Dornisch (2013) suggested that this connection between a student’s

perception of teachers’ comfort with technology and a student’s positive affect towards

technology could be a factor in future teacher evaluations. As students have become more

affluent and dependent on technology, their expectations to be immersed in a digital

 34
learning environment increased (Dornisch, 2013). Teachers need to become more

innovative and proactive in meeting these needs.

Implications

Although preservice teachers have the benefit of coursework and programs

designed specifically for entering the education field, in-service teachers must search and

enroll in supplemental professional development on their own. Exploring in-service

teacher perspectives provided valuable insight as to their explicit needs associated with

the integration of digital literacy skills into curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

Qualitative focus group interviews, observations, and document study by content area

afforded teachers the opportunity to reflect on their knowledge, skills, habits, and frames

of references, to provide contextual input that was used to align supports with teacher

needs. As high school curriculum, instruction, and assessment are governed by discipline

specific content and standards, authentic integration of digital literacy skills into

individual content areas varied. Input provided by teachers was used to design discipline

specific digital literacy professional development. Building a framework for this type of

support plan from the inside can empower teachers and contribute positively to their

motivation to transform current pedagogical practices.

In addition to a professional development plan, implications for the study

included a supplemental support plan to address other identified gaps and challenges in

this pedagogical shift. This supplemental support plan connected specific challenges

teachers faced with correlating solutions designed to address their concerns and needs.

The combination of teacher learning needs with other institutional barriers to digital
 35
literacy integration at the school level was used to create a holistic development plan to

drive change. Results of this case study can potentially improve teacher pedagogical

practices by engaging them in a process of critical reflection that can further the digital

literacy skills of students.

Summary

The review of literature demonstrated that although the gap may be narrowing

between the digital natives and the digital immigrants, in this case teachers, there is still a

need for further support in transforming the learning environment to include digital

literacy skills (Prensky, 2001). A combination of research revealed that although a

majority of studies related to digital literacy in secondary schools were conducted

nationally, limited research is available in the United States. Teachers have become more

comfortable with their use of basic technology skills for communication and delivery of

content but still lack confidence in using technology as an instructional tool to provide

students with authentic learning experiences that allow them to analyze information,

collaborate, communicate, and create products. As a result, students reported not feeling

adequately prepared to enter college or careers with skills necessary to successfully

navigate and participate in this technological based society. Exploring how digital

literacy skills are being integrated into pedagogical practices and identifying teacher

needs relevant to this paradigm shift through this qualitative case study provided insight

necessary to potentially actualize this digital conversion.

Section 2 expands on the qualitative case study methodology for this project study

and includes explanations of the research design, participants, data collection procedures,
 36
and data analysis. Detailed descriptions are presented for participants including selection,

ethical considerations, and the researcher’s relationship. Additionally, information is

provided regarding the three phases of data collection comprised of focus group

interviews, observations, and document study. Methods of data collection, quality of

evidence, and means of addressing discrepant cases are also discussed.

 37
Section 2: The Methodology

Introduction

As basic communication and access to information is being redefined by

technology, so is learning in the traditional classroom setting of K-12 schools.

Information and communication technologies are transforming not only what it means to

work, research, and socialize, but also what it means to think and learn. This raises

questions about what educators are doing to support student development related to the

skills and knowledge needed to survive in the digital environment. In the interest of

studying the integration of digital literacy skills, an intrinsic and instrumental qualitative

case study was used to explore high school in-service teachers’ current level of

knowledge, understanding, and integration of digital literacy skills to identify challenges

and supports needed to addresses integrating technology into pedagogical practices to

improve students’ digital competency. Investigating the problem through the lens of in-

service teachers will offer a perspective germane to those who are the agents of change.

Research Design

Approach

Case studies allow the researcher to deconstruct layers through a variety of lenses

from within context of the phenomena and then reconstruct the data to make new

meaning (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Yin, 2014). Using this constructivist approach to case

study research, Stake (1995) and Yin (2014) believed that people’s perception of truth is

relative to individual perspectives, and it is socially constructed. Enabling participants to

express their viewpoints, concerns, and realities affords the researcher a better
 38
understanding of the phenomena. Each teacher brings unique and complex background

experience and knowledge to the situation that must be examined within context, thereby

framing the case in study.

Description

As described by Yin (2014), the scope of a case study promotes inquiry into

situations with many variables and multiple sources within the real-world context.

Meaning is derived from an in-depth investigation of the case as related to those

involved. The case in this study was bounded by the content areas defined by the high

school setting: science, social studies, English language arts (ELA), career and technical

education (CTE), math, world languages, fine arts, and physical education/health. As

every content area has a set of standards to address and every teacher has distinctive

skills and knowledge, the application of digital literacy skills will vary. In this study, I

explored teachers’ (a) current understanding, knowledge, and skills; (b) current

integration of digital literacy skills; (c) challenges they face in integration; and (d)

supports needed in shifting pedagogical practices to address this change. Generating data

from the experiences, perceptions, and interpretations of in-service teachers in their field

validates a relativist approach to case studies, acknowledging their view of multiple

realities with multiple meanings (Yin, 2014). Comparing and contrasting data points from

these multiple perspectives will generate a broad understanding of the phenomena.

An intrinsic and instrumental qualitative case study design was used to explore

multiple layers of the digital literacy phenomena within a local high school learning

environment. Stake (1995) categorized case studies into the three fields of (a) intrinsic,
 39
(b) instrumental, and (c) collective. Central to both intrinsic and instrumental designs is

the opportunity to learn and understand; yet, the purpose for gathering evidence is

different. Arising from the desire to understand the depth and breadth of digital literacy

skills in a high school setting, I selected an intrinsic inquiry to allow real-time

collaboration between the researcher and practitioners to investigate current pedagogical

practices in comparison to student needs and to identify areas to make focused changes.

Focused on exploring the nature and complexities of the case, intrinsic studies are guided

by interest in the case (Grandy, 2010b). Researchers use an instrumental case study to

focus on research questions and sample participants to help build related theory (Grandy,

2010a; Stake, 1995). Combing the two designs enabled me to explore the case and

increases the ability to generalize findings. As this is a single case study of one high

school, a collective approach was not appropriate.

Other qualitative research designs considered and rejected included grounded

theory and phenomenology. Although grounded theorists also follow an inductive

process and triangulate similar qualitative data points, the primary focus is on identifying

a core category and building a substantive theory (Merriam, 2014). Because the outcome

of this project study was to identify or create a support model to help teachers integrate

digital literacy skills and not to develop a theory, this approach to research was rejected.

The other approach considered was phenomenology. In phenomenology, a scholar

defines principles of life’s experience; this approach links phenomena to the essence and

emotions of the experience (Merriam, 1998, 2014). Researchers employ this design to

understand the structure and meaning of the experience and participants’ interpretation of
 40
the experience. This approach was also not appropriate as the purpose of this research

was to explore teacher knowledge, skills, current use, and perceived challenges related to

a topic.

Participants

Criteria for Selection

Qualitative data were gathered from participants within the total population of 87

high school classroom teachers at the focus school. As dictated by the nature of

qualitative research, purposeful sampling was used to increase the efficacy of information

accessed for an in-depth case study as it allowed me to target a specific population.

Homogenous sampling was combined with random sampling to access participants with

similar characteristics as related to the content area they taught. Grouping teachers

homogenously by content area afforded me the opportunity to delve deeper into

perspectives on digital literacy based on discipline-specific characteristics For random

sampling, representatives from eight content areas of social studies, science, math, fine

arts, P.E./health, world languages, ELA, and CTE were asked to volunteer to participate

in content area focus group interviews, classroom observations, and provide archival

documents for analysis.

The number of participants varied for each of the three data points. The largest

sample size was through the six focus group interview sessions. Although the

recommended group size varies from four to 12, the suggested range of participants is

between six and 10 members (Creswell, 2012; Lichtman, 2006; Merriam, 2014). For the

purposes of this project study, groups ranged from four to eight with a total possible
 41
sample of 55 participants out of the 87 classroom teachers. This large sample size was

due to the interest in exploring teachers’ perspectives from the viewpoint of each high

school content area. Three of the departments within the school were small because they

only had five members with some as long-term substitutes. Participants for observations

and document study were based on members from each of the eight focus groups

resulting in a variable sample size depending on the number of participants

Access to participants was gained through both Walden University and the state

DOE research protocol. In addition to institutional review board (IRB) approval from

Walden University, consent was obtained from three levels within the state DOE: (a) the

Data Governance and Analysis Branch, (b) site school principal and, (c) teacher

participants. The state DOE required a data sharing agreement (DSA) work plan with

project details, IRB approval, and authorized signatures be submitted prior to beginning

the study. The process was streamlined because the principal granted verbal approval to

the Governance Branch. IRB approval (08-10-16-0275877) was granted, the DSA was

submitted and the study began.

Participants for this project study were recruited through a series of steps

including a staff briefing, an e-mail letter documenting the study objectives and process,

and an electronic and printed informed consent document. An overview presentation

provided site teachers with a basic outline of the study and afforded them the opportunity

for an initial question and answer session regarding the purpose, data collection process,

confidentiality, and reporting methods. I sent out a follow up e-mail to invite teachers to

ask additional questions and submit a letter of informed consent. The letter of informed
 42
consent was attached to the e-mail and a print form was placed in teachers’ internal

school mailboxes. From there, Phase I focus group interview sessions, Phase II classroom

observations, and Phase III document study were scheduled.

Participant/Researcher Working Relationship

As an employee for the site school of this study for over 13 years, I have

established a working relationship with most of the teachers in the capacity as both an

English teacher and as curriculum coordinator. As curriculum coordinator for the past 6

years, I have been responsible for facilitating teacher professional development, aiding in

the implementation of state mandates, as well as coordinating the accreditation process,

student personal transition plan (PTP), and other various projects. Although I serve on the

leadership team with other department chairs, I have no authority over teachers in my

role as curriculum coordinator. Throughout this time, I have built positive relationships

and established trust. Through open and honest communication, I honored these

relationships in my role as researcher in this qualitative case study. All participants were

advised of the nature of the study and were provided an informed consent form prior to

the study. They were assured that participation was completely voluntary and multiple

measures were taken to assure confidentiality. This included the means to review

transcripts, observation descriptions, and data analysis results prior to publishing.

Ethical Considerations

In anticipation of ethical concerns that may arise, several precautions were taken

throughout the study to ensure a safe social environment, confidentiality, and protection

of participants.
 43
Informed consent. Beginning with informed consent, all participants were

educated about the process, procedures, and contact information for the study including

how confidentiality will be maintained. During an initial meeting, I outlined the contents

of the letter, timeline of the study, and three data points. Additionally, teachers were

provided with both electronic and print versions of a letter of consent. In the letter, I also

assured teachers that participation was completely voluntary and they may remove

themselves from the study at any time. Classroom teachers who submitted consent letters

within the week allotted were randomly selected to participate in department level group

interview sessions.

Confidentiality. Due to the nature of the researcher and participant relationships,

confidentiality was important. Several precautions were undertaken to maintain

confidentiality. Although interviews were recorded, all information were password-

protected and stored on a home computer or locked in a secure filing cabinet. Participants

were identified in results using aliases coded by content area such as “science1”,

“science2,” etc. Care was also taken to remove all identifying personal character traits

from transcribed content and data analysis. Additionally, throughout the study and before

results were finalized, participants were provided the opportunity for member checks and

review of all analysis and findings.

Protection from harm. Ethical issues in any research are in constant flux and the

key to heightened awareness of potential harm is continuous reflection and assessment of

personal behaviors and responsibilities (Lichtman, 2006). Using a relativist approach, I

evaluated my personal conduct to identify and resolve potential dilemmas on an ongoing

 44
basis. To further preserve researcher integrity, I also maintained a journal with self-

reflections after interviews and observations while also providing a continuous

documentation of the process.

Data Collection

Triangulation of qualitative data sources that are interactive and noninteractive

will allow for exploration and comprehension of the complexity of the case (McMillan &

Schumacher, 1997). Using an emergent planning design in which each phase is

determined by data from the prior phase data were gathered in three phases and then

shared with the participants of the study. This sharing allowed for further corroboration

of initial findings and helped to reduce researcher bias. Qualitative data sources are

discussed in the subsections following the identified phases:

Phase I–Focus Group Interviews

1. Conduct eight semistructured focus group interviews; one for each content

area.

2. Analyze data to determine coding and identify themes and answer the research

questions.

Phase II–Classroom Observations

1. Conduct classrooms observation for each content area based on participant

volunteers from the focus group interviews.

2. Begin gathering documents relevant to classroom observations conducted

3. Analyze data to determine coding and identify themes and answer research

questions.
 45
Phase III–Document Collection

1. Continue gathering documents for study based on classroom observed and

course taught by participants.

2. Analyze documents gathered using the document study rubric and compare

findings to focus group interviews and classroom observations

Data from the focus group interviews were used to address all four research questions

while additional data from the classroom observations and documents study were used to

supplement RQ2.

Focus Group Interviews

A semistructured focus group interview consisting of open-ended and probing

questions was used to “collect shared understanding from several individuals” (Creswell,

2012, p. 219) and gain multiple perspectives of both the problem and possible

professional development topics. Conducting this type of interview will help shift the

focus from the interviewer to the conversation and allow for thoughts and ideas to build

upon one another (Creswell, 2010; Lichtman, 2006). To facilitate the semistructured

interview process, a digital literacy focus group interview protocol (Appendix B) with 29

questions was created to guide the project study using research questions and sample

questioning stems from Lichtman (2006), Creswell (2010), and Merriam (1998). The

protocol was divided into four sections with questions corresponding to each research

question in the designated section: (a) RQ1 questions 5-13, (b) RQ2 questions 14-19, (c)

RQ3 questions 20-25, and (d) RQ4 questions 26-29. To increase reliability, this protocol
 46
was shared with the school leadership team and an outside provider for further input and

validation on questioning stems and word choice.

Focus group participants were divided into eight interview sessions, one for each

department. Interview sessions were conducted in an onsite meeting room over the course

of 2 to 3 days. Depending on the size of each group and conversation generated by

interview questions, sessions lasted from 50–90 minutes. Audio recordings of the

interview session were used to aid in the transcribing and coding process. Data from the

focus group interviews were transcribed and analyzed through a coding process to

identify categories and to narrow themes based on the research questions. Tools used for

coding and analyzing data included a qualitative software program, MAXQDA, and a

transcribing application, transcribewreally.com. The findings were validated through

participant member checks to ensure accurate interpretation and representation of

content. Qualitative data were presented using visual displays and narrative and thick

descriptions.

Observations

In conjunction with focus group interviews, observations of participants were

conducted to determine the extent to which digital literacy skills were being integrated

into curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Directly addressing RQ2, the data gathered

during observations were used to complement information from the interviews and

document study, providing more illustrations of actual events occurring in the classroom.

Members from the interview sessions will be asked to volunteer to participate in these
 47
observations. The goal was to observe one to three teachers from each of the focus groups

for a total of 24 or more observations.

In the role of observer as participant, I gathered data in the form of both

descriptive and reflective field notes in electronic and print form. In lieu of a formal

observation protocol, a simplified digital literacy observation protocol (Appendix C) was

created to include basic demographic information and to record detailed descriptions of

activities, interactions, settings, comments, people, and illustrations. Full notes were

written up for later coding and analysis based on the six digital literary skills with

MAXQDA following each observation. As with transcribed interviews, participants had

the opportunity to conduct member checks on their individual observations.

Document Study Data

The third data point that was used for triangulation in this project study to address

RQ2 was teacher-created documents, such as curriculum maps, pacing guides, and lesson

plans. Used to verify information gained from interviews and supplement observations,

document data can provide insight and connections about the topic (Merriam, 1998; Yin,

2014). For the purpose of this study, documents mined included both electronic and print

form as Google Docs was used as a communication and collaboration tool at the site

school. In addition to Google Docs access, participants were asked to share other related

print documents including, but not limited to, curriculum maps, pacing guides, lesson

plans and books, assignments, and other instructional and assessment materials. Actual

documents gathered and analyzed depended on what participants from the focus group

interviews and observations were willing to share. All documents were analyzed using a
 48
three-point document study digital literacy skills rubric (Appendix D) created based on

the six digital literacy skills. Once themes and codes were generated based on these six

skills for the document study, data were compared to the focus group interviews and

observations findings to determine commonalities.

Researcher’s Role and Potential Bias

As curriculum coordinator at the site school, I had an established relationship with

current faculty and staff. Throughout the years I have worked with classroom and non-

classroom teachers and administration on a variety of state initiatives and school projects

where we have built mutual trust and professional relationships. In this position, I did not

hold any authority over teachers and am considered on the same level as a certificated

teacher. For the purposes of this qualitative case study, my role as investigator was to

interview, observe, record, and analyze data. To preserve these relationships and strive

for credibility, I worked continuously protect participants from harm and maintain

confidentiality through open and honest communication; member checks; peer

examination and collaboration; and personal identification of biases as suggested by

Merriam (1995) and Yin (2014). Participants examined transcripts and observation

protocols to validate transcription and provide feedback and comments. Participants were

also asked to comment on findings throughout the study. To heighten awareness of

potential biases and other ethical concerns, I maintained a reflective journal to clarify and

record thoughts, assumptions, and other personal commentary.

 49
Data Analysis

To build a comprehensive case, qualitative data was gathered and triangulated

from multiple sources representing multiple perspectives. Using an inductive process to

analyze and compare findings, data from content area focus group interviews,

observations, and documents were compared to identify conceptual links between

categories. The process included both discovery and interim analysis of data as it was

received throughout the study to develop preliminary categories and distinguish patterns

in order to answer the research questions.

Collection Process

According to McMillan and Schumacher (1997) qualitative data analysis is

inductive and cyclical occurring continuously in all phases of research. Following the

steps of inductive analysis, data gathered during the focus group interviews, observations,

and documents study segments of this research was coded using the six digital literacy

skills and compared after each phase. In addition to the six digital literacy skills, the

focus group interview results was analyzed to determine minor themes related to RQ3

and RQ4. Interview sessions were transcribed using transcribwreally.com and coded with

MAXQDA software following the sessions. Initial coding for both interviews and

observations was conducted following discovery and interim analysis protocols and

guided by relevant research questions. Resulting codes and categories from each data set

were compared and contrasted to determine distinctive characteristics and patterns.

Relevant documents were gathered via Google Docs and printed from participants who

volunteer to share items. Information from the interviews and observations was
 50
triangulated with data from the document study to further identify patterns until themes

emerge.

Evidence of Quality

Central to building a comprehensive picture and extending findings from case

study research is the validity and credibility of the data and process (McMillan &

Schumacher, 1997). Considerations that were taken to address evidence of quality

included audio and video recorded data, member checking, participant review,

triangulation of data, peer debriefing, and a researcher field journal. To aid in data

accuracy and transcription, focus group interviews were audio and video recorded.

Participants checked transcripts for accuracy and provided further information or

interpretations of data soon after interviews and observations. This combination increased

the accuracy and integrity of information prior to analysis. Finally, participants and

designated peer colleagues were provided with a completed copy of the project study

findings for final review and input prior to submission.

Pursuant to triangulation, identified patterns and themes from multiple data

sources were cross validated during inductive data analysis to find commonalities and

discrepancies. This type of comparison allowed me to identify regularities that occurred

across data. If results from the three data sources converged, this corroboration lends to

both the construct validity and extension of findings (McMillan & Schumacher, 1997;

Yin 2014). Data that is contradictory or inconsistent helps construct a holistic view of the

situation and further identifies areas of interest (Merriam, 1998). Examining and
 51
comparing all results from the focus group interviews, observations and document study

increased the convergence of evidence, accuracy of findings, and validity.

The last two components used for evidence of quality as strategies to minimize

bias were peer debriefing and a researcher field journal. A peer debriefer is usually a

colleague who engages in professional dialogue with the researcher by reviewing

preliminary findings and field notes, asking probing questions, and presenting alternate

viewpoints or perspectives to help validate findings (McMillan & Schumacher, 1997;

Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2014). The peer debriefer enhanced understanding of the data and

provided valuable insight about possible ethical concerns and potential biases. Field

journals include detailed decisions, modifications, rationale, strategies, and assessments

of data trustworthiness used by the researcher (McMillan & Schumacher, 1997; Merriam,

1998). To further supplement evidence quality, I also used a field journal to document my

research process. Combining these two strategies helped me reflect on personal

subjectivity and monitor biases throughout the research process.

Discrepant Cases

The identification of negative cases or discrepant data was another aspect in

assessing the credibility of a study. Negative cases appear as participant viewpoints,

situations, or social scenes that are contradictory to meanings derived from emerging

patterns (McMillan & Schumacher, 1997). Also inconsistent with developing patterns,

discrepant data appears in the form of evidence and is useful because it provides insight

for possible modifications to current patterns (McMillan & Schumacher, 1997).

Researchers must actively search for these incidents and seek to explain them, amend
 52
patterns or suggest possibilities for future study. Recording, analyzing and adjusting for

negative cases or discrepant data further the validity of the study for both the participant

and the researcher.

Data Analysis Results

Data for this study was gathered in three phases of focus group interviews,

classroom observations, and documents for study. Questions in the digital literacy focus

group interview protocol (Appendix B) were designed to collect evidence related to all

research questions while information from the classroom observations and documents

gathered were designated to support RQ2. Thirteen teachers participated in all three of

these phases with four in social studies, three in science, two each in CTE and Fine

Arts/health, and one each in math and English language arts. There were no participants

from the world language department. Classroom observation protocols and document

data for each participant were coded by department name correlating to speaker title in

the focus group interviews. Tracking data by participant and department provided the

opportunity to code and connect themes between research questions and data points.

