Digital Futures in Teacher EducationAn Open Resource on Digital Literacy for Educators, Teachers and Schools

ContentsChapter 1: Introduction71.1. About this resource71.2. How to use71.2.1 Scenarios for use71.2.2 Mapping of parts71.2.3 Guide to Accessibility71.3 Acknowledgements81.3.1 Contacts8Chapter 2: About Digital Literacy82.1 Defining Digital Literacy82.2 A review of literature on Digital Literacy in Education92.3 Current Digital Literacy Frameworks92.4 Towards a revised framework for Digital Literacy in Education102.5 Digital Literacy in Schools: Values and Identities102.5.1 Identities102.5.2 Learners and Teachers112.5.3 Digital natives132.5.4 Digital literacy and age-related issues152.6 Digital Literacy and Openness152.6.1 Open Education Resources152.6.2 Open Education Practices in classroom context172.6.3 Open Education Practices in teacher education182.6.4 Accessibility192.6.5 E-safety202.6.6 Digital Citizenship22Chapter 3: Practice with Digital Literacy243.1 Digital Literacy243.2 Creativity243.2.1 Knowledge building253.2.2 Distributed cognition253.2.3 Community and communication263.2.4 Engagement263.2.5 Summary263.2.6 References/Links to further resources273.3 Assessment273.3.1 Assessment of student teachers digital literacy303.4 Barriers and Enablers313.4.1 Barriers313.4.2 Barriers and enablers343.4.3 Summary393.4.4 References/Links to further resources393.5 Relationships and Digital Literacy413.5.1 Online / offline relationships413.5.2 Collaboration and Partnership413.5.3 Community / parental engagement423.5.4 E-safety433.6 Communication and Interactivity433.6.1 Multimodality433.6.2 Participation453.6.3 Choice and Control473.6.4 Reflexivity473.6.5 Mobility493.7 Knowledge and Learning503.7.1 Funds of knowledge / cultural capital503.7.2 Production / analysis dynamic533.7.3 Co-construction543.7.4 Cross-curricular approaches543.8 Case Studies543.8.1 Winterhill: QR codes and OERs across Educational Settings553.8.2 Newman: Developing Digital Literacies Making Movies553.8.3 Dinnington: 21st Century Show and Tell: Making Instructional Videos553.8.4 Wales: OERs to Promote Good Practice in Schools553.8.5 Notre Dame: Exploring Issues in Uptake of Digital Literacy Tools553.8.6 Halfway: Using Hand-held Devices to Develop Digital Literacy Skills553.8.7 Mundella: Bigger Bloom553.8.8 Bradfield: Digital Reporters at Camp Cardboard553.8.9 Monteney: Monteney Monsters553.8.10 Sharrow: Developing Digital Literacies in Early Years55Chapter 4: Teacher Education and Digital Literacy554.1 Professional Development and Digital Literacy564.2 Digital Literacy in Higher Education564.2.1 UK Professional Standards Framework564.2.2 OERs for Learning and Teaching in HE564.3 Digital Literacy in Teacher Education564.3.1 Research Briefing on Digital Literacy for Teachers564.4 "grumpy old teachers"[working title]564.5 Case Studies564.5.1 Reflections on Digital Literacies and Openness within Professional Practice564.5.2 User Reviews of Case Studies564.5.3 Teach in Sheffield using Digital Video564.6 Practical ideas for the classroom56Chapter 5: The Story of DEFT565.1 DEFT Project Methodology57Reflexive aspects of project methodology575.2 Reflexive Moments in the Project575.2.1 A reflective analysis of digital practices in the project575.3 Project dissemination575.4 Lessons Learned595.5 What Next?59

Chapter 1: Introduction

[100 words: description of the chapter and its contents]

1