Six focus group interview sessions were conducted over a 2-day period for seven

departments to complete the first phase of the data gathering process. The site school

combines teachers in the Fine Arts and PE/Health department in the master schedule so

they were combined into one session for the interviews. The only department with no

participants was world languages. Interview sessions lasted between 32 and 55 minutes

depending on the number of participants and length of answers and discussion. Although

the original intent was to conduct sessions with 4 – 8 participants per department, actual
 53
numbers ranged from 1 – 4. At the conclusion of each session, participants completed a

simple form stating when they would like to be observed and their preferred method of

receiving information and transcripts for member checking, electronic or print. The audio

files were then sent to Rev.com for transcription and imported into the MAXQDA

software-coding program. To aid in credibility of research findings, I reviewed the

transcripts for errors prior to submitting to participants for member checking. All

members received electronic copies of interview transcripts shared securely via Google.

Additionally, printed transcripts were provided in a secure envelope to the four

participants who opted for information in both print and electronic format. Transcripts

were appropriately adjusted using participant feedback.

Once member checks were completed, data from the focus group interviews was

initially coded using the MAXQDA software program using codes that corresponded to

the four research questions. After data was segregated by these codes, I regrouped and

exported data into segments that combined responses by content area and like codes. This

provided the opportunity to evaluate data in matrices to identify emerging levels of

knowledge and integration of digital literacy. In some areas, data matrices were then

further analyzed to reduce overlapping codes and combine similar ideas. Processing data

in segments and comparing data, abstract concepts, and descriptions allowed me to

discriminate between recurring themes and discrepant data (Merriam, 2009). This initial

coding and exportation of data continued until all data from focus group interviews,

classroom observations, and documents were analyzed and themes emerged.

 54
Classroom observations were scheduled over the course of two weeks for the

second phase of data collection with each of the focus group participants observed for an

entire class period. Observation descriptions were recorded using the digital literacy

observation protocol form and later coded manually using the six digital literacy skills.

To differentiate, I assigned each skill a color and highlighted corresponding evidence

reflected in the observation. Both student and teacher actions were evaluated to determine

whether or not individual digital literacy skills were addressed. Content area tables were

then created to represent data corresponding to research questions and digital literacy

skill.

Documents for study were gathered in electronic and print form from each

participating teacher and included pacing guides, lesson plans, PowerPoints, and Google

Classroom invites. The invitations to teacher Google Classroom sites allowed me to view

both teacher and student created assignments, posts, and announcements. Documents

from all sources were segregated by content area and evaluated using the document study

digital literacy skill rubric. Similar to classroom observation analysis, varied highlighter

colors were used to code data as aligned to the six skills and corresponding research

questions. Evidence from the document study was used to determine levels of integration

for each digital literacy skills by content and then compared to focus group interviews

and classroom observations to determine overall level of digital literacy skill integration.

Ensuring Credibility of Research Findings

Integrity is forefront in producing quality research and depends on investigator

ethics. Consideration to preserve the credibility and reliability of research findings for
 55
this project was initiated through triangulation of data, member checks, peer review, and

rich descriptions.

Research Findings

Current Teacher Knowledge of Digital Literacy (RQ1)

The purpose of this case study was to determine the current level of knowledge

and integration of digital literacy skills of high school in-service teachers and identify

challenges and supports they needed to successfully shift teaching practices. To address

RQ1, teachers’ current levels of digital literacy skills based on the Eshet (2012)

framework, evidence was collected from focus group interviews in six different

departments: English language arts (ELA), science (SC), social studies (SS), math, fine

arts/physical education (FA/PE), and career technical education (CTE). Related questions

(see Appendix B: questions 5-13) from the focus group interview focused on assessing

teacher knowledge of the term “digital literacy” and the six digital literacy skills.

Responses were coded into low, medium, or high levels of knowledge based on

connection to definitions. To ascertain knowledge level, participants were asked to define

the term to the best of their ability prior to being exposed to the actual definition used in

the study.

As depicted in Table 1, all participants were able to provide evidence of medium

to high knowledge of the term digital literacy and the skill of photovisual literacy.
 56
Table 1

Focus Group Interviews: Content Area Overall Knowledge of Digital Literacy Terms
English Career &
Social Fine Arts
Science language Technical
Studies Math PE/Health
(SC) arts Education
(SS) (FA/PE)
(ELA) (CTE)
Digital
Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium
Literacy

Photovisual
High High High High Medium Medium
Literacy

Reproduction
Low Medium Low Low Low Low
Literacy

Branching
Low Low Low Low Low Low
Literacy

Information
Medium Low Low Low Low Low
Literacy

Socioemotional
Low Low Low Low Low Low
Literacy
Real-time
Thinking Low Low Low Low Low Low
Skills
Note: Levels of knowledge: Low, Medium, and High

Participants demonstrated knowledge related to digital literacy with comments such as:

“Your understanding of how technology works” (FA/PE); “Do you [people] know how to

use things in a digital world today? From phones, to research, to performance based tasks

like CTE” (CTE); “Complete their assignments, turn them in, in the format they want

using tools that they provide” (SC); “Using technology to access information” (SS);

“Able to use digital tools… in a critical, and constructive and productive way” (Math).

They were able to articulate a basic understanding of digital literacy. Participants from

each department demonstrated a more complex knowledge of photovisual literacy, as

they were able to provide commentary directly relating the definition of the term. This
 57
included statements using key words such as interpretation, inference, decoding, layers of

meaning, and statements such as: “understand the meaning in photos and other

images…interpret and understand captions” (ELA); “decode like layers of information

that might be in a picture or groups of pictures” and “layers in a picture which is a

graph…basic numeracy stuff or it can be just something that’s done with a color code”

(SC); “like propaganda that might come with the photo” and “perspective…deeper

questions about the photo” (SS); “read visual information and being able to interpret and

glean understanding of what the author intended” (Math). Going beyond basic

knowledge, these statements indicate that teachers have a deeper working knowledge of

photovisual literacy.

When considering the five remaining digital framework terms, all content areas

exhibited a low knowledge level with the exception of science and social studies teachers

interviewed who demonstrated medium level knowledge in reproduction and information

literacy respectively. Science teachers interviewed expressed their comprehension of

reproduction literacy through comments such as:

Start with being able to take a document and make a copy and reformat it to what

you need to use next with it…one level of reproduction literacy; knowing the

limits of each one…if you have the rights to modify; and producing it in a new

medium. (Science)

Compared with the definition, these remarks indicated science teachers understand some

of the key concepts including plagiarism and reproduction of a new product. Comments

from the SS, math, ELA, CTE and FA/PE demonstrated a basic knowledge level related
 58
to either plagiarism or reusing information such as: “being able to reproduce work”

(ELA); “could it be a reuse of information” (FA/PE); “knowing what you can use, and

how to reuse it, … and who has rights to publishing it and reproducing it and copying it”

(SS); “ethical literacy… what we can and cannot reproduce” (Math). There was no

indication of synthesizing multiple pieces of information and reproducing into something

new with the use of technology.

The other term departments presented varied knowledge level in was information

literacy. Comments from the social studies teachers such as, “how to decipher

information, and analyze information” and “how to analyze their sources…what was their

point of view,” provided evidence that their level of understanding this term was slightly

higher than the other departments. These teachers identified several components of the

term including evaluating and analyzing sources as well as interpreting information.

Responses from teachers in the other departments only highlighted one component of the

term as evinced in commentary: “understanding all the information they are receiving and

analyze it to make meaning” (ELA); “obtaining valid information from different

sources… knowing what’s legitimate versus something that’s just made up on the

Internet” and “different listening and speaking and reading… demonstrating the

knowledge through those modes” (FA/PE); “I’m thinking surfing the web, being able to

find what you want, when you want…including knowing the validity of your source”

(SC). The simplicity of these responses demonstrated a basic understanding to the term.

Further evidence from focus group interviews revealed a basic, or low knowledge

level for the three remaining framework terms: branching literacy, socioemotional
 59
literacy, and real-time thinking skills. Although many teachers expressed some ideas of

concepts related to terms, responses ranged from unsure to generalized deductions. For

branching literacy, participants were either unclear or able to make indirect connections

to navigation through Internet domains with the following phrases:

• “It is about links online” (ELA);

• “It’s like webbing maybe, showing how things interconnect” (FA/PE);

• “Never heard of it”; “something like being able to use some kind of electronic

tool and then being able to use something similar” (SC);

• “Never heard of that term before”; “I’m thinking that you’re looking for one

thing, and then all of a sudden you pick up on something else that’s connected

to that one, and it branches off to another idea” (SS); and

• “Connect to different areas of knowledge. Maybe into different disciplines”

(Math).

In response to defining socioemotional literacy, participants provided answers that

alluded to key concepts such as maturity and some critical thinking skills, but they were

not able to address collaboration, thinking abstractly, or the requisite skills of information

literacy and branching literacy. Comments included:

• “Thinking about thinking; metacognition” (ELA);

• “I think of socio-economic backgrounds… they learn differently, they respond

differently”; “How you use your emotions in appropriate ways, how you

handle different situations” (FA/PE);

 60
• “Resilience to be able to cope with stresses that come up with technologies”

(SC); and

• “Kids behind their phones and expressing their emotions that way throughout

the digital world vs face to face”; “Having compassion and empathy towards

others if you are reading about what’s going on” (SS).

Participant descriptions for the final digital literacy term, real-time thinking skills, also

revealed a basic level of knowledge. Although the following teacher comments revealed

awareness of responding to feedback and creating new material, the key elements of

processing multiple stimuli, executing multiple tasks simultaneously, and synthesizing

multiple modes of information into new product were missing:

• “Connect the past with the present and the future; how do they make new

knowledge” (ELA);

• “Every year we have different focuses and different things… maybe real time

keeping current with that” (FA/PE);

• “How well you are at problem solving”; “Critical thinking” (CTE);

• “Being able to give a question and expect a complete answer in an amount of

time” (SC);

• “Ability to listen and process information and then offer some sort of response

within the context of a conversation or debate”; “Checking your own bias

within that whole situation” (SS);

• “You’re interacting with somebody who’s solving a problem in another part

of the world” (Math).

 61
When comparing the responses provided by teachers to the definition of these three

digital literacy framework terms, key components for each were term missing,

demonstrating a basic level of comprehension.

Current Level of Digital Literacy Skill Implementation (RQ2)

To gather information for RQ2, the current level of digital literacy skill

implementation in the classroom, a combination of classroom observations, focus group

interview questions (see Appendix B: questions 14-19), and documents were gathered

and analyzed. Results were used to determine levels of teacher integration of digital

literacy skills into curriculum, instruction, and assessment six content areas.

Classroom Observations Findings for Integration (RQ2)

For classroom observations, a total of 13 high school classrooms were observed

between 30 – 45 minutes using the digital literacy observation protocol: four social

studies, two career and technical education, two fine arts/health, three science, and one

each in math and English language arts. After organizing and analyzing the data using

MAXQDA, I extracted key observation phrases connected to the six digital literacy terms

and created matrices portraying data. In the event there was no evidence of the term, the

phrases “not observed” was inserted.

Observations of the four social studies classrooms (Table 2) revealed evidence in

all digital literacy framework skills with the exception of branching literacy. Teachers’

observed actions demonstrated various levels of skills integration as they facilitated

student-learning activities that promoted the application of thinking and interaction skills
 62
related to other five terms. For each term addressed, teachers created opportunities for

students engaged in activities allowing them to practice new digital learning skills.

Table 2

Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in Social Studies

Teacher Actions Student Actions
Facilitate students understanding of Discuss and respond to teacher prompts
infographics for SAT testing related to infographics

Photovisual Use clip art and images to enhance Respond to teacher prompts related to
Literacy presentations and use for discussion images

Use video clips of content to promote Respond to teacher prompts related to

discussion & critical thinking video clip and link to current content
Use role play as assessment for students to Prepare to synthesize knowledge and act
apply knowledge of content and re-create out event from time period using various
time period events roles
Reproduction
Literacy Facilitate student presentations of review Collaborate with peers to create review
games created individually or in groups games (Kahoot Quiz, Memory Game,
Bingo) based on current content; facilitate
review games w/peers
Branching Not Observed Not Observed
Literacy
Facilitate role playing game where Identify relevant content knowledge to
students synthesize content knowledge portray character role and act through
scene
Information
Facilitate student presentations of review
Literacy
games created individually or in groups Identify critical information from
instruction to incorporate into review
games
Provide opportunity for students to Collaborate to role play and re-enact event
Socioemotional collaborate on role playing and review
Literacy games Collaborate to create review games
Provide technology tools for student Navigate between student instruction and
presentations technology (computer and cell phones) to
Real-time follow directions and perform task
Thinking
Skills Facilitate student use of computer to Navigate between two websites to
navigate between programs: Achieve 3000 complete tasks; navigate through website
and electronic quiz to complete task
Note: Four social studies classrooms observed – Participation in Democracy (2), US History & SAT Prep

In the math classroom observation (Table 3), evidence revealed application of

information literacy and real-time thinking skills. After modeling using various forms of
 63
technology, the teacher guided students through the steps prior to providing individual

work time. The teacher provided data for students to organize, input into graphing

calculators, and then graph. Students were expected to respond to a variety of

simultaneous stimuli and process information from multiple sources of input that

included a document camera, SMART Board, and whiteboard in order to meet the lesson

objective. The other four digital literacy skills were not observed.

Table 3

Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in Math

Teacher Actions Student Actions
Photovisual Not Observed Not Observed
Literacy
Reproduction Not Observed Not Observed
Literacy
Branching Not Observed Not Observed
Literacy
Present data for students to input into Identify relevant information to solve math
Information calculators and then graph problems using graphing calculators; chart
Literacy information and then graph

Socioemotional Not Observed Not Observed

Literacy
Switch between SMART Board, Switch between receiving instruction via
Real-time Calculator and Document Camera to tech tools, and performing tasks using
Thinking model task graphing calculator, individual lesson
Skills materials and information presented on
document camera
Note: One math classroom observed – Model Our World I

The classroom observations for Public Human Services Core (PHS Core) and

Digital Media courses (Table 4) for CTE revealed evidence for photovisual literacy,

reproduction literacy, information literacy, and real-time thinking skills. In the PHS Core

class, students were actively engaged in learning through the combined use of an

interactive Google Slides presentation, video, article, teacher and peer discussions, and a

note-taking tool. The note-taking tool and discussion questions were designed to elicit
 64
critical thinking and analytical responses in relation to the video and images on the slides,

addressing both information and photovisual literacy. In the Digital Media course, the

teacher addressed reproduction literacy and real-time thinking skills guiding the students

in the manipulation of images using Photoshop and CS4-6. Throughout the lesson,

students were required to download and upload various images; mirror instruction

through guided practice; apply multiple editing strategies; and assist peers in a lesson

designed to help students manipulate photos and create new personalized images.

Lessons in both classes were designed to incorporate technology and digital literacy skills

into curriculum and instruction.

Table 4

Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in Career & Technical

Education (CTE)
Teacher Actions Student Actions
Use video in instruction w/note-taking Used note-taking tool to record initial
Photovisual
tool; paused video for discussion & notes thoughts; responded to teacher prompts
Literacy
and revised/added to notes
Reproduction Model/demonstrate use of Photoshop and Practice using program tools to manipulate
Literacy CS4 tools on sample images images through teacher guidance
Branching Not Observed Not Observed
Literacy
Use guided questions to facilitate Respond orally and in writing to teacher
Information discussion and help students process prompts analyzing information in the
Literacy content information in a video and printed video and article
article
Socioemotional Not Observed Not Observed
Literacy
Model the use of Photoshop and CS4 tools Download images sent from teacher and in
Real-time on sample images personal files to manipulate while
Thinking following teachers’ modeling; navigate
Skills between files, internet, and computer
program
Note: Two CTE classrooms observed – Public Human Services Core and Digital Media

Classroom observations in the Photography and Health courses (Table 5) revealed

evidence of photovisual literacy, information literacy, socioemotional literacy, and real-

 65
time thinking skills. Instruction in the photography class centered on developing

photovisual literacy through the analysis of images using the elements of art and design

principles in a collaborative group review game. Students competed in small groups to

synthesize critical statements that combined key vocabulary terms with supporting

evidence from each image displayed using a document camera. This activity created a

learning environment where students also practiced socioemotional literacy in

collaborative groups and used real-time thinking skills when they responded to teacher

and peer feedback as they continued the review game. Although students were not using

technology, they were actively engaged in the developing these three skills. Observations

in the health course revealed similar findings where the students practiced photovisual

and information literacy. Through the use of Google Slides, the teacher presented a

variety of print and video advertising campaigns aimed at selling products and using

propaganda. Guided by teacher prompts and discussion, students analyzed the ads to

determine audience, meaning, and hidden agendas. Reproduction literacy and branching

literacy were not addresses in either classroom observation.

Table 5

Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in Fine Arts/PE/Health

Teacher Actions Student Actions
Use images, advertisements, and video in Respond to teacher prompts related to
PowerPoint presentation with discussion analyzing image, advertisements, and
prompts to analyze message within media videos
Photovisual
Literacy Use games to get students to analyze Collaborate in groups to analyze images
images using the elements of art & design using elements of art & design principles
principles

Reproduction Not Observed Not Observed

Literacy
Branching Not Observed Not Observed
Literacy
 66
Teacher Actions Student Actions
Prompt students to analyze image, Respond to teacher prompts related to
Information advertisements and video for bias and images, advertisements, and videos
Literacy purpose
Group students in teams to collaborate an Collaborate to analyze image using the
Socioemotional co-construct statements related to the elements of art & design principles and co-
Literacy images and elements of art & design construct statements
principles
Real-time Provide feedback to student groups Respond to teacher feedback and revise
Thinking regarding their analytical art statements statements to reflect feedback
Skills and allow revisions
Note: Two classrooms observed – Photography & Health

Observation in the special education English class (Table 6) revealed evidence of

reproduction and branching literacy, and real-time thinking skills. After an introductory

presentation using Google Slides, students migrated to the computer lab and proceeded to

complete an assignment using Google Classroom. The assignment required students to

navigate between electronic and print documents as they responded to prompts and

completed the online assignment related to analyzing a poem. This required navigation

between multiple print and electronic sources while responding to feedback and direction

from the teacher. Through guided practice, students were able to practice developing

these three skills.

Table 6

Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in English Language Arts

Teacher Actions Student Actions
Photovisual Not Observed Not Observed
Literacy
Provide instructions on the use of Google Use Google Documents to provide
Reproduction
Classroom to complete assignment answers after interpreting a poem from
Literacy
print
Provide electronic copies of assignment Navigate between two documents to
Branching and poem for students to navigate between interpret poem and respond to questions;
Literacy copy & paste and type from one document
to another
 67
Information Not Observed Not Observed
Literacy
Socioemotional Not Observed Not Observed
Literacy
Use Google Classroom as instructional Login to Google Classroom, make “copy”
Real-time
tool where students navigate between of assignment an navigate between text,
Thinking
textbook and electronic assignment to computer, and teacher feedback to provide
Skills
complete task responses
Note: One classroom observed – English 12

As depicted in Table 7, observations in Human Physiology, Physical Science, and

Biology provided evidence of all six digital literacy skills. Combined teaching and

learning activities in all science classes provided opportunities for student to apply skills

in analyzing graphs and a variety of visuals that were both teacher and student created.

Addressing reproduction, branching, information, and socioemotional literacy, students

collaborated with peers to conduct research, synthesize information, and navigate a

variety of computer software programs and Internet applications to create review games

and Google Slides presentations. Through the use of Google Classroom, Quizlet, and

Google Sheets, students practiced real-time thinking skills while collaborating with peers

to navigate between multiple programs and respond to peer and teacher input to complete

tasks. In all three courses, teachers and students actively used technology and digital

literacy skills to demonstrate knowledge and co-create new knowledge.

Table 7

Classroom Observation: Digital Literacy Skills Observed in Science

Teacher Actions Student Actions
Provide instruction on creating and Create graphs using previously determined
interpreting graphs in Google Sheets data and follow visual PDF of instructions

Provide instructions on building Google Research images to match assigned

Photovisual
Slides presentations with visual content and determine the most
Literacy
appropriate visual for Slides

Create quizzes and games with visuals Answer questions on quiz that require
(graphs & images) for interpretation analysis of graphs and images; analyze
 68
Teacher Actions Student Actions
information in images on collaborative
Quizlet online game
Provide instruction on creating a Google Collaborate with peers to conduct research
Slide presentation that synthesizes and synthesize information into a group
information related to assigned group Google Slide presentation
Reproduction
topics
Literacy
Provide oral and electronic instructions on Use Google Sheets and teacher instruction
analyzing data to create graphs to analyze data and create graphs
Use Google Classroom and other Google Navigate between Google Classroom,
Drive elements for classroom instruction Google Sheets, PDF documents and other
information to complete electronic
assignment
Branching
Literacy Use Google Classroom, Juno (JupiterIO), Navigate between Google Classroom and
and Quizlet as instruction and assessment Juno to complete quizzes, assignments and
tools reflections; collaborate with peers to
navigate through Quizlet to complete
review game
Facilitate student learning through lab Collaborate with peers in analyzing lab
Information work and research to create informative results and research to create informative
Literacy Google Slides to present to peers related to Google Slides
assigned topic
Create collaborative group assignment Collaborate with peers to evaluate
using Google Slides information and create informative slide
presentation
Socioemotional
Literacy
Create online collaborate group review Collaborate with peers to complete online
game and electronic peer response Quizlet review game; read and respond to
assignment peer comments online
Create assignment requiring students to Follow instructions in Google Classroom
Real-time
read and follow online directions, respond using Google Sheets to complete
Thinking
to peer and teacher feedback and navigate assignment; Ask and respond to teacher
Skills
between multiple online sources. and peer feedback to complete assignment
Note: Three Science classrooms observed – Human Physiology, Physical Science & Biology

Overall findings from classroom observations (Table 8) indicated a range of

integration of digital literacy skills into curriculum, instruction, and assessment for each

department. Evidence for each digital literacy skill was evaluated using the definition for

the correlating term and assigned one of three levels: evident, developing, or not evident.

The level of technology application was used to differentiate between levels of evident

and developing, depending on whether student use of technology was evident in

 69
observation. Science demonstrated the most integration with a level of evident in each of

the six digital literacy skills indicating a general ability to address each skill. Social

studies demonstrated three instances of evident in photovisual literacy, reproduction

literacy, and information literacy, with two developing and one not evident. Instances in

the English language arts and career and technical education departments were spread

throughout all six skills with two evident occurrences in real-time thinking skills and

reproduction literacy and the other occurrences spread throughout developing (5) and not

evident (5). The math and fine arts/PE departments demonstrated a lower level of

integration with zero instances of evident, six instances of developing and six instances of

not evident. Total for each level of integration was evident (10), developing (13) and not

evident (13).
 70
Table 8

Classroom Observation Findings: Summary of Integration of Digital Literacy Skills by

Department
English Career &
Social Fine Arts
Science language Technical
Studies Math PE/Health
(SC) arts Education
(SS) (FA/PE)
(ELA) (CTE)
Photovisual Not Not
Evident Evident Developing Developing
Literacy Evident Evident

Reproduction Not Not

Evident Evident Developing Evident
Literacy Evident Evident

Branching Not Not Not Not

Evident Developing
Literacy Evident Evident Evident Evident

Information Not
Evident Evident Developing Developing Developing
Literacy Evident

Socioemotion Not Not Not

Developing Evident Developing
al Literacy Evident Evident Evident

Real-time
Thinking Developing Evident Developing Evident Developing Developing
Skills
Note: Levels are Evident, Developing, and Not Evident

Focus Group Interview and Document Study Findings for Integration (RQ2)

In connection with classroom observations, evidence from focus group interviews

and documents were analyzed and compared to observation findings to further address

RQ2. Focus group interview protocol questions (14-19) were designed to illicit

information related to teacher’s perceived integration of digital literacy skills in

classroom practices. Participant comments from these questions were reviewed and

organized by department into codes using the MAXQDA software and further analyzed

using the definitions for each of the six digital literacy skills. Evidence for each skill was
 71
then evaluated based on the definition of the correlating digital literacy skill and student

use of technology. Departments were assigned a score for each skill using the following

scale: evident, developing, or not evident.

Documents gathered for comparative analysis to address RQ2 included

curriculum maps, pacing guides, daily lesson plan samples, various

assignments/worksheets, project instructions, science labs, and a variety of teacher and

student created PowerPoints and Google Slides. Although pacing guides provided an

overview of the course content as paced throughout the semester or year, most did not

provide enough pedagogical information to determine the depth and breadth of

technology and digital literacy skills integration. The daily lesson plans, assignments,

Slides, and PowerPoints provided the most insight into integration and were used to

determine levels of integration into curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Evidence in

the documents correlating to the digital literacy skills was color-coded by skill and key

details were organized into matrices that were analyzed to determine integration level.

Identified evidence from documents was evaluated by department using the document

study digital literacy skill rubric (Appendix D) and assigned one of three levels of

integration for each digital literacy skill: evident, developing, or not evident.

To differentiate between developing and evident in both focus group interviews

and documents, the purpose of evidence and use of technology were analyzed. If the

evidence was purposefully designed to integrate technology and address the specific skill,

the level assigned was evident. If the skill was somewhat addressed but lacked evidence

of purposefully planning to address the skill and/or technology integration, the level
 72
assigned was developing. For each department, all documents submitted and participant

comments for each skill were compared to determine the final document study rating.

Analysis of the participant comments and documents provided for the study

revealed a wide range of digital literacy integration for the six skills. Evidence from focus

group interviews was assembled and into tables (see Tables 10-15) and displayed with

findings from document study evidence for presentation for comparative analysis. For

documents studied, the term no evidence was inserted to demonstrate lack of related

evidence found during analysis. Participant comments related to the digital literacy skill

were displayed in the focus group column to demonstrate teacher perception and

thinking.

As evidenced in Table 9, all departments demonstrated some integration of the

skill photovisual literacy into instruction. Social studies, SC, and ELA provided

opportunities for students to analyze cartoons, videos, and images related to content and

document based questions. CTE and FA/PE planned for students to analyze professional

logos and various artwork using art elements as well as advertisement for personal care

products. Both math and SC integrated the analysis of charts and diagrams related to

specific content. With the exception of math, participants in each department integrated

technology and purposely incorporated specific elements for analyzing the photovisual

content such as art elements, rhetorical appeal, analysis protocols, and rubrics.
 73
Table 9

Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of Photovisual Literacy
Skills
Focus Group Interview Document Study
Participant Comments Examples
Analyzing “Two cartoons about Analyzing videos for meaning
immigration”
Social
Selecting images to represent historical
Studies
“Document based questions…one visual in events and outcomes;
(SS)
there… to interpret it in relation to the
other primary sources”
“Trying to draw things…so that there is a Students conducting virtual labs
picture that goes along with the words”
Analyzing videos for labs
“Graph as much as we can… shape of the
graph means different things” Draw conclusions from table, charts,
Science
topography, and various images
(SC)
“We do videos that are short with ‘I notice
and wonder’”

“Quizlet vocab program where you can put

pictures with the definitions”
Math “I don’t think I’m using it to its fullest Investigation of math problems using
(MA) potential… I have diagrams” maps, charts, and diagrams
“Interpret and understand meaning in Photo Essay unit; identify rhetorical
photos and other images” appeals in visual images

English “Being able to interpret and understand Analyzing images using Imagery Graphic
language arts captions” Organizer
(ELA)
Collaborate with peers to define and
generate visual representation of
Archetypal Criticism
“How to use a tool on Adobe Illustrator” Media analysis activity

“Interpret how lines are being used, how Identify design elements & principles in
Career &
are the colors being used, and why they images
Technical
are being used”
Education
Analyzing and creating logos
(CTE)
Critiquing of professional and personal
photography, artwork and videos
“We look at charts and we try to make Group analysis of advertisements
meaning of it”
Analysis of personal care products
Fine Arts
“Learn to critique photographs…what including labeling and packaging
PE/Health
might be happening or the time period…
(FA/PE)
quality image” Analyzing original and peer artwork to
then produce original artwork integrating
art elements and design principles
 74
In terms of reproduction literacy, evidence (Table 10) indicated each department

provided learning opportunities to integrate this skill. English, SS, and FA/PE described

instances where students conducted research online and synthesized information into an

Instagram account, poetry, and informative or argumentative writing. Science and CTE

participants described more project based learning where students synthesized

information into original designs, food, and presentations or labs. For math, integration

included producing geometric forms and proving theorems. Although the use of

technology is more implied in math with the word “tools”; science with “physical

models” and labs; and CTE with original art designs and cooking; it is explicitly

described in SS with “digital media”, “visual displays”, and creating an Instagram

account. A participant in science also recognized the need to learn more about using

technology to create digital representations for models in science.

Table 10

Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of Reproduction

Literacy Skills
Focus Group Interview Document Study
Participant Comments Examples
“History Day [projects and essays]” Create an Instagram account representing
a historical figure integrating information
“Research projects…have the kids from research
understand the difference between
plagiarism and paraphrasing” Use digital media and visual displays to
Social
express information and present findings
Studies
“Synthesize information [from research] with supporting evidence
(SS)
into a new document, an essay.”
Integrate information from primary and
secondary sources into coherent
understanding of idea or event, noting
discrepancies
“I had them do cellular transport Classification presentations
[drawings]…try to have them do it
Science
digitally, but I didn’t know how” Cell Books & Analogies
(SC)
“They synthesize answers to the cells lab” Create & present Phylogenetic Trees
 75
Focus Group Interview Document Study
Participant Comments Examples

“Phases of the moon [posters]…based on

the position of the sun and even include
some cultural things… and we do the
physical model”
“Doing a scavenger hunt where I could see Investigation and critical thinking on math
them [students] having to apply, and think tasks and problems
about, and talk about what they had been
Math
learning.” Prove theorems about lines and graphs
(MA)
“Unscramble the words, and then take the Make formal geometric constructions with
message, and then do something with it. a variety of tools and methods
“This is the synthesize of information to Poetry unit involving analyzing and
produce essays” writing poems
English
language arts
Informative and argumentative writing
(ELA)
involving synthesis of multiple sources
into evidence based essays.
“Teach them about copyright and fair Creating original designs based on specific
use… emphasize having original criteria (logos, videos, photos, posters, etc)
Career & concepts”
Technical Produce a variety of food dishes using
Education “Actually created and inspiration original and student revised recipes
(CTE) board…take ideas from it, to create your
own original idea” Cook and serve plate lunches in a class
restaurant
“Showing them an example…giving them Analyze sources to write a cause and
information and then now take what you effect essay
learned and create something new… to
Fine Arts
show your learning Investigate a variety of snacks and write
PE/Health
and analysis
(FA/PE)
Create photos based on unit concepts using
elements, principles, and technical aspects

When considering all six digital literacy skills, evidence for branching literacy

(Table 11) showed the lowest level of integration in all departments. In SS and math,

participant comments and documents provided indicated no evidence of learning

opportunities for students to address skills related to branching literacy. Science, CTE,

and FA/PE comments and documents provided evidence related to Internet use in the

forms of Google and other online applications and research, but branching skills were not
 76
explicitly taught or assessed. Although the ELA pacing guides indicated an introduction

to Google Classroom and Google Calendar, there was no indication of explicit instruction

about navigation within the hypermedia environment for students to further practice

constructing information. Overall, there was evidence of technology use in SC, ELA,

CTE, and FA/PE, where teachers were starting to provide learning opportunities for

students to find information on the Internet.

Table 11

Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of Branching Literacy
Skills
Focus Group Interview Document Study
Participant Comments Examples
Social “Not directly” Not Evident
Studies
(SS)
“I did this Internet scavenger hunt where Current events from online sources
they [students] were going to different site,
but I was very explicit.” Online quizzes, Google Classroom
Science
(SC)
“I pay attention [monitor] as they’re Navigation of online sources for classroom
researching their animals to keep them assignments
from getting lost”
Math “It’s about the links [online]” Not Evident
(MA)
English “I think at this point it’s more developing Introductory tour to Google Classroom,
language arts mindfulness” Calendar and other Google Apps used in
(ELA) classroom
Career & “In our career exploration project, I give Online research related to creating Public
Technical them websites…use these three and if you Service Announcements
Education use any others, make sure you take the
(CTE) URL down.”
“They [students] go on one website and I Receive feedback on personal images and
show them the features and how they can use various photo software to manipulate
get different types of information images; posting images on Google
Fine Arts
based…on the project.” Classroom
PE/Health
(FA/PE)
Use Foodfacts.com and other online
resources to conduct research on various
snack food
 77
Evidence evaluated from interviews and documents revealed that each department

provided various opportunities for students to analyze multiple sources of information

and assimilate new knowledge related to developing information literacy (Table 12).

Social studies and CTE participants provided evidence that described instances where all

components of information literacy including, critical thinking, identifying biased and

irrelevant material, and assimilating information, were all apparent. Instances included

using a SCAR rubric, questioning propaganda, obtaining information from sides of an

event, fact checking, and synthesizing information into a public service announcement.

Data from the other departments revealed instances where the same components of

information literacy were only partially addressed and assessed. Integration of technology

to address information literacy was evident in SS with the evaluation of primary and

secondary sources; in science connected to lab stations; and in ELA, FA/PE, and CTE

with the analysis of videos, broadcasts, advertisements, and websites.

Table 12

Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of Information Literacy
Skills
Focus Group Interview Document Study
Participant Comments Examples
“Built into the document-based questions Students develop and use a SCAR
format…part of the rubric where kids have (subject, cause, action, result) chart to
to identify the bias of the authors” summarize source information
Social
Studies
“Whole unit about propaganda…more Evaluating primary and secondary sources
(SS)
questioning and critical about who’s
presenting the information and what they
are trying to convince them of.”
“[I] Talk about stats and that anytime you Use of scientific method for lab stations
read any stats…think about where it could
be… and pick the one that makes you Salt comparison activity
Science
sound better”
(SC)
Drawing conclusions in all labs
“When I’ve done a research project, I go
through the library and they choose a
 78
Focus Group Interview Document Study
Participant Comments Examples
book”
“Rewrite their [student] knowledge about Prove theorems about lines and angles
what’s true and not true… interpret what
Math the information actually means” Proving Special Triangles Conjectures
(MA)
“Develop deductive reasoning [in Pythagorean Theorem Proof
geometry]
“Understand the information they are Review and identify rhetoric in images,
English
receiving and analyze it to make meaning” videos and writing
language arts
(ELA)
Poetry Analysis Unit
“I give them specific websites… Advertisement analysis for bias and
[searching] for basic information like pay, meaning
[job] tasks”
Research related to creating Public Service
Career & “[Identify] Biased information… when we Announcements; Synthesizing information
Technical had broadcasts. We would talk about into a PSA
Education having to get both sides of a story…from
(CTE) multiple sources”

“Fact check to make sure they are giving

the right information…relevant to what
they are talking about”
“We do quite a bit of that [evaluate Analyzing advertisements, video and
Fine Arts sources] especially when we hit drugs and science and technical texts to identify
PE/Health alcohol [lessons]…look at their [website] specific evidence to support claims for
(FA/PE) credibility… biases on both sides” Drug and Alcohol, Chronic Diseases, and
Snack Choice Units

Analysis of data from interviews and documents revealed a wide range of

integration of learning opportunities related to socioemotional literacy (Table 13)

throughout the departments. Social studies, SC, and CTE demonstrated the most

instances of integration with opportunities for students to collaborate with peers in an

online environment to create presentations, conduct research, and develop products.

Evidence for developing socioemotional literacy in math and FA/PE addressed the

collaboration with peers to analyze information and share and co-construct knowledge,

but the use of technology was unclear. The component of branching literacy as related to
 79
the definition of socioemotional literacy was partially evident in SS and SC with the

integration of Google Classroom, Quizlet Live, and social media, but was difficult to

discern within the evidence provided in other departments.

Table 13

Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of Socioemotional

Literacy Skills
Focus Group Interview Document Study
Participant Comments Examples
“Do a form in Google Classroom… they Guide students in creating an appropriate
have to respond to each other, whether I social media account reflecting a historical
[student] agree with you [peer]” figure
Social
Studies
“A group project that compared world Work in groups to develop a progressive
(SS)
religions…they were sharing this map and create a governmental structure
document [Google Doc] together and
working on it in the computer lab”
“Quizlet Live…mixes them [students] into Collaborative lab groups
random groups that have to work together”
Cooperative group activities and
“A jigsaw… invertebrates presentations presentations
Science so… they have to work with a
(SC) partner…then teach the class” Peer sharing activities

“I say consider the people in your group

because you’re going to be doing this for
three days”
“We are laying the foundation by having Not Evident
Math
them work in groups in investigative
(MA)
teams”
English “They [students] need to identify the Not Evident
language arts rhetorical appeals, and that help them to
(ELA) see what is the persuasion behind them”
“I don’t think this is part of our actually Collaborative Occupation Posters
teaching”
Career & Digital Media Group Research and
Technical “We might advise students about what Presentations
Education they should or should not do”
(CTE) Various collaborative group projects and
“Twitter and Snake [school activity] and presentations
this kind of stuff”
“I try to teach them that these are the types Collaborative group analysis of snack and
Fine Arts
of pictures [social media] that are trending food products
PE/Health
it’s not necessarily what’s important to
(FA/PE)
you” Group presentation of various projects
 80

As portrayed in the comparison of findings in Table 14, there were fewer

instances of learning opportunities provided to address real-time thinking skills in the

documents than in the interview comments. Due to the lack of descriptive commentary in

many documents, it was difficult to link information within unit and lesson descriptions

to the application of real-time thinking skills. Therefore, the phrase “not evident” was

inserted where evidence was not apparent from document analysis in SS, math, ELA, and

FA/PE. Participant comments in math and ELA also further indicated that real-time

thinking skills are not currently being addressed in pedagogical practices. Evidence from

interviews in SS, SC, CTE, and FA/PE demonstrated participants provided some

opportunity for student to interact with peers using technology while responding to

feedback from peers and the teacher. Evidence provided did not indicate explicit

instruction in any department related to developing the skills needed to multi-task and

respond to simultaneous stimuli to create a product as indicated in the term definition.

Table 14

Focus Group Interview & Document Study Findings: Integration of Real-time Thinking
Skills
Focus Group Interview Document Study
Participant Comments Examples
“We’re doing our essays as well as our Not Evident
slideshow presentation and we have 3 tabs
Social
open…assignment in Google Classroom,
Studies
one was a Google Document for them to
(SS)
write their notes on, and one whatever
source they were using”
 81
“I feel like I kind of push the edge with Quizlet competitions
this one because I usually have two or
three tasks on a computer lab day… when Google Classroom assignments connected
this is done, move onto that one” to online research
Science
(SC) “I do give a lot of lectures and they take Creating and presenting information
notes…I’m writing and then I’m talking through Google Slides
and explaining and there’s pictures and
demos…If they’re writing, they might not
be listening and trying to process”
“I haven’t placed them [students] in an Not Evident
Math
environment where they are getting a lot
(MA)
of stimuli yet”
“We give them various sources. They need Not Evident
English
to synthesize the information and also
language arts
giving quotes and the citations and the
(ELA)
commentary”
“Checklists keep them on task, guiding Implementation of software tools
them” (Photoshop, Illustrator, inDesign, etc) to:
Manipulate/enhance photos; Mirror
“I don’t really teach them to multi-task teacher actions; and Collaborate and
Career &
and stay-on task” design original pieces
Technical
Education
“They are in their groups and have to plan
(CTE)
what they are doing…on person’s in
charge of finding the music…another
one’s editing, another one’s doing
graphic”
“I have different levels of students so the Not Evident
old timers [optional repeat students] end
up doing the organizing and I teach them
and then they will take their own groups
Fine Arts and manage”
PE/Health
(FA/PE) “Brainstorm their projects and then they
check in with me… go out and re-shoot
[photo] and try it again”

“Practice them responding to your

[teacher] feedback”

Overall findings from focus group interviews (Table 15) revealed nine instances

each in the levels of evident and not evident with the most instances of 18 in developing.

Disaggregated by digital literacy skill, findings revealed a higher level of teacher ability

to integrate learning opportunities in photovisual, reproduction literacy, and information

 82
literacy with a total combination of seven evident and 10 developing. Evidence for

branching literacy, socioemotional literacy, and real-time thinking skills indicated the

most room for growth with eight occurrences of not evident. Disaggregated by

department, social studies and science demonstrated a higher level of integration of all

digital literacy skills with a combination of seven instances of evident and four instances

of developing. Math and ELA demonstrate the most area for growth with a combination

of six instances of not evident.

Table 15

Focus Group Interview: Summary of Digital Literacy Skills Integration from Comments
English Career &
Social Fine Arts
Science language Technical
Studies Math PE/Health
(SC) arts Education
(SS) (FA/PE)
(ELA) (CTE)
Photovisual Not
Evident Evident Developing Developing Evident
Literacy Evident

Reproduction
Evident Evident Developing Developing Evident Developing
Literacy

Branching Not Not Not

Developing Developing Developing
Literacy Evident Evident Evident

Information
Evident Developing Developing Developing Developing Developing
Literacy

Socioemotion Not Not Not

Evident Evident Developing
al Literacy Evident Evident Evident

Real-time
Not Not
Thinking Developing Developing Developing Developing
Evident Evident
Skills
Note: Levels are Evident, Developing, and Not Evident

Based on the final analysis of documents studied (Table 16), results revealed

various levels of integration of the six digital literacy skills in each department. Overall
 83
findings revealed 15 instances in the level of evident, 13 instances of developing, and

eight in not evident, indicating more integration of skills than evinced in focus group

interviews. Similar to focus group findings, data disaggregated by digital literacy skill

indicated a higher integration level in photovisual, reproduction, and information literacy

with a combination of 14 instances of evident and four in developing. Real-time thinking

skills presented the most not evident with four instances. By department, participants in

the SC and CTE departments provided evidence that addressed each of the six skills to

some level, while evidence from other departments was not evident in 1-3 of the skills.

Math presented with the lowest level of integration with no instances of evident and three

each in developing and not evident, indicating the most room for growth.

Table 16

Document Study Findings: Summary of Digital Literacy Skill Present by Department

English Career &
Social Fine Arts
Science language Technical
Studies Math PE/Health
(SC) arts Education
(SS) (FA/PE)
(ELA) (CTE)
Photovisual
Evident Evident Developing Evident Evident Evident
Literacy

Reproduction
Evident Evident Developing Evident Evident Evident
Literacy

Branching Not Not

Developing Developing Developing Developing
Literacy Evident Evident

Information
Evident Evident Developing Developing Evident Evident
Literacy

Socioemotion Not Not

Evident Developing Developing Developing
al Literacy Evident Evident
 84
Real-time
Not Not Not Not
Thinking Developing Developing
Evident Evident Evident Evident
Skills
Note: Levels are Evident, Developing, and Not Evident

Overall Integration of Digital Literacy Skills by Department (RQ2)

Data from the focus group interviews, classroom observations, and documents

were triangulated to determine the overall level of integration of digital literacy skills for

each department. Participant statements from the focus group interview questions 14-19,

classroom observation findings, and document findings were compared for an overall

level of integration. As in previous summary tables, the same three levels of evident,

developing, or not evident were used and the protocol for assigning levels of integration

was similar. If triangulated evidence demonstrated purposeful design to address

components of the specific skill and integrate technology, the level assigned was evident.

If combined evidence revealed that the skill was somewhat addressed but lacked

purposeful planning and/or technology integration, the level assigned was developing. If

information was vague or not apparent in findings, the level assigned was not evident.

Levels of integration for all three data points were combined to determine overall rating.

Table 17

Summary: Content Area Overall Integration of Digital Literacy (RQ2)

English Career &
Social Fine Arts
Science Math language Technical
Studies PE/Health
arts Education
O Evident Evident Not Evident Not Evident Developing Developing
Photovisual
FG Evident Evident Not Evident Developing Developing Evident
Literacy
DS Evident Evident Developing Evident Evident Evident
Overall Evident Evident Developing Developing Developing Evident
O Evident Evident Not Evident Developing Evident Not Evident
Reproduction
FG Evident Evident Developing Developing Evident Developing
Literacy
DS Evident Evident Developing Evident Evident Evident
Overall Evident Evident Developing Developing Evident Developing
 85
O Not Evident Evident Not Evident Developing Not Evident Not Evident
Branching
FG Not Evident Developing Not Evident Not Evident Developing Developing
Literacy
DS Not Evident Developing Not Evident Developing Developing Developing
Overall Not Evident Developing Not Evident Developing Developing Developing
O Evident Evident Developing Not Evident Developing Developing
Information
FG Evident Developing Developing Developing Developing Developing
Literacy
DS Evident Evident Developing Developing Evident Evident
Overall Evident Evident Developing Developing Developing Developing
O Developing Evident Not Evident Not Evident Not Evident Developing
Socioemotion
FG Evident Evident Developing Not Evident Not Evident Not Evident
al Literacy
DS Evident Developing Not Evident Not Evident Developing Developing
Overall Evident Evident Developing Not Evident Developing Developing
Real-time O Developing Evident Developing Evident Developing Developing
Thinking FG Developing Developing Not Evident Not Evident Developing Developing
Skills DS Not Evident Developing Not Evident Not Evident Developing Not Evident
Overall Developing Developing Developing Developing Developing Developing
Note: Levels are Evident, Developing and Not Evident. O = Observation, FG = Focus Group, DS = Document Study.

As depicted in Table 17, all departments were making progress at various levels

in integrating the six digital literacy skills. Overall, there were 11 instances of evident in

the all skills with the exception of branching literacy; 22 instances of developing

distributed through all six skills with the most in real-time thinking skills; and three

instances of not evident between branching and socioemotional literacy. Disaggregated

by department, SS and SC demonstrated more ability to provide learning opportunities

related to photovisual, reproduction, information, and socioemotional literacy with a level

of evident in the four skills. With the exception of the level evident for FA/PE in

photovisual literacy and CTE in reproduction literacy, the four departments of Math,

ELA, CTE, and FA/PE demonstrated the most instances in of developing in photovisual,

reproduction, information literacy, and real-time thinking skills. The levels of not evident

were indicated in branching literacy for SS and math and in socioemotional literacy for

ELA. The summary of findings for RQ2 indicated a need for differentiated professional

development related to department needs based on content area and digital literacy skills.

Departments would benefit from training and collaboration time with peers to share
 86
experiences, knowledge, and construct lessons that incorporate technology with

discipline specific content.

Perceived Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3)

To identify teachers’ perceived challenges in integrating the essential digital

literacy skills (RQ3), phrases from participant responses to designated focus group

interview questions (20-25) were analyzed and coded. The initial examination of

responses involved highlighting, labeling, and classifying phrases into various

“challenge” categories. Preliminary challenge categories included training, life, literacy,

perseverance, transitions, time, technology, beliefs, roles, infrastructure, and awareness.

Responses for these categories revealed that integration challenges were present for

teachers and students in several areas. The next step involved printing matrices and

reviewing and annotating information to collapse data and narrow categories. These

categories were then further refined until five minor themes emerged from the analysis of

participant input from related focus group interview questions.

One of the first challenge categories that emerged from participant comments

(Table 18) was related to student’s ability to struggle through difficult tasks and use

appropriate strategies to solve problems. CTE and ELA participants identified challenges

with students and their desire and ability to persevere through a task. The ELA teacher

stated, “They don’t want to think… they think is a wasting of time,” and both CTE

teachers indicated that the students plan for projects and tasks superficially and, “Just

want to jump into it.” The math teacher also affirmed that, “Students aren’t accustomed

to having to do that level of seeing. They are accustomed to superficially look at what’s
 87
in front of them,” indicating that students give up and lose patience if they don’t

understand immediately. From these comments, the minor theme of critical thinking

emerged as a challenge, encompassing the inability of students to think critically about a

problem, task, or information, and then apply themselves to solve problems or thoroughly

plan and develop ideas.

Table 18

Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3): Responses for “Critical Thinking”

Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“They [students] don’t take is serious when I still want them to put out their best efforts”
FA/PE
“[Students] just want to jump into it”

CTE “I give them planning sheets [for making a PSA] and look at them like, ‘you just gave
me basic stuff. What exactly are you going to have them wear? Where are you going to
be?’”
“They didn’t obtain this stage…it is vital for them to develop as a complex thinker”
ELA
“They don’t want to think… they think is a wasting of time”
“Students aren’t accustomed to having to do that level of seeing. They are accustomed to
superficially look at what’s in front of them”
Math
“”Lack of patience on their [student’s] part. If they don’t understand it right away then
something’s wrong”

Another concept that emerged from the analysis of comments (Table 19) related

to challenges was the need for effective use of time. Due to the constant evolution of

technology, software, and applications, teachers indicated the lack of time to research,

plan, and reflect on lessons related to digital literacy skills and their content as a

challenge. Science participants indicated that it required great deal of time researching

quality materials without actually meeting their needs and they, “Have a hard time

finding stuff for them [students] to use and interpret. It’s either not accessible to them or

is doesn’t show the concepts that I know exists, that I need.” Social studies and math
 88
teachers implied that it was difficult to determine which digital literacy skills were

pertinent to their content and then align instruction and build assessments within current

allotted planning time. Combined with limited classroom instruction time of

approximately 50 minutes, integration of digital literacy skills competes with the need to

address content. Other participants also stated maintaining current knowledge of

technology required additional professional development time, which should be

accompanied by compensation or count towards reclassification. These participant

comments led to a second minor theme, time, which covers a broad cross spectrum from

purposeful teacher planning and training time to the appropriate use of classroom

instructional minutes.

Table 19

Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3): Responses for “Time”

Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“Have a hard time finding stuff for them [students] to use and interpret. It’s either not
Science accessible to them or is doesn’t show the concepts that I know exists, that I need”
“Assessment time”

“Skill building [time]. What sources we can call reliable and why”

“Some time to teach [and plan] it right”

Social Studies
“I wish I had more time with the kids”

“For older teachers [not age], we didn’t have the same kind of technology so unless we
have time to learn...”
“I think the 50 minute classes is a huge challenge. It takes time to get to that good deep
place of thinking”
Math
“I feel so compressed to cover content”
“Time to plan, time for the kids to get work done”
CTE

A third challenge category that emerged from focus group findings (Table 20)

was the need to develop digital literacy for both teachers and students. Participants in SS,
 89
math, and SC identified a weakness in student’s capacity to conduct quality research that

included research using databases and selecting key phrases for search engines.

Additionally, participants revealed that there is an assumption on both teachers and

students part that students have already acquired this skill; however, students lack,

“Confidence on their part to come forward and ask for help,” and can’t identify next steps

when they don’t find what they are looking for. The math participant also implied that

progress in research is further hindered since students have difficulties, “Being able to

read and interpret… recognizing that you may have to read it once, twice, three times,” to

make meaning and perform. Comments from participants in SC, SS, and ELA further

revealed a need to improve teacher digital literacy to keep abreast of technology

developments and increase their ability to use the tools in instruction. The minor theme

that emerged from these comments was information and technology literacy, defined as

need for increased teacher digital literacy knowledge and pedagogy to positively impact

student’s ability to conduct research using technology and process the information

obtained.

Table 20

Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3): Responses for “Information &

Technology Literacy”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“It’s constantly evolving, like Google Apps for Education are totally new… Things are
changing and I like that we have these 21 [PD] hours of technology and service learning.
That should be mandatory for all teachers, every year”

“Some of their [students] abilities are just poor… there is an assumption on their
Science [students] part that they should know how to do it. I do assume that there are things they
should know how to do”

“Confidence on their [students] part to come forward and ask for help,”

“Information Literacy. I think, just clearly knowing what they’re [students] supposed to
 90
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
look for, but I think it’s bigger than that is what do you do when you don’t find what
find what you’re expecting”

“[Information literacy] not only for them but for teachers…Consistency on whatever the
rules are about using technology that all the teachers are monitoring and foreseeing”
“[Librarians] would be able to conduct a short class, especially for seniors, on how to
use research database”

“I think in many cases nobody’s ever showed them how to do quality research on the
Social Studies
internet…many of them don’t know how to do it”

“I want everyone [student] to see what the other groups did to compare and I don’t know
how to do that so that they can all see without commenting on it”
CTE “More pre-teaching, I think on the things they should look out for”
“I have to distinguish, like the definitions are here and give them examples to show them
why it’s relevant for them to learn that. Then include it in each lesson”
ELA
“Maybe we [teachers] have the concepts somehow, but we need to develop more skills
“Being able to read and interpret… recognizing that you may have to read it once, twice,
Math three times”

Another topic derived from the data was the concept of consistent access to

appropriate technology for instruction (Table 21). Science, math, and SS participants

raised the issue of consistent access to computers or labs for students both in school and

at home. Teachers were hesitant to assign homework requiring access to Google Apps or

other Internet resources due to limited access to technology at home. Additionally, they

indicated that access to computer labs in school was limited due to the competition for

reservations and outdated or broken chrome books, computer labs, and computers. The

number of working computers in a lab often did not correlate to class size. As noted by

the math teacher, time also factors in, as teachers need to plan for passing to and from

computer labs, checking in and out, and completing a task within the 50-minute class

periods. The limited access to technology resources in the classroom and low numbers of

computer labs to meet the capacity of the school makes teachers hesitant to plan
 91
curriculum that requires access to this technology. Emerging from this data is the fourth

minor theme, infrastructure and access, referring to equal access to technology and for

teachers and students.

Table 21

Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3): Responses for “Infrastructure &

Access”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“I think not all of them [students] have access, if we’re talking about digital means, but
just in general, as far as access to things”

“One of my wobbles is for the students to say they don’t have any access at home”

“I try to use the lab once a week, but sometimes people need it... I really don’t know if
Science there’s enough computers there [in library computer lab] for that to be realistic”

“I think we should know what the demand is for our computer labs and see if we have
enough computers for our demand”

“What kind of resources would we need to make so whenever you need a computer, you
can have a computer, basically for any class”
“Class size”

“Access to technology”
Social Studies
“Chromebooks last about three year and the keypads are gone”

“”I feel like I could do so much more of this kind of stuff [learning with technology] in
my class if I just had the computer ready to go every single day”
“I’m not going to – my 50 minute classes we’re not walking to that lab”

“It’s not just the physical infrastructure. I’d rather have it be integrated more often that
Math that. More seamlessly. Not a special thing that we go to do, visit”

“The infrastructure’s huge, but is has to be meritable only if it’s backed up by a shift in
pedagogy”

The last classification of challenge statements (Table 22) that surfaced was related

to student behaviors and teacher attitudes. Science participants stated that, “Student’s

behavior is a challenge, especially for freshman and ELL and lower levels, because

technology comes with a price. I am discouraged from taking them in [computer labs]
 92
ever unless I absolutely need to,” and there is a, “Divide between the ability levels of

students.” Learning opportunities within the computer labs presented a challenge to these

teachers due students destroying technology and student’s overall ability to control

themselves academically and behaviorally in this setting. Additionally, the FA/PE and

math teachers mentioned that students were also not adept at multi-tasking with

technology or maintaining focus and suggested that this inability stemmed from maturity

levels and, “Their distracted teenage life.” Social studies participants expanded on the

problem, attributing the deficiency to lack of listening or actually hearing what is being

said, whether from teachers, peers, or various forms of media. On the teacher side, SC,

CTE, and math participants identified personal resistance to technology integration and

lack of brain knowledge for the adolescent mind as barriers. The final minor theme that

emerged from the data related to challenges with integration was behavior and attitude,

specifically students’ aptitude in using technology effectively and ethically and teacher’s

need to understand the teenage brain.

Table 22

Challenges in Digital Literacy Integration (RQ3): Responses for “Behavior & Attitude”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“I feel inadequate in the digital world and so I know that I want to move them [students]
their, but I need to move myself”

“I feel like I need to spend energy [on digital literacy] but I resist it at the same time…
because I also believe that they should know traditional things too”

“I still try to keep open-minded… I wouldn’t say I’m intensive into the technology on a
Science
continuum. I don’t know where I’m at”

“Student behavior is a challenge especially for freshman and ELL and lower levels,
because technology comes with a price. I am discouraged from taking them in [computer
labs] ever unless I absolutely need to”

“Divide between the ability levels of students”

 93
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“I might…spend a week talk about what does it mean to really listen, because it seems
like a I have a problem with it too sometimes, but some of these kids are absolutely
incapable”
Social Studies
“Accountability for the students who are not using it [computers] properly… we have a
whole computer lab with a bunch of broken computers and keyboards that are missing
keys”
“How do you get teenagers to really take into consideration what you think, and to
internalize it, and actually do it… because they are so impulsive, you know”
CTE
“It’s almost like a teacher needs to also know how to be a therapist, or something, to
understand the psychology of teenagers”
“Maturity is not there completely. Some of them do, but my students, special ed, they
ELA are still in the process”
“I think just their distracted teenage life. That’s a given”
Math
“It has to be a shift in how we think as teachers”
“Be a little more positive so that they [students] are more willing to put out too. If we
start acting like grumps, they’ll behave negatively”
FA / PE
“I have a real difficulty with kids who, I mean talk about multi-tasking. They are doing
other things such as they are looking at their phones… when they should be actually
focusing”

After a complete analysis of participant comments related to perceived challenges

in integrating digital literacy skills, five minor themes (Table 23) with defining

statements emerged: Critical Thinking, Time, Information Literacy, Infrastructure and

Access, and Behavior and Attitude. As part of the inductive process of analyzing data,

these minor themes will be further compared with results from findings of all research

questions to determine major themes from research.

 94
Table 23

Summary of Minor Theme Challenges Identified by Teachers in Digital Literacy

Integration (RQ3)
Minor Challenge
Statement
Theme

Critical Thinking Students lack the ability to think critically and persevere through tasks

Use designated class time, planning time and professional development time
Time
effectively to address both teacher and student needs

Information and Improve teacher digital literacy knowledge and pedagogy to positively impact
Technology Literacy student’s technology research and information processing skills

Infrastructure and Provide consistent and timely access to technology and other digital resources
Access for teachers and students
Increase teacher knowledge of teenage brain science and improve students
Behavior & Attitude ability to use technology effectively and efficiently

Identified Supports to Advance Digital Literacy Integration (RQ4)

The final research question in this project study was related to determining

teacher-identified supports necessary to promote integration of the essential digital

literacy skills into pedagogical practices. Participant responses from focus group

interview questions 26-29 were analyzed to answer RQ4. Using the same analysis

sequence as RQ3, preliminary data was grouped into initial categories comprised of

themes such as support, solutions, overcome challenges, content skills, insight/a-ha’s,

activate learning, emotion, shift in teacher thinking, and one-to-one. Additionally, some

of the responses from the challenge codes related to supporting change were integrated

into RQ4 categories and analyzed. Printed matrices were annotated and codes were

refined until four minor themes emerged related to supports needed for successful digital

literacy integration.
 95
The first concept that developed from data analysis of responses to questions

related to needed supports (Table 24) centered on training for teachers. Specifically, SC

participants suggested that this professional development should be ongoing and

consistent while including, “Straight out lessons on information literacy. How do we

teach it? What are the next steps?” Other participants also suggested the professional

development (PD) sessions incorporate modeling of lessons; teaching and learning

strategies; consumables or other samples; and new content specific applications,

programs, and resources. To build capacity, one SS teacher proposed, “Having working

models where we actually get to see it happening in the classroom, you see the product

that came out of it, you see how it was assessed.” The math teachers requested

knowledge and time on, “How to take the common core content, and rewrite it, revise it,

remap it, so that literacy skills can be developed. Learning how to rework activities in the

common core, and make it a little more consumable for the kids.” FA/PE teachers further

recommended practical application of new lessons and with resources such as flip charts

and posters. Additionally, one CTE participant suggested incorporating brain science to

improve teacher understanding of, “The psychology of teenagers.” The first minor theme

that emerged, PD, refers to the need to support teachers with ongoing digital literacy PD

and resources that can be differentiated and aligned with teacher and student needs.

Table 24

Supports Identified for Digital Literacy Integration (RQ4): Responses for “Professional
Development”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“Straight out lessons on information literacy. How do we teach it? What are the next
steps?”
Science
“I think more training for teachers, there should be dedicated training like what we have
 96
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
with DELL [a site school technology training]”

“Having working models where we actually get to see it happening in the classroom,
you see the product that came out of it, you see how it was assessed”

“Definitely need some type of training and understanding on how to do it so we can

Social Studies teach the kids how to research and apply”

“The training can be effective for me to hear all the stuff but it gets to be too much. I
need the overall picture…it has to become part of our rubrics now as we start to assess
things”
“How to take the common core content, and rewrite it, revise it, remap it, so that literacy
skills can be developed. Learning how to rework activities in the common core, and
make it a little more consumable for the kids.”

“I would like training on math specific like Desmos, and GeoGebra”

Math
“The infrastructure’s huge, but is has to be meritable only if it’s backed up by a shift in
pedagogy”

“For example, total participation techniques. A book like that. Learning how to rework
activities in the common core [standards], and make it a little bit more consumable for
kids”
“The psychology of teenagers.”

“I mean, [more] knowledge I think, because I didn’t even know I have any of these
CTE
words [digital literacy terms from interview]”

“I think maybe a couple of resources”

“Under each category, what are some specific themes? How does this translate for
teachers in the classroom? What do we need to do as teachers?”

“The more we look at it, we actually use it”

FA / PE
“Having some specific examples of what that looks like for teachers. You know what
helps me is like posters [visuals]”

“I have those laminated flip things [charts]. I keep them with me all the time…to make
sure that you are doing [correctly]”
“It was wonderful what I learned [in DELL training] , but don’t know how to put it in
ELA my classroom… I want it from beginning to end”

Connected to professional development sessions was the second support category

of providing meaningful opportunities for teachers to collaborate and plan with adequate

resources and time for reflection. Participants implied that some allocated planning
 97
sessions be connected to the PD sessions with samples and include collaboration with

content area teachers to review, “Some of the things that I’ve created, and having

conversations about what I am doing.” One FA/PE teacher emphasized the concept of

application as, “Reading about and talking about it with you [researcher] makes sense,

but if we are going to just read over it like this, it’s very foreign.” Another participant

requested planning sessions also include facilitated research phases so teachers can

navigate the internet and find specific resources without getting, “Sucked down the rabbit

hole too,” implying the need to use time productively and have some guided instruction

from a coach. It was also apparent through comments that there is a need for planning

time connected to PD sessions integrated throughout the school year to increase

effectiveness. Analysis of participant comments (Table 25) led to the second minor theme

of, planning and preparation time, specifically designed to address the planning,

application and reflection of digital literacy skill lessons that span time.

Table 25

Supports Identified for Digital Literacy Integration (RQ4): Responses for “Planning &
Preparation Time”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“I spend an awful lot of time researching quality stuff … I know what I’d like to pull out
to support his unit and I have the hardest time finding stuff for them [students] to use
and interpret”

Science “Yeah, the content materials can be hard for me. I can spend an awful lot of time
searching without getting what I need”

“I wish it [PD] would be regular so that I would be able to utilize what I have been
learning because that is kind of my dilemma”
“Probably unlikely that there will be a whole separate class, but if people agreed to do it
Social Studies together, the students would have those basic skills and it’s not the burden of one
particular department because they overlapped”
“But in order to add it to a lesson, I have to put it in my head and not just follow the
ELA Springboard [Hawaii ELA curriculum]… be aware of each section, preparation”
 98
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“Looking over some of the things that “I’ve created, and having conversations about
what I’m doing. It’s happening in a vacuum”
Math
“I think having someone collaborate, and taking a look at what I’m doing would force
me to, like I say, stay honest with it [planning]. Slow down and take a better look at
stuff”
“For me reading about it and talking about it with you [researcher] makes sense., but if
we’re just going to read over it like this, it’s very foreign”
FA / PE
“Be more conscious as incorporate it in our lessons and do go modeling [for students].
Be real specific and make sure that it gets to the kids and ask them questions”

In line with professional development and planning time, a third category of

planned classroom observation and feedback on lessons and teaching became apparent

from data analysis (Table 26). Once teachers have received training and produced lessons

that integrate digital literacy skills, participants expressed interest in participating in two

different types of observations for constructive feedback. The first type of observation

would be similar to a learning walk where peers observe each other and later collaborate

to discuss strengths and growth areas. Not sure what it looks like in action and unsure

whether it’s possible, the SC, FA/PE, and math teachers expressed interest in observing

others teachers in action and receiving feedback from peer observations, especially in like

content areas. The other type of observation would include reciprocal observations from a

coaching or expert perspective where teachers observe a model lesson and then have a

lesson they created observed by a coach or expert to receive more constructive feedback.

Many participants stated the need for realistic representations of the digital literacy skills

in action. Analysis of participant comment in this category revealed observations and

feedback, as the third minor theme, highlighting the need for routine observations and

constructive feedback from both peers and an instructional coach.

 99
Table 26

Supports Identified for Digital Literacy Integration (RQ4): Responses for “Observations
& Feedback”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“I think I’d like to see it in action. People utilizing different technologies or whatever
they’re doing in their classroom”
Science
“Yes, a second pair of eyes in there would be fabulous”

“Maybe a teacher who’s on their prep [non-teaching period]”

“Working models where we actually get to see it happening in the classroom, you can
see the product that came out of it, you see how it was assessed. For me that works
Social Studies
better because I get an idea of okay that’s how they did it and I can do it in my
classroom as well”
“Some kind of collaborative observation or reflection. Like feedback to help build
things”
Math
“If you have someone coming and taking a look at it, then you really slow down. Don’t
run to that next one. Stop and really take a look at what this is”
“Maybe just feedback would help, observation and feedback. I feel like, oh gosh, I’ve
been observed twice a year for the last three year and always helps”
FA / PE
“What does it look like in the classroom for us as teachers if we’re practicing in all of
these areas”

The final concept that emerged from data analysis of participant responses (Table

27) was connected a conducting a comprehensive technology needs assessment and

identifying common schoolwide practices. For the integration of digital literacy skills to

be successful, participants indicated that one level of support included building site

capacity and maintaining and upgrading technology to match teacher and student needs.

Social studies, math, and SC teachers stated they would be more prone to integrating

digital literacy skills, “If I just had the computer ready to go every single day,” or at least

more frequent and consistent access to technology for learning. The other level of support

specified related to monitoring of rules and behaviors for both teachers and students.

Social studies participants indicated that there should be, “Some kind of accountability
 100
for the students who are not using it properly….We have a whole computer lab with a

bunch of broken computers and keyboards that are missing keys.” Science teachers

believe this should extend to teachers so there is, “Consistency of whatever rules are

about using technology that all teachers are monitoring and foreseeing, and that the

students know everybody is monitoring.” The hope is that a system that monitors

computer lab routines and procedures and holds teachers and students accountable would

present a more proactive approach and decrease infrastructure and access issues. The

need for schoolwide focus and routines related to identifying technology needs and

academic and behavior monitoring and support was the final minor theme that emerged

from the data.

Table 27

Supports Identified for Digital Literacy Integration (RQ4): Responses for “Schoolwide
Focus & Routines”
Department Focus Group Interview Participant Comments
“Consistency of whatever rules are about using technology that all teachers are
monitoring and foreseeing, and that the students know everybody’s monitoring.”

“I think we should know what the demand is for our computer labs and see if we have
Science
enough computers to meet our demand”

“What kind of resources would we need to make so whenever you need a computer, you
can have a computer, basically for any class”
“I feel like I can do so much more of this kind of stuff [learning with technology] in my
class if I just had the computer ready to go every single day,”

“Some kind of accountability for the students who are not using it properly….We have a
Social Studies whole computer lab with a bunch of broken computers and keyboards that are missing
keys.”

“Eventually we’ll have another tech person that can come through and switch those
things out, but it’s just got to be a continual thing”
“I’m not going to – my 50 minute classes we’re not walking to that lab”
Math
“It’s not just the physical infrastructure. I’d rather have it be integrated more often that
that. More seamlessly. Not a special thing that we go to do, visit”
 101

In addition to the minor themes above, a few other concepts were presented as

further supports including a separate student technology course, teacher aides or other

assistance in the classroom, and continued support from a technology expert. The

separate course could be an elective where content addressed digital literacy skills as well

as digital citizenship. Several participants also mentioned an additional teacher or aide in

the classroom may help with classroom management when technology is in use. The final

suggestion of a technology support person referred to the need for in-house assistance

related to fixing technology hardware problems and system glitches not related to

pedagogy.

Four minor support themes (Table 28) were revealed from the analysis of

participant comments to advance digital literacy integration: Professional Development,

Planning and Preparation Time, Observations and Feedback, and Schoolwide Focus and

Routines. These minor themes were compared with finding from RQ1, RQ2 and RQ3 to

determine overall final themes (Table 29) from research.

Table 28

Summary of Minor Themes for Supports Identified by Teachers in Digital Literacy

Integration (RQ4)
Minor Support
Statement
Theme
Professional Ongoing digital literacy professional development and resources aligned with
Development teacher and student needs

Planning and Dedicate time for teacher planning, application and reflection of digital literacy
Preparation Time lessons

Observations and
Ongoing peer and “expert” classroom observations with constructive feedback
Feedback
 102
Schoolwide Focus and Schoolwide focus on digital literacy with monitoring and support of
Routines technology and student action

Conclusion

A review of the qualitative data from the focus group interviews, classroom

observations, and documents provided for study revealed varied levels of knowledge and

integration of digital literacy skills as well as several related themes to support digital

literacy integration and address challenges. A comparison of interviews and documents

indicated that a majority of the participants were endeavoring to design and implement

curriculum that integrating technology at some level. Overall, participants expressed

interest and found value in using technology to enhance teaching and learning, but had

limited knowledge on how to further augment their pedagogy and make explicit links to

content. Initial findings revealed high knowledge levels (RQ1) of the terms digital

literacy and photovisual literacy and a low level of knowledge of the other skills.

Integration levels (RQ2) of the essential digital literacy skills varied with 11 instances of

evident in the all skills except branching literacy; 22 instances of developing in all six

skills; and three instances of not evident between branching and socioemotional literacy.

Initial reading and analysis of focus group responses for RQ3 and RQ4 led to the

development of five minor themes for challenge (Table 23) and four minor themes (Table

28) for supports.

Examination and triangulation of data from each research question uncovered

interlaced common subtopics and key attributes. This included the need for professional

development to address multiple areas of growth for students and teachers as well as the
 103
need to balance the use of time for collaborative planning and reflection. Additional

similarities included the need to define common ground rules and effective policies for

technology use and design and address student’s ability to think critically and persevere

through problems. These concepts were evaluated and further refined to reveal four major

themes (Table 29) associated with successfully integrating digital literacy skills into

pedagogy: critical thinking; integrated professional development; effective use of time;

and infrastructure and schoolwide routines. As portrayed in Table 29, each theme

included multiple components that need to be addressed to create a comprehensive

approach to integrating digital literacy skills and building site capacity to affect a positive

shift in pedagogical practices.

Table 29

Four Major Themes Identified from Research

Major Themes Explanation and Skills to Address
Student’s lack ability to think critically and persevere through tasks
• Critical thinking
Critical Thinking • Problem solving
• Perseverance
Ongoing professional development is needed to increase teacher’s
knowledge and ability to improve student’s digital literacy skills
• Digital Literacy Skills
• Adolescent Brain Science & Motivation
Integrated Professional • Effective and Ethical use of Technology Strategies & Practices
Development • Technological, Pedagogical, Content Knowledge
• Digital Literacy Resources
• Peer observations & Collaboration
• Instructional Coaching
Time needs to used effectively to address both teacher and student
needs
• Integrated with Effective & Timely Professional Development
Effective use of Time • Research Content Materials and Pedagogy Strategies
• Planning & Collaboration with peers
• Coach, peer and personal reflection
Provide consistent access to technology, resources and support with
Infrastructure & an emphasis on implementing and monitoring schoolwide routines
Schoolwide Routines • Updated and Maintained Technology
• Support & Training from Technology Coordinator
 104
• Schoolwide procedures and policies
• Common Focus Schoolwide
• Consistent and Timely Access to Technology

Based on these findings, Section 3 presents a detailed explanation of the proposed

Technology Professional Development Support Plan (TPDSP). Specific components that

will be addressed include a description of the project with rationale, a literature review,

implementation and evaluation guidelines, and implications for social change.

 105
Section 3: The Project

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore teachers’ knowledge and skill in

integrating digital literacy and to identify supports needed and challenges that may be

faced in order to shift pedagogical practices. Based on the findings, a TPDSP was

designed to address both teaching learning and building site capacity for integrating

digital literacy skills into pedagogical practices. Through technology professional

development sessions, teachers will engage in a collaborative learning process to enhance

their skills and knowledge over time. Conducting onsite training will allow all in-service

teachers to participate in the program throughout the year with integrated assistance from

curriculum coaches and mentors as they develop and practice new adapted lessons.

Involving administration throughout the program will aid in ongoing reflection and

evaluation of both teacher practice and administrative support.

Description and Goals

I identified four key items needed to support successful digital literacy skills

integration including professional development, planning and preparation time,

observation feedback, and a schoolwide focus with common routines. Teachers expressed

the need to link these four concepts in a comprehensive approach to affect positive

change. In the focus group interviews, teachers revealed that although they were

beginning to integrate technology and digital literacy skills into curriculum, instruction,

and assessments, they recognized the need for support in further developing their skills

and knowledge. Although teachers may have content knowledge and many had at least a
 106
basic knowledge of technology, the connection between content, technology and

pedagogy was not established. I found that teachers were at various levels of purposeful

planning and integration of digital tools and skills addressing both student-centered and

teacher-centered use. To begin addressing these identified areas of growth, teachers

requested that support include time to collaborate, plan, and reflect on lessons and to

receive feedback from peers and coaches in addition to professional development.

In an integrated design, I am recommending a two-tiered approach to developing

teachers’ digital literacy skills and building the site capacity to maintain a pedagogical

shift. The first tier of the TPDSP is a holistic technology professional development

approach that spans the school year and incorporates new digital literacy knowledge and

instructional coaching while also providing time for teachers to collaborate with content

area peers to develop lesson plans, observe peers in action, and reflect after

implementation. The second tier involves a collaborative process that aids administration

in aligning technology routines and procedures schoolwide to support teachers with

access, monitoring, and continuous improvement with digital literacy skills and

integration. The goals of this comprehensive tiered approach are to (a) increase teacher

knowledge and ability of integrating digital literacy skills into pedagogy and (b) build site

capacity of the school and sustain forward movement.

Rationale

Creating a tiered comprehensive approach to affect change will address the

multiple components of supports and challenges identified by participants in the study. I

found that teachers were in need of purposeful professional development that links
 107
content area standards with technology, digital literacy skills, and resources necessary for

ongoing pedagogical development. In my observations of current teaching practices, I

found pockets of instruction and assessment with student learning tasks purposefully

designed to integrate digital literacy skills. For example, students practiced photovisual

literacy by analyzing photographs using content-specific vocabulary in their photography

course and analyzed messages in propaganda images for social studies. Students also

used a variety of applications in the Google Apps for Educators Suite such as slides,

classroom, and sheets to demonstrate and apply knowledge and develop collaboration

skills. Although I found a breadth of teachers and students applying basic digital literacy

skills, depth of purposeful digital literacy lesson planning was not apparent. In focus

group interviews, teachers further indicated a lack of knowledge and time related to

exploring resources and making connections to content and standards. Developing an

ongoing professional development program with sessions throughout the year affords

teachers the opportunity to learn, plan, practice, and reflect on newly acquired knowledge

and skills.

Including an administrative support component as the second tier of the TDSP

will help align teacher and student needs with administrative focus and designated

support. Teachers identified the need to streamline infrastructure and access, as well as

provide planning time for teachers to continue developing and applying digital literacy

skills. Allocating time during the professional development sessions and other staff

meetings for process reflection and discussion between administration and teachers about

progress related to all components establishes a foundation and allows for collaborative
 108
growth. It is my hope that this tiered approach will affect positive growth in developing

teacher digital literacy skills and knowledge to initiate a pedagogical shift with

administrative support.

Review of the Literature

Introduction

A professional development project is the most relevant choice in supporting

teachers to improve their ability to implement digital literacy skills and content into

current practices. I conducted a literature review associated with topics like adult

learning; professional development; and technological, pedagogical, content knowledge

(TPACK). Using Google Scholar and database resources within the Walden Library, I

researched and reviewed related peer-reviewed scholarly articles. Databases accessed

included Education Research Information Center (ERIC), SAGE Journals Online, Pro-

Quest Central, LearnTechLib-The Learning and Technology Library, Academic Search

Complete, and Thoreau Multi-Database Search. I used the following key terms in a

variety of combinations to narrow the field produce relevant research: adult learning;

teacher learning; andragogy; teacher professional development; technology professional

development; digital literacy professional development; digital literacy; high school

teachers; in-service teachers; and technological, pedagogical, content knowledge

(TPACK). In addition, I conducted general Internet search for PD related to TPACK and

digital literacy for more information related to designing and implementing the PD plan.

The extensive research was assessed and compiled into the following review.
 109
Professional Development for Teachers

To galvanize an effective paradigm shift, a PD plan must be substantive,

integrating content with learner needs. In new conclusions about teacher learning

(Korthagen, 2017; Postholm, 2012; Yurtseven & Altun, 2017; Yurtseven &

Bademcioglu, 2016), scholars indicated that there is a connection between theory,

practice, and person. Although previous PD has focused on presenting theories and

strategies hoping to impact teacher practice, Korthhagen (2017) suggested the added

dynamics of practice and person. Practice refers to the practical application of and the

reflection on new knowledge gained from training. Person refers to the multidimensional

learning connected to social context and the multilevel learning connected to teachers’

prior knowledge and skills. To encourage authentic learning within the context of

teaching environment, the PD design must address all three pieces.

Entwined with practice and person is the essential component of the process of

reflection. As the application of new strategies is grounded in teacher practice and guided

by personal experience, purposeful reflection should be promoted as part of the PD

design (Korthagen, 2017; Morales, 2016; Yurtseven & Altun, 2017). Using a guided

reflection practice that focuses on rational thought, as well as emotion and motivation,

allows teachers to develop personal theories about new practices and create a meaningful

connection (Korthagen, 2017). In a detailed process, practitioners can find a deeper

awareness about problems and solutions related to their experience and adapt as

necessary. This is the beginning of the paradigm shift as teachers make connections

between new content and pedagogy. An integrated PD model that combines theory with
 110
practice and person can increase competence, collaboration, and the culture for learning

within the school environment (Korthagen, 2017; Postholm, 2012). As catalyst for

change, this approach to PD is critical in the advancement of teacher knowledge, skills,

and practice.

Another key factor in PD design is administrative support in the form of time and

resources. To build an educational community focused on learning and growth, PD

should be job-embedded, sustainable, and intensive (Engelbrecht & Ankiewicz, 2015;

Korthagen, 2017; Stewart & Houchens, 2014). In order to meet these qualifications,

administration must provide time throughout the year for teachers to train, collaborate,

implement, observe, and receive coaching and feedback to reflect on practice. In a

literature study of continuous teacher PD (CTPD) models, Engelbrecht and Ankiewicz

(2015) found that a comprehensive approach addressing these features is the integration

of school knowledge, subject knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge. School knowledge

refers to teachers’ understanding of facilities, expertise of staff, peer and student ethos,

and political interpretations of technology and the community (Engelbrecht &

Ankiewicz, 2015). Combined with discipline-specific knowledge and practice, these

components intersect to constitute teacher development.

Resources in the form of mentoring, coaching, and time for peer observations and

feedback are also noted as a tier of administrative support. Several researchers (Eliahoo,

2017; Postholm, 2012; Stewart & Houchens, 2014) have concluded that structuring PD

opportunities to include collegial inquiry with peer and/or group mentoring and

instructional coaching is more conducive to shifting teacher practice. Guidance with

 111
sound judgment from peers and coaches helps teachers assimilate. Coupled with

observation of experienced practitioners, these practical examples and feedback related to

integrating new teaching and learning practices helped teachers create new constructs.

Technology Professional Development

Many of the fundamentals of effective PD are also aligned with effective

technology PD. Although still emergent, researchers have outlined several key

components for technology PD including collegial inquiry and collaboration (Cloonan,

2015; Jones & Dexter, 2017; Tondeur, Forkosh-Baruch, Prestidge, Albion, &

Edirisinghe, 2016; Yurtseven Avci & O’Dwyer, 2016); teacher input and contribution to

PD topics (Thomeczek & Shelton, 2015; Tondeur et al., 2016; Yurtseven Avci &

O’Dwyer, 2016); structured support to provide time for research, design, implementation,

and reflection (Cloonan, 2015; Jones & Dexter, 2017; Thomecczek & Shelton 2015;

Yurtseven Avci & O’Dwyer, 2016); mentoring or coaching (Leslie & Johnson-Leslie,

2014; Yurtseven Avci & O’Dwyer, 2016); and that PD subject matter address teacher

content, technology, and pedagogy (Horton, Shack, & Mehta, 2017; Yurtseven Avci &

O’Dwyer, 2016; Walker et al., 2012). Supporting practitioners in professional growth

related to technology integration requires attention to planning and aligning design and

content to meet the diverse needs of teacher. Using a model that accounts for the above

characteristics alleviates potential barriers to assimilation and can improve learning and

application affecting positive change.

 112
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Designed to address the integration of content knowledge (CK), pedagogical

knowledge (PK), and technological knowledge (TK), the TPACK model addresses the

convergence of these three components. As the gatekeepers to classroom instruction,

teachers determine how these three components are woven together to create authentic

learning. Researchers (Blau, Peled, & Nusan, 2016; Doering, Koseoglu, Scharber,

Henrickson, & Lanegran, 2014; Koh & Chai, 2014; Koh, Chai, & Lim, 2017; Lehiste,

2015; Matherson, Wilson, & Wright, 2014) suggested that including TPACK in PD is a

way to increase knowledge and actualize effective integration. The model offers a

construct for each component where teachers can deepen their understanding and learn to

integrate technology into instruction as a means of enhancing curriculum rather than just

as a tool.

The TPACK framework has been found to enrich both teacher practice and

confidence. Lehiste (2015) determined that TPACK training over the course of a year

was effective in improving inservice teachers’ perceived knowledge of the components,

specifically TK and TPK. Koh and Chai (2014) and Koh et al. (2016) demonstrated a

perceived increase in TPK knowledge with a small increase in confidence. Blau et al.

(2016) and Doering et al. (2014) recommended long-term sessions with instructional

scaffolding and coaching and administrative support to increase learning and

implementation. Overall, teachers found value in the TPACK PD and demonstrated

increased awareness in the components.

 113
Project Description

The design of the technology development support plan will include 3 full-day

training sessions with one to two staff meetings as needed in between each session and at

the end of the year for reflection and collaboration with administration. During the 3-day

training, teachers will be introduced to concepts of TPACK and the digital literacy

framework. Content for TPACK and six digital literacy skills will be spread out over the

first 2 days of training with reflection, peer sharing, and planning for next steps rounding

out the final full day of training. In the interim between each training day, teachers and

administration will attend at least one, two if necessary, 1-hour reflection meetings where

peers will debrief and reflect on new technology pedagogical practices and discuss

current challenges and necessary supports for continued success with administration.

The first 2 days of PD will follow a similar format of training with integrated

work sessions. Day 1 of training will be broken into segments covering the introduction

of TPACK, and overview of the term digital literacy and the first two digital literacy

skills of the framework, photovisual and reproduction literacy. Each segment includes

learning activities for teachers to internalize information and will be accompanied by a

brainstorm and planning session where they can conduct further research and formulate

planning ideas. Day 2 will review the final four terms of branching literacy, information

literacy, socioemotional literacy, and real-time thinking skills. The second day will end

with an introduction to a peer-sharing and problem-solving activity that will commence

on the final day of training.

 114
The third and final day of training will be a day of review, reflection, and

collaborative planning. Beginning with a review of all components, the session will

continue with a peer-sharing activity that allows teachers to share success and gather

ideas to address challenges related to technology pedagogy. The day will culminate with

a tech slam where teachers can share new technology applications with the large group

and final session of collaboration with administration regarding next steps for the school

to continue building site capacity.

The interim sessions between the full-day trainings and after the final session will

be designated for teacher reflection on current progress, a needs assessment, and

collaboration with administration. The duration of each session will be 45 minutes to an

hour. A second meeting may be held if teacher leaders and administration determine the

need. The goal of these sessions is to highlight progress in pedagogical shifts and to

identify possible challenges and further support. These elements will be determined

through peer sharing, teacher surveys, and collaborative group discussions between

teachers and administration.

Potential Resources and Existing Supports

Several resources and supports are necessary to improve the success of the

training and integration of new digital literacy skills, many of which exist at the site

school. Ongoing school support includes access to computers/labs and the resources

available through the Internet; continued access to Google Apps for Educators (GAFE);

time to conduct further research and plan and reflect on lessons; continued support from

curriculum coordinator and mentor coordinator; and access to other technology such as
 115
SMART Boards, document cameras, and projectors. The opportunity to explore and

purchase additional web-based resources, applications, and software should also be

considered as teachers expand their knowledge and ability to integrate these tools.

One of the most important resources that must also be considered is time. As both

a resource and support, time is a variable that is an often overlooked, but is necessary

component for success on many levels. For teachers, time is a resource needed for

researching new digital resources related to their discipline, as well as time to collaborate

with peers to build lesson plans and to reflect on implementation. Administration needs to

provide time as a support so teachers are able to follow through with their pedagogical

shift.

Potential Barriers and Solutions

Several possible factors may impede progress of this pedagogical shift including

meeting teachers’ differentiated needs; teachers’ attitudes and beliefs related to digital

literacy and technology; and providing adequate time to support teachers in the shift.

Every teacher brings a different technology background story to the field and these

differentiated skills need to be considered and integrated into professional development.

Planning and implementing differentiated PD and further coaching will require additional

resources including time and personnel. In addition to experience, teachers bring a variety

of mindsets, attitudes, and beliefs related to technology and student learning. This can

hinder growth and progress if effort is not made to shift mindsets. The final challenge that

may emerge is designating the time needed for PD, meetings, and coaching with the

school’s other competing priorities.

 116
Proposal for Implementation and Timeline

The timeline for the technology professional development support plan is to begin

implementation at the start of school and pace throughout the year. Each school is

permitted 2-4 waiver days that they pace throughout the year. It is my recommendation

that the three full-day sessions be paced using three waiver days occurring consecutively:

August, October and March. Contingent on administrative support and approval, the short

interim sessions will be scheduled after school as needed between waiver days for

collaborating and coaching. Due to the extended months between second and third

sessions, at least two interim sessions should be planned. After the final full-day training,

one final short meeting should be scheduled in May for an end-of-year reflection.

Roles and Responsibilities

There are several different roles needed to implement the TPDSP including

instructor, coach, participant, and administrator. As the instructor, I will be responsible

for developing and implementing the three full-day workshops and assisting in the

coaching to help teachers expand their digital literacy pedagogical practices. I will also be

assisting administration in developing the interim sessions to help sustain progress. The

role of coaches will be to assist during the PD and interim sessions with teachers who

need and want more individualized assistance in designing and reflecting on lessons.

Administration will have a dual role in participating in the full-day PD sessions as well as

facilitating the teacher reflection and collaboration during the interim sessions. The

individual participants in this plan will be responsible for a variety of roles including
 117
active listening, participation, and collaboration as well as follow through with planning

and preparing required materials for the sessions.

Project Evaluation Plan

The TPDSP will be evaluated using two different approaches, a professional

development survey for the full-day sessions and a Google Form survey after

collaborative discussion at the end of each interim session. The digital literacy skills

professional development evaluation (Appendix A) administered to staff after each

session will provide input from staff regarding content, learning, and areas of strength

and growth. Information from the survey will be provided to administration for further

analysis and used to continue building site capacity. A second evaluation will be

conducted at the end of each interim session to measure teacher progress and

administrative support to continue forward growth.

Implications for Social Change

Local Community

This project was designed to affect positive social change in the development of

digital literacy skills at a local high school. As progress continues in the digital era,

teachers must adapt pedagogical practices to make sure that students are prepared for

their future. Participants identified challenges in transitioning current practices in

curriculum, instruction, and assessment to include digital literacy skills. Creating a

holistic plan that addresses professional development and additional administrative

supports can help aid this transition. Providing time for teachers to improve their

knowledge and skills can in turn lead to improved student learning. Although the targeted
 118
population is centralized at one local high school, other high schools in the district can

potentially benefit from the TPDSP since stakeholders in the community are similar.

Far-Reaching

In the larger context, the design of the TPDSP could possibly transform how

schools approach integrating new digital skills and knowledge into teacher practice.

Obtaining input from teachers at individual sites about their background knowledge and

skills and combing that information with collaborative administration support can help

schools create individualized implementation plans to meet their needs. Students,

teachers, and administrators bring a variety of needs, experience, and skills to the

learning environment. Addressing these needs on-site for in-service teachers in their

professional environment may advance pedagogical practices affecting student learning.

Conclusion

Practitioners in the field are faced with the task of keeping pace with current

educational practices. As in-service teachers, this presents challenges on many levels as

they try to balance their daily responsibilities with assimilating and integrating new

knowledge and skills. Research questions that guided this study were designed to gather

information from in-service teachers associated with these challenges and current

pedagogical practices related to digital literacy skills integration. Findings evinced that

although teachers perceived technology and digital literacy skills as important to student

learning, there was a gap in their knowledge and skill levels and ability to integrate these

skills into pedagogical practices. Furthermore, teachers identified several challenges

faced in integration and suggested several items for support. The resulting technology
 119
professional development support plan is designed to address these identified challenges

and provide supports.

Section 4 focuses on my reflections and overall conclusions from the project

study. Topics discussed will start with project strengths and limitations, project

development and evaluation, leadership and change, personal reflections and end with

implications for the future.

 120
Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions

Introduction

The intent of Section 4 is to provide discourse related to the strengths and

limitations of the project and personal reflections as a scholar. Beginning with a

discussion on the merits and constraints of the PD project, I will continue with an

analysis of myself as a learner and leader. This will follow with the project’s possible

impact for social change and conclude with implications, applications, and directions for

future research.

Project Strengths

Several strengths lie within the overall design and implementation of the TPDSP,

as it was aligned to both the local problem and the findings of the study while addressing

the fundamentals of effective PD. As identified by the local problem and study evidence,

in-service teachers lack some of the foundational knowledge and skills needed to

integrate digital literacy skills into pedagogical practices. The TPDSP provides a long-

term, job-embedded structure where practitioners can engage in technology PD with

underlying supports from administration and peers. This includes attention to collaborate

and reflect with administration to evaluate current progress and determine next steps and

additional supports. The plan also aligns with the components of effective technology PD

as it incorporates time for teachers to explore, plan, collaborate, observe peers, receive

support from coaches, and reflect on practices. The training, materials, and additional

supports within the plan can be implemented immediately and are flexible to be paced

over time as dictated by the need of the site school.

 121
Limitations and Recommendations for Remediation

There were a variety of limitations associated with the study and project related to

participants, possible researcher bias, and constraints related to conducting a case study.

The first limitation regarding study participants was connected to sample size and student

voice. The original construct of the focus group interviews called for three to five

participants in each department. However, when it came time to conduct the sessions,

only one group had four members with most only including one to two teachers. Also,

there was no representation from the world language department. The low number of

participants may be due to the timeline of the study and sessions as they occurred shortly

before a scheduled break in the semester when grades and other state mandates were due.

Many teachers expressed interested in participation, but were unable to due to competing

priorities. In the future, consideration should be given to when the study is conducted

related to competing teacher responsibilities.

Another limitation presented was that of possible researcher bias due to existing

relationships with participants at the site school. As the onsite curriculum coordinator for

the past 7 years, I have built both personal and professional relationships with many of

the teachers on staff. I also believe that digital skill integration is important to address as

educators to improve students’ ability to thrive as they matriculate into colleges and/or

careers. However, by being cognizant of these influences in my role as researcher, I was

able to take the necessary steps to maintain subjectivity. This included incorporating the

use of transparent communication with participants, member checks, a peer debriefer, and
 122
a reflective journal. These protocols and self-checks increased personal awareness and

encouraged continuous reflection.

The final limitation presented was that of the ability to generalize findings from

this qualitative case study to a larger population. Based on the construct of a case study,

generalizing findings is limited due to the boundaries applied in selecting the case

including sample size, location, and time (Creswell, 2012; Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2014).

However, that same construct allows for the investigator to gain a deep understanding of

the phenomena and generalize to settings or people with the same priori conditions

(Merriam, 2009.) Although results may not be applicable to high schools outside the

district, the findings and the TPDSP may be useful for schools within the district from

elementary through college.

Recommendations for Alternative Approaches

Although the TPDSP is one method of addressing the pedagogical shift, there are

alternative approaches. If the school is unable to provide 3 PD days evenly throughout

the school year, sessions may be offered in a different manner. Training may be provided

up front at the beginning of the school year with short staff meetings for follow-up

offered throughout the year. If needed, the PD session could also be offered on a pilot

basis for a group of teachers at designated times throughout the year. Professional credit

for reclassification or a stipend may also be considered an option for these teachers if

possible. Another feasible option would be to divide the content of the PD into short, 1-

hour sessions and provide training during after school meeting days. Regardless of the
 123
method selected, the school must ensure that the administration collaboration and

reflections session are incorporated into the plan.

Scholarship, Project Development, Leadership, and Change

Scholarship

Learning is a life-long process, at the heart of which is inquiry and curiosity,

where a person is seeking new knowledge and skill. Wisdom is gained through the

metacognitive experience of reflection on this learning with a growth mindset. Through

this journey, assimilation and innovation occur. Learning, wisdom, and innovation

converge to form scholarship. Although the definition of scholarship may be as simple as

high-level learning, the word invokes much more and is personal on many levels.

My path on this scholarly journey has been full of straight and winding roads,

detours, uphill battles, roadblocks, inspiring scenery, and a variety conflicting navigation

signs as I raced to the finish line. Through it all, I have learned that diligence,

perseverance, critical and innovative thinking, and flexibility are key factors to

navigating the road to success. In research, an abundance of information to support any

viewpoint is easy to find. A scholarly practitioner must pull from all these skills at any

given time to evaluate, synthesize, and assimilate the information into a valid and

meaningful construct. They must think critically to narrow the focus and validate and

process research and findings. Additionally, it is wise to have passengers on this journey

for discussing, supporting, processing, ideating, and innovating. Scholars must remember

that they are not alone and to surround themselves with like minds for support.
 124
Project Development

My role at the site school over the past 7 years has evolved from that of an

English teacher to an accreditation and curriculum coordinator. The switch from students

to teachers as my audience during the first years as curriculum coordinator was a struggle

as I endeavored to create PD sessions that connected content with adult learning. Through

a variety a personal learning experience ranging from professional training to peer and

self-reflection, I was able to transform my pedagogy to meet the learning needs of

teachers. There is a need for training over time with an emphasis on time for planning,

collaboration and feedback, reflection, and peer sharing or presentations. During my

tenure, I have designed and implemented both full-day and short training sessions.

Combining this personal knowledge with research and new knowledge from the project

study helped facilitate the PD design for this project. The resulting 3-day PD sessions

with accompanying supports are a result of integrating new knowledge with prior

experience and feedback from administration, the mentor coordinator, and fellow peer

educators.

Leadership and Change

I have learned through experience as a parent and a practitioner that leadership is

about being an inspiration to others. This means that actions, thoughts, behaviors, speech,

and body language correspond the to the model that a person physically and mentally

presents. To actualize any change, a person must demonstrate and exemplify what he or

she wishes to see. This holds true from modeling behaviors like patience, skills like
 125
collaborative dialogue, and pedagogy like teaching and learning strategies. Leadership is

situational.

The strength in any school lies in its diversity. Like a puzzle, all stakeholders

represent a different piece as they bring their diverse personalities and experiences to the

learning institute. An effective leader empowers stakeholders to embrace areas of

strength and grow as they collaborate to affect social change. Leaders facilitate change by

building relationships, promoting collegiality, listening effectively, and encouraging the

diversity that leads to innovation. Considering these characteristics from the perspective

of an instruction leader, I need to continue to model these qualities to facilitate growth

within the organization.

Analysis of Self as Scholar

Entering into this doctoral study process 6 years ago, I had preconceived notions

about the characteristics of a scholar. As an educator and curriculum leader, I believe that

I already embodied some of these qualities and this journey provided the venue to explore

my boundaries and practice and enhance my skills daily. Everyday has been an exercise

in learning, curiosity, challenge, growth, creativity, problem solving, integrity, and

balance. Curriculum, instruction, and assessment are my passion, and I embrace the

challenge of evolving with the trends in education. My goal is to empower teachers to be

agents of change by providing them with the necessary tools, knowledge, and skills they

need to engage their students in learning. To do this, I must continue to reflect on my

practices as a scholar, expanding my own knowledge and skills.

 126
Analysis of Self as Practitioner

As a practitioner, I am actively involved in the learning community as a student, a

teacher, and a leader. In my quest for knowledge, I attend district meetings and optional

PD related to my field to stay abreast of the evolution of state mandates and new

programs. This information is integrated into staff meetings and PD sessions throughout

the school year. In designing and implementing mini PD sessions for the school, I plan

and facilitate meetings, conduct research, generate or create accompanying resources and

training materials, and provide training. This experience as a doctoral study candidate has

increased my ability to function effectively as a school leader and instructional coach as I

integrate knowledge from my research and district trainings into PD meetings. This

includes a new focus on reflection and evaluation of programs and process as I look

toward the future as a curriculum leader.

Analysis of Self as Project Developer

Developing PD training and designing engaging curriculum and instructional

materials is something I have thrived in. I embrace the challenge that lies in the research,

conception, innovation, collaboration, implementation, and continuous improvement. I

will continue to expand my knowledge and raise the standards of personal expectations in

what I can accomplish. In developing the project for this study, I was able to stretch my

skills as I worked to fuse prior experience and knowledge with new fundamentals.

Although I realize that there will be something to learn and explore, I am confident that

with a growth mindset I can continue to progress.

 127
The Project’s Potential Impact on Social Change

As educational facilities across the nation try to keep up with the evolution of

technology, there is an increasing need to successfully integrate technology and digital

literacy skills into curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In-service teachers bring

varying levels of skills and knowledge related to the integration of technology into the

classroom and determining school levels of support to affect positive change is one of the

first steps in the journey. Fostering a technology-safe learning environment that starts by

addressing teachers’ need to intentionally shift pedagogical practices is a foundational

key to initiating change. Providing effective training that meets teachers’ learning needs

can increase confidence, knowledge, and attitude, potentially increasing student

knowledge and skills in preparing for the 21st century workforce. Another potential social

impact is on administration. Creating an integrated approach that addresses

administrative support and building school site capacity can create sustainability and

address the change augmented by technology.

Although this project was originally designed to affect positive social change in

the development of digital literacy skills at a local high school, the results may applicable

to other schools within the district because the stakeholders in the community are similar.

Participants identified challenges in transitioning current practices in curriculum,

instruction, and assessment to include digital literacy skills. Creating a holistic plan that

addresses PD and additional administrative supports can help aid this transition.

Providing time for teachers to improve their knowledge and skills can lead to improved

student learning. The results from the study could stand as a model for other local schools
 128
on the island and throughout the state to meet the needs of teachers, administrators, and

students.

Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research

Implications

The research and process of this project study influenced the local organization.

As the enabling activities in the school’s academic plan called for the integration of

technology into instruction, PD on the Google Apps for Educators was occurring during

the same year as this study. Participants involved in the project study were enthusiastic

and intrigued by the interview questions and the concept of a digital literacy framework.

Several requested more information and wanted feedback on instruction from the

classroom observations. As this was not consistent with the study parameters, we agreed

to broach the subject again after the completion of the project study. Additionally, the

leadership team, principal, and several district personnel have inquired about the results

of the study and are interested in the progress. The discussion generated and overall

willingness to receive further guidance and instruction indicate that practitioners in the

local setting are open to advancement in this field.

Applications

The research conducted and the resulting TPDSP are aligned with the local

problem and needs. The focus of the project was to address teachers’ needs as they shift

pedagogical practice to include digital literacy skills. Based on the analysis of findings

from focus group interviews, classroom observations, and documents provided for the

study, the TPDSP will engage both administration and teachers in the discussion,
 129
collaboration, and innovation needed to embrace change and evolve. Additionally, the

plan is flexible, allowing the pace and structure of the meetings to be adjusted throughout

the year as determined by practitioner reflection. This flexibility may also make the plan

appealing to other schools in the district as well as the local college.

Directions for Future Research

As this qualitative case study was bounded by in-service teachers at a local high

school, there are several implications for future research. The first branch would be to

expand the research to include student voices from the local setting. At the receiving end

of instruction, student input would be invaluable in providing insight as to interest, skill,

motivation, and engagement. Additional data could also be gathered after an interval of

digital skill integration to determine impact on student achievement and to gather further

student input. Another research avenue to explore would be administration perception.

Contribution from the administrative perspective would supplement the study, further

strengthening the design of both PD and support. The convergence of data yielded from

including the voice of both students and administrators would add another dynamic to

any program created to affect change related to digital literacy skills integration.

Conclusion

Educators must choose to address the change within their circle of control.

Change is often met with many emotions including fear, enthusiasm, anxiety, animosity,

ambivalence, anticipation, joy, anger, and elation. Planning with attention to root causes

of these emotions can alleviate or lesson the ability of these feelings to drive decision

making. This is how research enters the equation. Building a plan of action through the
 130
analysis of information assembled from critical research can lead to a cultural shift from

within as the needs of the individuals are recognized, addressed, or met.

From an educator’s perspective, both emotions and intellect must be considered in

the attempt to mobilize a paradigm shift. This includes having a voice in the process.

Engaging practitioners in the circle of inquiry during the transformation can serve to

heighten commitment and willingness to participate. Ultimately, this is what the project

study and resulting technology PD support plan can help achieve. The project was

designed to address teachers’ needs through a collaborative process, engaging them in

scholarly practice to affect change. In due course, as the teachers begin to shift

pedagogical practices leveraging technology, students will become more actively

engaged and benefit both personally and academically.

 131
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, International Journal of Instruction, 2(1), 77–104. Retrieved from

http://www.e-iji.net/

Aviram, A., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2006). Towards a theory of digital literacy: three

scenarios for the next steps. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-

Learning, 9(1). Retrieved from http:

http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2006&halfyear=1&article=2

23

Badia, A., Meneses, J., & Sigalés, C. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of factors affecting

the educational use of ICT in technology-rich classrooms. Electronic Journal of

Research in Educational Psychology, 11(3), 787–808.

http://doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.31.13053

Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts. Journal of

Documentation 57(2) 218-259. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007083

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and

implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.

Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2

Berce, J., Lanfranco, S., & Vehovar, V. (2008) E-governance: Information and

communication technology, knowledge management and learning organization

culture. Informatica, 32(2), 189–205. Retrieved from

 132
http://www.informatica.si/index.php/informatica

Blau, I., Peled, Y., & Nusan, A. (2016). Technological, pedagogical and content

knowledge in one-to-one classroom: teachers developing “digital wisdom.”

Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1215-1230. doi:

10.1080/10494820.2014.978792

Boriack, A., Alford, B., Brown, D., Rollins, K., & Waxman, H. (2012). Rural teachers’

perceptions of the effectiveness of technology professional development. Society

for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference,

2012, 3147–3152. Retrieved from http://site.aace.org/

Calvani, A., Fini, A., Ranieri, M., & Picci, P. (2012). Are young generations in secondary

school digitally competent? A study on Italian teenagers. Computers &

Education, 58(2), 797–807. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.004

Capo, B., & Orellana, A. (2011). Web 2.0 technology for classroom instruction: High

school teachers' perceptions and adoption factors. Quarterly Review of Distance

Education, 12(4), 235-253. Retrieved from https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-

2665022851.html

Chapman, L., Masters, J., & Pedulla, J. (2010). Do digital divisions still persist in

schools? Access to technology and technical skills of teachers in high needs

schools in the United States of America. Journal of Education for Teaching,

36(2), 239–249. doi:10.1080/02607471003651870

Chu, D. (2010). A Pedagogy of inquiry: Toward student-centered media education. New

Horizons in Education, 58(3), 44–57. Retrieved from

 133
http://www.hkta1934.org.hk/NewHorizon/index2.html

Cloonan, A. (2015). Teacher agency and participation in professional learning for new

literacies. International Journal of Adult, Community & Professional

Learning, 22(4), 15-28. Retrieved from http://ijlacp.cgpublisher.com/

Comba, V. (2011). Net generation and digital literacy: A short bibliographical review and

some remarks. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 7(1), 59-66.

Retrieved from http://www.je-lks.org/

Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions.

DeSantis, J. D., & Rotigel, J. V. (2014). Evolving a technology integration ethos:

Technology habits of pre-service and in-service teachers. Journal of Instructional

Pedagogies Volume. Retrieved from

https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/141850.pdf

Doering, A., Scharber, C., Henrickson, J., Koseoglu, S., & Lanegran, D. (2014).

Technology integration in K-12 geography education using TPACK as a

conceptual model. Journal Of Geography, 113(6), 223-237. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjog20

Dornisch, M. (2013). The digital divide in classrooms: Teacher technology comfort and

evaluations. Computers in the Schools, 30(3), 210–228.

doi./10.1080/07380569.2012.734432

du Plessis, A., & Webb, P. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions about their own and their

schools’ readiness for computer implementation: A South African case study.

 134
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(3), 312–325.

Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net/

Efron, S., & Ravid. R. (2013). Action research in education: A practical guide. New

York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Eliahoo, R. (2017). Teacher educators: Proposing new professional development models

within an English further education context. Professional Development In

Education, 43(2), 179-193. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rjie20/current

Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., Bliuc, A.-M., & Ellis, M. (2011). High school students’

experiences of learning through research on the Internet. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 27(6), 503–515. Retrieved from

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-JCAL.html

Engelbrecht, W., & Ankiewicz, P. (2016). Criteria for continuing professional

development of technology teachers' professional knowledge: A theoretical

perspective. International Journal Of Technology And Design Education, 26(2),

259-284. doi:10.1007/s10798-015-9309-0

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How

knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on

Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org

Eshet, Y. (2012). Thinking in the digital era: A revised model for digital literacy. Issues

in Informing Science and Information Technology, 9(2), 267–276. Retrieved from

http://informingscience.org/
 135
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital Literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in

the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93-

106. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education

Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Chajut, E. (2010). You can teach old dogs new tricks: The factors

that affect changes over time in digital literacy. Journal of Information

Technology Education, 9, 173–181. Retrieved from

http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol9/JITEv9p173-181Eshet802.pdf

Esposito, M., Impagliazo, D., Podell, R., Bracchio, B., & Morote, E.-S. (2011). Do

perceived levels of technology training in high school and computer access in

college meet the coursework demands of college students? World Conference on

E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, 2011,

608–616. Retrieved from https://www.aace.org/conf/elearn/

Fahser-Herro, D., & Steinkuehler, C. (2009). Web 2.0 literacy and secondary teacher

education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 55-62. Retrieved

from http://[email protected]

Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks (Report

No. EUR 25351 EN). doi:102791/82216

Gillham, B. (2010). Case study research methods. London, GBR: Continuum

International Publishing. Retrieved from

https://dspace.utamu.ac.ug/bitstream/123456789/138/1/%5BBill_Gillham%5D_C

ase_Study_Research_Methods_(Real_W(BookFi.org).pdf

Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Pub.

 136
Gisbert-Cervera, M., & Álvarez, J.F. (2015). Information literacy grade of secondary

school teachers in Spain - Beliefs and self perceptions. Comunicar, 23(45).

doi.org/10.3916/C45-2015-20

Goode, J. (2010). Mind the gap: The digital dimension of college access. Journal of

Higher Education, 81(5), 583-618. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2010.0005

Greene, J. A., Yu, S. B., & Copeland, D. Z. (2014). Measuring critical components of

digital literacy and their relationships with learning. Computers & Education, 76,

55–69. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.008

Grandy, G. (2010). Instrumental case study. Encyclopedia of case study research, 1, 473-

475. http://dx.doi.org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.4135/9781412957397

Grandy, G. (2010). Intrinsic case study. Encyclopedia of case study research, 1, 473-475.

http://dx.doi.org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.4135/9781412957397

Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in

U.S. public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). National Center for Education

Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S Department of Education.

Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.edpubs.gov

Hansford, D., Adlington, R. (2009). Digital spaces and young people’s online authoring:

challenges for teachers. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, (32)1, 55-

68. Retrieved from

http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=584398231565216;res=IEL

HSS

Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge

 137
(TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based,

technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 43(3), 211–229. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ujrt20/current

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content

knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration

reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416.

Retrieved from

http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications/JRTE/Issues/Volume4

1/Number4Summer2009/Teachers_Technological_Pedagogical_Conte1.htm

Hargittai, E. (2002). Second level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills.

First Monday (7)4, 1-19. Retrieved from

http://www.firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/942/864

Hechter, R., & Vermette, L. (2014). Tech-savvy science education? Understanding

teacher pedagogical practices for integrating technology in K-12 classrooms.

Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Technology, 33(1), 27-47.

Retrieved from http://www.aace.org/pubs/jcmst

Henderson, R. (2011). Classroom pedagogies, digital literacies and the home-school

digital divide. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 6(2), 152-161.

doi: 10.5172/ijpl.2011.152

Honan, E. (2012). A whole new literacy’: Teachers’ understanding of students’ digital

learning at home. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, The, 35(1), 82.
 138
Retrieved from http://www.alea.edu.au/publications

Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information

and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the

United States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 312–333. doi:

10.1002/RRQ.002

Horton, A., Shack, K., & Mehta, R. (2017). Curriculum and practice of an innovative

teacher professional development program. Journal of Computers in Mathematics

and Science Teaching, 36(3), 237-254. Retrieved from

http://www.aace.org/pubs/jcmst/

International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National education

technology standards for students. Retrieved from iste.org/standards

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), 722–732. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.022

Jones, M., & Dexter, S. (2017). Teacher perspectives on technology integration

professional development: Formal, informal, and independent learning activities.

In J. Johnston (Ed.), Proceedings of EdMedia, 566-577. Retrieved from

http://www.aace.org/conf/edmedia/

Kirkscey, R. (2012). Secondary school instructors’ perspectives on the integration of

information and communication technologies. American Secondary Education,

(40)3, 17-33. Retrieved from http://essentialconditionswiki.pbworks.com/w/file/

fetch/61154118/Support%20Staff%20for%20Technology.pdf
 139
Koc, M., & Bakir, N. (2010). A needs assessment survey to investigate pre-service

teachers’ knowledge, experiences and perceptions about preparation to using

educational technologies. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,

9(1), 13-22. Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net/

Koehler, M., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content

knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19. Retrieved from

http://www.bu.edu/journalofeducation/

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Lim, W. Y. (2017). Teacher professional development for

TPACK-21CL: Effects on teacher ICT integration and student outcomes. Journal

of Educational Computing Research, 55(2), 172–196.

https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331166568480

Koh, J., & Chai, C. (2013). Teacher clusters and their perceptions of technological

pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) development through ICT lesson

design. Computers & Education (70), 222-232.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.017

Korthagen, F. (2017). Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: towards professional

development 3.0. Teachers and Teaching, 23(4), 387–405.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1211523

Lehiste, P. (2015). The impact of a professional development program on in-service

teachers’ TPACK: A study from Estonia. Problems Of Education In The 21St

Century, 66, 18-28. Retrieved from http://oaji.net/articles/2015/457-

1441441936.pdf
 140
Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and

technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of

the World Wide Web. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 38(1), 1–21. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9075-4

Leslie, H., & Johnson-Leslie, N. (2014). Technology mentoring: A model for

professional development. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of

SITE 2014--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

International Conference, 1587-1593. Retrieved from http://site.aace.org/

Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research: A user's guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Lodico, M., Spaulding, D., & Voegtle, K. (2006). Methods in educational research:

From theory to practice. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational

research: From theory to practice (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

Retrieved from http://journals.nipissingu.ca/index.php/cjar/article/view/103

Matherson, L., Wilson, E., & Wright, V. (2014). Need TPACK? Embrace sustained

professional development. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(1), 45-52. Retrieved

from

https://dkgupsilon.weebly.com/uploads/9/6/1/1/9611815/dkg_bulletin_fall_2014_

teaching_performance.pdf

McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (1997). Research in Education: A conceptual

introduction (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.

 141
McLoughlin, C. (2011). What ICT-related skills and capabilities should be considered

central to the definition of digital literacy? In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.),

Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and

Telecommunications 2011, 471-475. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the

Advancement of Computing in Education.

Meneses, J., & Mominó, J. M. (2010). Putting digital literacy in practice: How schools

contribute to digital inclusion in the network society. The Information Society,

26(3), 197–208. doi:10.1080/01972241003712231

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Merriam, S. B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd

ed.). Somerset, NJ, USA: Wiley.

Miller, C., & Bartlett, J. (2012). “Digital fluency”: towards young people’s critical use of

the Internet. Journal of Information Literacy, 6(2), 35–55. Retrieved from

http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/PRA-V6-12-21012-3

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A

framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Mize, C., & Rogers, K. (2012). Leading the technology evolution. Society for

Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 3400–

3404. Retrieved from http://site.aace.org/

Morales, M.P.E. (2016). Participatory action research (PAR) cum action research (AR) in
 142
teacher professional development: A literature review. International Journal of

Research in Education and Science (IJRES), (2)1, 156-65.

http://dx.doi.org/10.21890/ijres.01395

Moore-Hayes, C. (2011). Technology integration preparedness and its influence on

teacher-efficacy. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La Revue

Canadienne de L’apprentissage et de La Technologie, 37(3). Retrieved from

http://cjlt.csj.ualberta.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/588

Nasah, A., DaCosta, B., Kinsell, C., & Seok, S. (2010). The digital literacy debate: An

investigation of digital propensity and information and communication

technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 531–555.

doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9151-8

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School

Officers. (2010). Common core state standards: College and career readiness

anchor standards for writing. Washington, DC: Authors.

New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.

Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60.

doi./10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u

Neyland, E. (2011). Integrating online learning in NSW secondary schools: Three

schools’ perspectives on ICT adoption. Australasian Journal of Educational

Technology, 27(1), 152–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.14742/ajet.989

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology professional development and

policy in the United States. FGA Working Paper. Retrieved from

 143
http://www.fga.it/uploads/media/A._T._Ottenbreit-

Leftwich__Teacher_Technology_Professional_Development_-_FGA_WP20.pdf

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010).

Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional

and student needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321–1335.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.002

Perrotta, C. (2013). Do school-level factors influence the educational benefits of digital

technology? A critical analysis of teachers’ perceptions: The educational benefits

of digital technology use. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 314–

327. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01304.x

Postholm, M. B. (2012). Teachers’ professional development: a theoretical review,

Educational Research, 54(4), 405-429, doi:10.1080/00131881.2012.734725

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

doi./10.1108/10748120110424816

Prensky, M. (2009). H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to

digital wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(3), 1-11. Retrieved

from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol5/iss3/1/

Project Tomorrow. (2013). From chalkboards to tablets: The emergence of the K-12

digital learner. Retrieved from the Project Tomorrow website

http://tomorrow.org/speakup/SU12_DigitalLearners_StudentReport.html

Ramorola, M. Z. (2013). Challenge of effective technology integration into teaching and

learning. Africa Education Review, 10(4), 654–670.

 144
doi./10.1080/18146627.2013.853559

Reinhardt, J., Thomas, E., & Toriskie, J. (2011). K-12 teachers: Technology use and the

second level digital divide. Journal of Instructional Psychology, (38)3, 181-193.

Retrieved from http://www.projectinnovation.biz/jip_2006.html

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents:

Rethinking content area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.

Retrieved from

http://standards.dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/cal/pdf/teaching-dl.pdf

Spaulding, M. (2010). The influence of technology skills on pre-service and in-service

teachers’ perceived ability to integrate technology. In J. Sanchez & K. Zhang

(Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate,

Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2010, 2193-2202. Chesapeake,

VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Stefl-Mabry, J., Radlick, M., & Doane, W. (2010). Can you hear me now? Student voice:

High school & middle school students’ perceptions of teachers, ICT and learning.

International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 6(4), 64–82.

Retrieved from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/

Stewart, T. A., & Houchens, G. W. (2014). Deep impact: How a job-embedded formative

assessment professional development model affected teacher practice. Qualitative

Research in Education, (3)1. 51-82. doi:10.4471/qre.2014.36

 145
Smith, J. K., Given, L. M., Julien, H., Ouellette, D., & DeLong, K. (2013). Information

literacy proficiency: Assessing the gap in high school students’ readiness for

undergraduate academic work. Library & Information Science Research, 35(2),

88–96. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2012.12.001

Tee, M. Y., & Lee, S. S. (2011). From socialisation to internalisation: Cultivating

technological pedagogical content knowledge through problem-based learning.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 89–104.

http://dx.doi.org/10.14742/ajet.984

Thomeczek, M. & Shelton, T. (2015). Providing quality technology professional

development. In D. Rutledge & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2015--

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International

Conference, 1403-1406. Retrieved from http://site.aace.org/conf/

Tondeur, J., Forkosh-Baruch, A., Prestridge, S., Albion, P., & Edirisinghe, S. (2016).

Responding to challenges in teacher professional development for ICT integration

in education. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 110-120.

Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/

U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming

American education learning powered by technology: National education

technology plan 2010 (ED-04-CO-0040). Retrieved from the U.S. Department of

Education website https://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf

Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling

in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted
 146
Leearning, 29(5), 403-413. doi:10.1111.jcal.12029

Walker, A., Recker, M., Ye, L., Robertshaw, M., Sellers, L., & Leary, H. (2012).

Comparing technology-related teacher professional development designs: a

multilevel study of teacher and student impacts. Educational Technology

Research & Development, 60(3), 421-444. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9243-8

Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Systematic planning for ICT integration in topic

learning. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 148-156. Retrieved from

http://ifets.info/journals/10_1/ets_10_1.pdf#page=153

Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., & Gray, K. (2010). Digital divides?

Student and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies.

Computers & Education, 54(4), 1202–1211.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.006

Wei, L., Hindman. D. (2011). Does the digital divide matter more? Comparing the effects

of new media and the old media use on the education-based knowledge gap. Mass

Communication and Society, 14(2), 216-235. doi:10.1080/15205431003642707.

Yin, R. (2014). Case study research resign & methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Yurtseven, N., & Bademcioglu, M. (2016). Teachers' professional development: A

content analysis about the tendencies in studies. Journal Of Education and

Training Studies, 4(6), 214-233. : http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i6.1475

Yurtseven, N., & Altun, S., (2017). Understanding by design (UbD) in EFL teaching:

teachers’ professional development and students' achievement. Educational

 147
Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(2), 437–461.

https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.2.0226

Yurtseven Avci, Z. & O'Dwyer, L. (2016). Effective technology professional

development: A systematic review. In G. Chamblee & L. Langub

(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

International Conference, 2455-2460. Retrieved from http://site.aace.org/conf/

 148
Appendix A: Technology Professional Development Support Plan

Technology Professional Development Support Plan

Introduction
The Technology Professional Development Support Plan is an integrated two-tiered
approach to developing teacher’s digital literacy skills and building the site capacity
to maintain a technological pedagogical shift. The first tier of the Technology
Development Support Plan (TDSP) is a holistic technology professional
development approach that spans the school year and incorporates new digital
literacy skill knowledge and instructional coaching while also providing time for
teachers to collaborate with content area peers to develop lesson plans, observe
peers in action and reflect after implementation. The second tier involves a
collaborative process that aids administration in aligning technology routines and
procedures school-wide to support teachers with access, monitoring, and
continuous improvement with digital literacy skills and integration.

The first two days of training will enhance teacher knowledge of the Technological
Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework and the Digital Literacy
Skills Framework. Time will be provided time teachers to collaborate, brainstorm
and integrate digital literacy skills into lesson planning. The third and final day of
training is designed as a peer sharing session for teachers to present successes and
challenges with their digital literacy experience. This final session will also include
time for determining next steps the integration process

Purpose
This Technology Professional Development Support Plan is designed to provide
teachers an overview of the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge
(TPACK) framework connected with a Digital Literacy Framework with time for
collaboration, planning, application and reflection.

Goal
The goals of this Technology Professional Development Support Plan are to:
• Increase teacher knowledge and ability of integrating digital literacy skills
into pedagogy
• Build site capacity of the school and sustain forward movement.

Participants
This professional development session was designed for school-wide participation
of high school in-service teachers. It is open to teachers in any content area
including all core subjects, elective courses, and special education and English
Language Learner course.

 149

Technology Professional Development Support Plan

Three-Day Objectives
1. Introduce the educational framework of Technological, Pedagogical, and
Content Knowledge (TPACK)
2. Increase teacher’s foundational knowledge of the Digital Literacy Skills
Framework
3. Determine how digital literacy skills can be integrated into curriculum,
instruction and assessment based on discipline specific content
4. Integrate digital literacy skills into lesson planning for an upcoming unit
5. Day 3 (During 4th Quarter): Participate in a peer sharing process: “Keep This,
Solve This” related to digital literacy skill integration

1-Hour Interim Session Objectives
1. Briefly highlight skills from the previous session
2. Celebrate success through peer sharing of lesson from each the skills
addressed in the previous professional development session
3. Address & discuss feedback and commentary from the previous professional
development Evaluation

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3

(During 4th Quarter)

1. Introduction to TPACK 1. Branching Literacy 1. Review of TPACK & Digital
2. Overview of Digital 2. Information Literacy Literacy Framework
Literacy Skills Framework 3. Socio-emotional Literacy 2. Repeat This / Solve This
3. Photo-visual Literacy 4. Real-time Thinking Skills 3. Tech Slam (optional)
4. Reproduction Literacy 5. Introduction to “Repeat 4. Determine Next Steps
this/Solve This”

1-Hour Interim Sessions

1. Review of topics from last session
2. Peer sharing of success and challenges
3. System support reflection

 150

Technology Professional Development Support Plan

Day 1 Agenda

8:00 – 8:30 AM Registration & Introductions
Training Objectives & Expectations
8:30 – 9:30 AM Introduction to TPACK
9:30 – 9:45 AM Break
9:45 – 10:45 AM Overview of Digital Literacy Framework
10:45 – 11:45 AM Photo-visual Literacy
11:45 – 12:45 PM Lunch
12:45 – 1:15 PM Photo-visual Literacy Continued
Brainstorm & Planning
1:15 – 1:30 PM Break
1:30 – 3:00 PM Reproduction Literacy
Brainstorming & Planning

Day 2 Agenda

8:00 – 9:30 AM Welcome
Branching Literacy
Brainstorm & Planning
9:30 – 9:45 AM Break
9:45 – 11:15 AM Information Literacy
Brainstorm & Planning
11:15 – 12:00 PM Socio-Emotional Literacy
12:00 – 12:45 PM Lunch
12:45 – 1:30 PM Socio Continued
Brainstorm & Planning
1:30 – 1:40 PM Break
1:40 – 3:10 PM Real-Time Thinking
Brainstorm & Planning
3:10 – 3:30 PM Introduce “Repeat This/Solve This
Closing

 151

Technology Professional Development Support Plan

Day 3 Agenda (During 4th Quarter)

8:00 – 8:15 AM Welcoming
8:15 – 8:45 AM Review of TPACK and Digital Literacy Framework

8:45 – 9:30 AM Review “Repeat This/Solve This” protocol
Complete handouts
9:30 – 9:45 AM Break
9:45 – 10:30 AM Round One: “Repeat This/Solve This”
10:30 – 11:45 AM Round Two: “Repeat This/Solve This”
11:45 – 12:45 PM Lunch
12:45 – 1:15 PM Tech Slam
1: 15 – 1:30 PM Reflection
1:30 – 1:45 PM Break
1:45 – 2:30 PM Determine Next Steps
2:30 – 2:45 PM Closing

1-Hour Interim Session Agenda(s) (as needed between full-day sessions)

Sample timeline for After School Session

2:00 – 2:15 PM Opening & Review of Previous Skills
2:15 – 2:25 PM Small Group Sharing of Successful Lesson
2:25 – 2:35 PM Large Group Sharing of Successful Lesson
2:35 – 2:55 PM Discussion & Reflection of Progress and Evaluation Feedback
2:55 – 3:00 PM Closing

 152

TPDSP Purpose

Technology Professional Provide teachers and administration

overview of:
Development Support Plan ● An overview of Technological,
(TPDSP) Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge
(TPACK) Framework and a Digital
Literacy Framework
Digital Literacy Professional Development &
● Time for collaboration, planning,
Administrative Support
application and reflection.

TPDSP Goals
Plan Overview
Day 1 Day 2
• Increase teacher knowledge and ability of
integrating digital literacy skills into • Introduction to TPACK • Branching Literacy
pedagogy • Overview of Digital • Information Literacy
Literacy Framework • Socio-emotional Literacy
• Photo-visual Literacy • Real-Time Thinking Skills
• Build site capacity of the school and
• Reproduction Literacy • Introduction to Repeat
sustain forward movement.
This / Solve This

Objectives: Day 1-2

Plan Overview Continued
• Introduce Technological, Pedagogical, and
Content Knowledge (TPACK)
Day 3 Interim Sessions
• Increase teacher foundational knowledge of
• Review of TPACK and • Review of topics from Digital Literacy (DL) Skills
Digital Literacy previous sessions • Identify how DL skills can be integrated into
Framework • Peer Sharing of Success & discipline specific curriculum, instruction and
• Repeat This / Solve This Challenges assessment
• Tech Slam (Optional) • System Support Reflection • Integrate DL skills into lesson plan to be
• Determine Next Steps implemented during 3-4 week interim
 153

Digital Divide
Digital Natives Digital Immigrants

• Born into the world of • Born before advent of

digital technology digital technology
TPACK • Native speakers of digital
language
• Non-native speakers of
digital language
• Parallel process & • Learn to adapt to
multitask environment

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006).

Introduction to the TPACK

TPACK - Terms
Model
Turn & Talk
What do you know, or think you
know about these terms?

Technological Knowledge
Pedagogical Knowledge
Content Knowledge

Video Link: www.commonsensemedia.org

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006).

Technological Knowledge Pedagogical Knowledge

• Understand information technology Teacher’s knowledge about

• Beyond computer literacy • The processes and practices of
• Productively apply technology at teaching and learning
work and in life • Educational aim, purpose, &
• Skills: Information processing, values
communication, problem solving • How students learn; target
• Continuously evolving skills audience
• Open-ended interaction with tech • Classroom management
• Lesson planning & assessment
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006).
 154

Content Knowledge

Teacher’s knowledge about

• Subject matter to be learned or
taught (grade or content level appropriate)
• Organizational frameworks,
theories, concepts, etc. related to
content
• Discipline specific fundamentals
and nature of inquiry

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006).

The Blends of TPCK Pedagogical Content

Knowledge
Pedagogical Content
Knowledge • Teacher interpretation and
manipulation of content
• Adaptation of instructional materials;
Technological Pedagogical multiple means of representation
Knowledge • Links between curriculum,
assessment and pedagogy
Technological Content • Connection between students’ prior
Knowledge knowledge, cross-curricular
concepts, and teaching strategies

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006).

Technological Pedagogical Technological Content

Knowledge Knowledge
• Understanding impact of • Understand constraints and
technology on discipline influence of technology on content
• Explicit selection of tech tools to • Understand how application of
enhance teaching and learning technology can change subject
• matter
• Explicit selection of tech tools to
enhance content
•

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006).
 155

Plan a 20 - 30 second speech…

What is your current understanding

of the blending of Technology,
Pedagogical, and Content
Knowledge? Digital Literacy Framework

What more do you want to know

about related to this framework?

Digital Literacy 20 Second Speech…

What essential skills initially come to

“The ability to use technical, cognitive mind when you think of this term?
and socio-emotional skills to
understand and assimilate Digital Literacy
information in a digital environment”

Share with a partner not at your table

(Bawden, 2001; Eshet 2012; Gilster, 1997)

Digital Literacy Framework “A◆B◆C Teach”

Article Study
ABC
Read Summarize Teach
Partners
“Thinking in the Digital Era: A • Designate • Read • Summarize • Take turns
Revised Model for Digital Literacy” who is
A–B–C
assigned
section
section teaching
your
• Provide
example in section to
classroom group
By Yoram Eshet
 156

6 Key Terms

Photo-Visual Literacy

Reproduction Literacy

Branching Literacy Photo-visual Literacy

Information Literacy

Socio-Emotional Literacy

Real-Time Thinking Skills

Various
Photo-visual Literacy Visuals
“To read intuitively and freely, to
understand the instructions &
messages represented visually; having
good memory and strong
intuitive-associative thinking, which
help decode and understand visual
messages”
Eshet-Alkalai, 2004 & 2012

Visual Literacy & Critical Various Visuals

Thinking
• Advertisements • Memes
• Cartoons • Multimodal Texts
• Charts • Photos
• Collages • Pictograms
• Comics • Political Cartoons
• Diagrams • Signs
• Dioramas • Slides Shows
• DVD’s • Storyboards
• Graphic Novels • Symbols
• Graphs • Tables
• Icons • Timelines
• Magazines • Videos
• Maps • Websites

Video Link: https://youtu.be/2jR8zWqyHBY

 157

Visual Literacy Strategies

• Think-Alouds Content
• Visual Thinking Strategies Brainstorm
• Asking the 4Ws
• 5 Card Flickr What does this DL
• Imagine Analysis Worksheets skill look like in your
• Step-by-Step: Working with Images that Matter content area and how
can you explicitly
teach this skill?

Work Time
Integrate this DL skill into your curriculum, instruction
and assessment

Reproduction Literacy

The Basics of Reproduction

Reproduction Literacy
Literacy
• Digital reproduction
“The ability to create meaningful, • Synthesize information from
authentic, and creative work or multiple media sources
interpretation by integrating existing • New meaning or interpretation
independent pieces of information” • Increased rigor

Eshet-Alkalai, 2004 & 2012

 158

Learning Assessment

• Formative or summative Content

• Project-based or Problem-based Brainstorm
learning
• Differentiated What does this DL skill
• Technology integrated look like in your
• Collaborative content area and how
• Assimilation of information into can you explicitly teach
new product this skill?

Work Time
Integrate this DL skill into your curriculum, instruction Day 1 Evaluation
and assessment
Please take a moment to complete the
evaluation for today’ session. Results will be
shared during the first Interim Session.

Objectives: Day 1-2

Technology Professional
Development Support Plan • Introduce Technological, Pedagogical, and
Content Knowledge (TPACK) – Day 1
(TPDSP) • Increase teacher foundational knowledge of
Digital Literacy (DL) Skills
• Identify how DL skills can be integrated into
Day 2 discipline specific curriculum, instruction and
assessment
• Integrate DL skills into lesson plan to be
Digital Literacy Professional Development & implemented during 3-4 week interim
Administrative Support
 159

Overview
Day 2

Day 2
• Branching Literacy
• Information Literacy Branching Literacy
• Socio-emotional Literacy
• Real-Time Thinking Skills
• Introduction to Repeat
This / Solve This

Branching Literacy

“Using the hypermedia environment

to construct meaning for ‘associative,
branching, and non-linear navigation
through different knowledge
domains’; multidimensional thinking; What challenges do you personally
maintain orientation when face when researching information
navigating internet” on the internet?

Eshet-Alkalai, 2004 & 2012

Branching Literacy Skills Hypertext & Hypermedia

• Also “hypermedia” literacy

• Multidimensional thinking skills
• Abstract & metaphoric thinking
• Website navigation
• Sorting, storing, remembering
important information
• Task and time management
• Means of communication &
problem solving
Video link: https://youtu.be/wTlEod3tQ2A
 160

Work Time
Integrate this DL skill into your curriculum, instruction
and assessment
Content
Brainstorm

What does this DL skill

look like in your
content area and how
can you explicitly teach
this skill?

Information Literacy

“The use of cognitive skills to evaluate

and filter erroneous, biased and
Information Literacy irrelevant information while trying to
assimilate information and make new
meaning”

Eshet-Alkalai, 2004 & 2012

Information Literacy
Information Literacy Skills
Instructional Concepts
• Effectively research and locate
valid, relevant information • Website evaluation tools
• Critically evaluate information & • Effective research skills
sources • Avoiding plagiarism
• Filter irrelevant, erroneous, and • Critical thinking skills
biased material • Reading & writing strategies
• Synthesize select information into • Summarizing & paraphrasing
learner’s knowledge and create
new meaning
 161

Work Time
Content Integrate this DL skill into your curriculum, instruction
Brainstorm and assessment

What does this DL skill

look like in your
content area and how
can you explicitly teach
this skill?

Socio-Emotional Literacy

“Having emotional and analytical

maturity to evaluate information,
think abstractly and collaborate to
Socio-Emotional Literacy share data and co-construct
knowledge with others; also have a
high degree of information and
branching literacy”

Eshet-Alkalai, 2004 & 2012

Socio-Emotional
Social-Emotional Skills
Instructional Concepts
• Collaboration & communicate Lessons to combine content with:
with peers • digital citizenship
• Co-construct knoweldge • self-management & awareness
• Cyberspace and cybersecurity • relationship building
awareness • collaborative learning skills
• Avoid “traps” • responsible decision making
• Appropriately sharing data and • critical thinking
knowledge • tech tools for collaboration
• Evaluate information (blog, social media, GAFE, etc. )
 162

Work Time
Integrate this DL skill into your curriculum, instruction
and assessment
Content
Brainstorm

What does this DL skill

look like in your
content area and how
can you explicitly teach
this skill?

Real-Time Thinking Skills

“The ability to process simultaneous

stimuli, split attention and react to a
variety of information while executing
Real-Time Thinking Skills specific tasks; respond to feedback in
real-time; synchronize multimedia
stimuli into new knowledge or
product ”

Eshet-Alkalai, 2004 & 2012

Real-time Thinking Skills

Real-Time Thinking Skills
Instructional Concepts
• Process simultaneous stimuli Lessons that integrate content &
• Split attention & react technology such as:
appropriately • Online “games”
• Execute multiple tasks effectively • Project based learning
& switch between tasks Collaborative group projects &
• Respond to real-time feedback learning
• Synthesize information from • Multimedia environment with
multiple sources into new multiple means of action,
knowledge/product engagement & expression
 163

Work Time
Integrate this DL skill into your curriculum, instruction
and assessment
Content
Brainstorm

What does this DL skill

look like in your
content area and how
can you explicitly teach
this skill?

Day 2 Evaluation Technology Professional

Please take a moment to complete the Development Support Plan
evaluation for today’ session. Results will be
shared during the next Interim Session. (TPDSP)

Day 3

Digital Literacy Professional Development &

Administrative Support

Objectives: Day 3

• Participate in peer sharing process: “Repeat

This / Solve This” and Tech Slam
• Determine next steps to continue building site
school capacity for digital literacy skills Repeat This / Solve This
integration
 164

Repeat This Repeat This

What are your digital literacy Template Categories:

success stories? • Presenter
• Consider success w/any of the 6 DL • Target/Objective Addressed
skills
• General Description
• Which one is most useful/replicable
to peers to progress DL • Nuts & Bolts
• Be specific in details • Things to Watch out Far
• Don’t forget to discuss the rocks in • Participants
your path

Work Time Repeat This Protocol

Take Turns (per person)
Sharing Protocol
• 10 minutes to share w/questions
• Be specific –share details
• Be honest & useful
Listening Protocol
• Use note-taking tool
• Ask responsible questions
• Push for constructive conversation

Round 1: Repeat This Solve This

Small Group Sharing Template Categories:

• Assign Timekeeper • Presenter
• 10 minutes per person • Target/Objective Blocked
• Active participation • General Description
• Solution Space
• Parting Thoughts
 165

Solve This Protocol Work Time

Take Turns (per person)
Sharing Protocol
• 5 minutes to share
• 15 minutes for peer feedback
• Listen to grow
Listening Protocol
• Use note-taking tool
• Ask responsible questions
• Push for constructive conversation

Round 2: Solve This

Small Group Sharing
• Assign Timekeeper
• 5 minutes per person
• 15 minutes peer feedback
Tech Slam
• Active participation

Minutes

Milling to Music
Tech Success (Sharing Protocol)

1. Stand & roam the room

Consider all the new ways you have 2. When music stops…find your
used technology since the first nearest partner
training. Write a brief description of 3. Partner A Share: Partner B Listen
your success story to share with a 4. Switch
peer. 5. Repeat “Milling to Music”
 166

3◆2◆1 Reflection

3 Things I Learned…
2 Aha’s or insights
Reflection 1 Question I still have

Ideas for next steps...

Process

Post-it Brainstorm

List Group Label

Determining Next Steps
Summary Statements

Organize Statements

Post-it Note Brainstorm ◆List

In silence… ◆Group
Individual ◆Label
Write 2-6 post-it 1. First teacher lay out post-it notes
notes, each with a – 1 per colored paper
different idea for next 2. Second teacher add/group –
steps either on same colored paper or
new colored paper
3. Repeat for each teacher until all
post-its are sorted
 167

Label & Summarize Organize / Prioritize

1. Discuss categories (colored paper 1. Order the labeled groups
groups) and re-organize if numerical or by priority
necessary 2. Label/Identify the order
2. Label/Title each group of post-it 3. Submit to administration
notes
3. Write a statement that
summarizes the group of notes
4. Continue for each group of notes

Day 3 Evaluation
Digital Please take a moment to complete the

Literacy PD
evaluation for today’ session. Results will be
shared during the next Interim Session.

Evaluation

Kindra X. Sabado

Objectives: Interim Session

Technology Professional
Development Support Plan
• Briefly review key concepts from previous
(TPDSP) meeting
• Share successes and challenges in shifting
pedagogical practices to include digital literacy
Interim Sessions • Determine next steps to support the
schoolwide shift

Digital Literacy Professional Development &

Administrative Support
 168

Review of Key Concepts

Key Concepts from Meetings
Day 1 Concepts 1. Select one concept from
• TPACK the last training and
• Photo-Visual Literacy define in your own
• Reproduction Literacy words
2. Be prepared to share
Day 2 Concepts
• Branching Literacy
your definition(s)
• Information Literacy
• Socio-Emotional Literacy
• Real-Time Thinking

Table Sharing

1. Select one concept from the

previous training
2. Briefly describe how you
designed your lesson to Share your responses with your
integrate/address this new skill. elbow partner at the same table.
3. Identify a success or challenge
you encountered

Feedback from Evaluation(s)

Group Sharing Insert results from Day 1 Evaluation for discussion here

Additional PD
1.
2.
3.
Select a member of your group to 4.

share their example or an Additional Admin Support

example from the table 1.
2.
3.
4.
 3/11/18

169

Exit Pass Mahalo

1.  What are you going to investigate and
attempt next related to digital literacy
Nui
skills integration?
2.  What immediate support do you need
from administration to be successful?
Loa

Kindra X. Sabado

References

1.  Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts.

Journal of Documentation 57(2) 218-259. https://doi.org/10.1108/
EUM0000000007083
2.  Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Pub
3.  Common Sense Media. (n.d.). Introduction to the TPACK model [Video file].
Retrieved from https://www.commonsense.org/education/videos/introduction-to-
the-tpack-model
4.  Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital Literacy: A conceptual framework for survival
skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1),
93-106. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
5.  Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge:
A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6),
1017-1054. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/library
6.  Toledo Museum of Art. (2015, February 18). Visual literacy & critical thinking
[Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/2jR8zWqyHBY
7.  Sacky, K. (2015, April 21). Hypertext & hypermedia [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://youtu.be/wTlEod3tQ2A

18
 170

Digital Literacy Skills Professional Development Evaluation

Day 1 Evaluation: Introduction to TPACK and Digital Literacy
Thank you for your participation in this Digital Literacy Skills Professional
Development session. This evaluation will provide valuable feedback on the
effectiveness of this three-day session and information will be used to make further
improvements. Please complete the evaluation below for Day 1 of this training
program. Results will be shared with you during the next Interim Session. Your
input is greatly appreciated.

Strongly Strongly
Content Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree
Disagree
1. The objectives of the training were clearly
defined.
2. The content of the training was well
organized and informative.
3. The supplemental materials were relevant
and informative.
4. The facilitator was knowledgeable and
organized.
5. The facilitator was able to respond
appropriately to my questions.
6. The learning strategies during the training
were useful in helping me process new
knowledge.
7. Objectives of the training were met.
Learning
8. The training helped me gain new
knowledge and skills.
9. The training enhanced my knowledge and
understanding of TPACK.
10. The training enhanced my knowledge and
understanding of Photo-visual Literacy.
11. The training enhanced my knowledge and
understanding of Reproduction Literacy.

Reflecting Day 1 training content and materials, do you have any comments or
suggestions for the following?

Areas of strength:


Areas for growth:

 171

Digital Literacy Skills Professional Development Evaluation

Suggestions for additional professional development:

What support to do you need from administration to successfully integrate digital
literacy skills into your instruction?




Additional Comments:

 172

Digital Literacy Skills Professional Development Evaluation

Day 2 Evaluation: Digital Literacy Continued

Thank you for your participation in this Digital Literacy Skills Professional
Development session. This evaluation will provide valuable feedback on the
effectiveness of this three-day session and information will be used to make further
improvements. Please complete the evaluation below for Day 2 of this training
program. Results will be shared with you during the next Interim Session. Your
input is greatly appreciated.

Strongly Strongly
Content Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree
Disagree
12. The objectives of the training were clearly
defined.
13. The content of the training was well
organized and informative.
14. The supplemental materials were relevant
and informative.
15. The facilitator was knowledgeable and
organized.
16. The facilitator was able to respond
appropriately to my questions.
17. The learning strategies during the training
were useful in helping me process new
knowledge.
18. Objectives of the training were met.
Learning
19. The training helped me gain new
knowledge and skills.
20. The training enhanced my knowledge and
understanding of Branching Literacy.
21. The training enhanced my knowledge and
understanding of Information Literacy.
22. The training enhanced my knowledge and
understanding of Socio-emotional Literacy.
23. The training enhanced my knowledge and
understanding of Real-time Thinking Skills
24. Based on my new knowledge of TPACK and
digital literacy skills, I will be able to
successful shift some of my teaching
practices.

 173
Digital Literacy Skills Professional Development Evaluation

Reflecting Day 2 training content and materials, do you have any comments or
suggestions for the following?

Areas of strength:



Areas for growth:



Suggestions for additional professional development:





What support to do you need from administration to successfully integrate digital
literacy skills into your instruction?




Additional Comments:

 174

Digital Literacy Skills Professional Development Evaluation

Day 3 Evaluation: Review, Repeat This / Solve This, & Next Steps

Thank you for your participation in this Digital Literacy Skills Professional
Development session. This evaluation will provide valuable feedback on the
effectiveness of this three-day session and information will be used to make further
improvements. Please complete the evaluation below for Day 3 of this training
program. Results will be shared with you during the next Interim Session. Your
input is greatly appreciated.

Strongly Strongly
Content Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree
Disagree
25. The objectives of the training were clearly
defined.
26. The content of the training was well
organized and informative.
27. The supplemental materials were relevant
and informative.
28. The facilitator was knowledgeable and
organized.
29. The facilitator was able to respond
appropriately to my questions.
30. The learning strategies during the training
were useful in helping me process new
knowledge.
31. Objectives of the training were met.
Learning
32. The training helped me gain new
knowledge and skills.
33. The “Repeat This” process was useful.
34. The “Solve This” process was useful.
35. The Tech Slam was useful.
36. I would like more time to collaborate with
peers and learn from how they have
changed their pedagogical practices.
37. Based on my new knowledge of TPACK and
digital literacy skills, I will be able to
successful shift some of my teaching
practices.

 175

Digital Literacy Skills Professional Development Evaluation

Reflecting the three-day training, do you have any suggestions for the
following? Information will be used to guide next steps.

I would like more examples and information about the following digital literacy
skills: (Check no more than 2)
o TPACK o Information Literacy
o Photo-visual Literacy o Socio-Emotional Literacy
o Reproduction Literacy o Real-Time Thinking
o Branching Literacy


Additional professional development suggestions:




Additional administrative support:




Suggestions to improve digital literacy skills integration into current practices:




Other Comments:

 176
Appendix B: Digital Literacy Focus Group Interview Protocol

Problem: Teachers are not adapting pedagogy to effectively integrate digital literacy
skills into authentic student learning.

Purpose: This qualitative case study will explore teachers’ knowledge, perceptions,
current practices and challenges related to integrating digital literacy skills in order to
design a effective support plan.

Digital Literacy Literacy Skills: (a) Photo-visual, (b) Reproduction, (c) Branching, (d)
Information, (e) Socio-emotional, and (f) Real-time thinking

Background of the Study

The purpose of this focus group interview today is to explore teachers’ perception of
digital literacy skills. This focus group interview sessions is designed to determine your
perspective on a digital literacy framework and identify challenges and supports you may
face in shifting pedagogy to address these skills. You have been identified as a participant
for this group from a consent form previously submitted. Please keep in mind that this
session is in no way evaluative. The primary goal is to explore your current knowledge
and skills related to digital literacy and contribute to a greater body of knowledge.
Participation is completely voluntary and all information will be held confidential. Once
interviews have been transcribed, members this group will have the opportunity to
validate comments and provide commentary.

Introductory Protocol
This interview session will last from 50 – 90 minutes. If time begins to run short, it may
be necessary to re-focus discussion and push forward to complete the questioning. To aid
in gathering and transcribing accurate information, audio recordings will be used. Once
interviews have been transcribed, members this group will have the opportunity to
validate comments and provide commentary.

Teacher Information: Please complete and submit the information below

************************************************************************
Number of year teaching: _____
Number of years at this school: _____
Are you a certified teacher? Y/N
Are you currently enrolled in a program to obtain your teaching credential? Y/N
Have you had any training related to technology in the past two years? Y/N
Focus Group Content Area: ________________ Date: _______ Mtg length: ______

# of Participants: _________ Interviewed By: ___________________________

 177
Opening Questions
1. How may years have you been teaching at this high school?
2. How do you think education has changed since you first started teaching?
3. What, in general, comes to mind when you think of technology?
4. What do you believe is the role of technology in high school education?

Research Questions
Research Question
RQ 1: What are the high school teachers’ current level of understanding,
knowledge, and skills related to digital literacy?
We are going to begin with some exploratory questions so that I can gain a better
understanding of your background knowledge.
5. How would you define the term digital literacy?
We are going to talk next about some key terms related to a framework for digital
literacy. Based on your background knowledge and experience, please define the term to
best of your ability.
6. How would you define the term “photo-visual literacy”?
a. Probes: Does anyone want to add to this definition?; Does anyone have an
alternate definition? (ask after each questions in this section)
7. How would you define the term “reproduction literacy”?
8. How would you define the term “branching literacy”?
9. How would you define the term “information literacy”?
10. How would you define the term “socio-emotional literacy”?
11. How would you define the term “real-time thinking skills”?
12. Has anyone ever attended any professional development related to any of these
skills?
13. If so, have you applied any of this new knowledge into your curriculum,
instruction or assessment?


Research Question
RQ 2: How are high school teachers currently integrating digital literacy skills into
curriculum, instruction and assessment across content areas?
This next set of questions is related to how you are currently integrating skills related to
the digital literacy framework into curriculum, instruction and assessment. To provide
context, here is a handout that clearly defines each digital literacy skill. Please use these
definitions as the base for your answers.
14. Please take a moment to review the definition for “photo-visual literacy”? Now
that we have a clear definition of the term, do you believe that you currently
address this in your curriculum? If yes, please describe. (If no for all participants,
move on)
a. Does your instruction address this skill? If yes, please describe.
b. Does your assessment address this skill? If yes, please describe.
 178
15. Please take a moment to review the definition for “reproduction literacy”? Now
that we have a clear definition of the term, do you believe that you currently
address this in your curriculum? If yes, please describe. (If no for all participants,
move on)
c. Does your instruction address this skill? If yes, please describe.
d. Does your assessment address this skill? If yes, please describe.
16. Please take a moment to review the definition for “branching literacy”? Now that
we have a clear definition of the term, do you believe that you currently address
this in your curriculum? If yes, please describe. (If no for all participants, move
on)
e. Does your instruction address this skill? If yes, please describe.
f. Does your assessment address this skill? If yes, please describe.
17. Please take a moment to review the definition for “information literacy”? Now
that we have a clear definition of the term, do you believe that you currently
address this in your curriculum? If yes, please describe. (If no for all participants,
move on)
g. Does your instruction address this skill? If yes, please describe.
h. Does your assessment address this skill? If yes, please describe.
18. Please take a moment to review the definition for “socio-emotional literacy”?
Now that we have a clear definition of the term, do you believe that you currently
address this in your curriculum? If yes, please describe. (If no for all participants,
move on)
i. Does your instruction address this skill? If yes, please describe.
j. Does your assessment address this skill? If yes, please describe.
19. Please take a moment to review the definition for “real-time thinking skills”?
Now that we have a clear definition of the term, do you believe that you currently
address this in your curriculum? If yes, please describe. (If no for all participants,
move on)
k. Does your instruction address this skill? If yes, please describe.
l. Does your assessment address this skill? If yes, please describe.

Research Question
RQ 3: What challenges do teachers currently face in effectively integrating digital
literacy skills into authentic learning opportunities?
20. Considering your content standards and discipline specific literacy, how do you
see six digital literacy skills being integrated into your curriculum in the future?
m. Instruction?
n. Assessment?
21. Is there one digital literacy skill that seems more important or connected to your
discipline than others?
22. In order to successfully shift pedagogical practice to address these six skills, what
challenges do you currently face?
23. What challenges do you think your students face?
24. What challenges do you believe you may face in the future?
 179
25. How do you think these challenges can be overcome?

Research Question
RQ 4: What kind of support, knowledge, and skills do teachers feel is essential for
them to initiate or advance their use of technology into curriculum to create
discipline specific learning opportunities that build student’s digital literacy skills?
26. In order to successfully shift pedagogical practice to address these six digital
literacy skills, what skills do you believe you may need?
27. How do you think these teacher skills can be developed?
28. What knowledge do need?
29. What other types of support do you think you may need?
 180
Appendix C: Digital Literacy Observation Protocol

Problem: Teachers are not adapting pedagogy to effectively integrate digital literacy
skills into authentic student learning.

Purpose: This qualitative case study will explore teachers’ knowledge, perceptions,
current practices and challenges related to integrating digital literacy skills in order to
design a effective support plan.

Digital Literacy Literacy Skills: (a) Photo-visual, (b) Reproduction, (c) Branching, (d)
Information, (e) Socio-emotional, and (f) Real-time thinking

Observation Content Area: ______________ Date:_______/ Time: __________

# of students: _________
Setting (description):
______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Technology:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Visual (illustration):
 181
Research Question
Research Question
RQ 2: How are high school teachers currently integrating digital literacy skills
into curriculum, instruction and assessment across content areas?
Teacher:
Actions Comments/Quotes Reflective Thoughts
 182

Students:
Actions Comments/Quotes Reflective Thoughts
 183
Appendix D: Document Study Digital Literacy Skill Rubric

Content Area: ______________ Date:_______/ Time: __________

Description of Digital
Evident Developing Not Evident
Literacy Skills (Eshet, 2012)
Photo-visual Literacy Evidence of photo-
There some There is no
Document provides evidence of visual literacy skill
evidence of photo- evidence of photo-
opportunity for students to analyze development is
visual literacy skill visual literacy skill
visual media and understand purposefully
development in the development in
instructions and messages within the integrated into
document document
visual. document
Reproduction Literacy
Evidence of There some There is no
Document provides evidence of
reproduction evidence of evidence of
opportunity for students to integrate
literacy skill reproduction reproduction
and synthesize multiple independent
development is literacy skill literacy skill
information sources into an
purposefully development in the development in
authentic, creative interpretation of
integrated into document document
work.
Branching Literacy
Document provides evidence of
Evidence of There some There is no
opportunity for students to practice
branching literacy evidence of evidence of
non-linear navigation in the
skill development branching literacy branching literacy
hypermedia environment to develop
is purposefully skill development skill development
multidimensional thinking and
integrated into in the document in document
construct meaning of information
from various domains.
Information Literacy
Document provides evidence of Evidence of There some There is no
opportunity for students think information evidence of evidence of
critically about information and literacy skill information information
evaluate it to identify bias, development is literacy skill literacy skill
erroneous and irrelevant material to purposefully development in the development in
make informed decisions about integrated into document document
assimilating new information.
Socio-emotional Literacy
Document provides evidence of
Evidence of socio- There some There is no
opportunity for students
emotional literacy evidence of socio- evidence of socio-
demonstrate information and
skill development emotional literacy emotional literacy
branching literacy while
is purposefully skill development skill development
collaborating with peers to share
integrated into in the document in document
data, think abstractly and co-
construct knowledge.
Real-time Thinking Skills
Document provides evidence of Evidence of real- There some There is no
opportunity for students to process time thinking skill evidence of real- evidence of real-
and react to simultaneous stimuli, development is time thinking skill time thinking skill
switch between tasks, respond to purposefully development in the development in
feedback while creating and integrated into document document
coherent product.
 184
Appendix E: National Institute of Health Certificate

Certificate of Completion

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research certifies that
Kindra Sabado successfully completed the NIH Web-based training course
"Protecting Human Research Participants".

Date of completion: 04/20/2013.

Certification Number: 1166610.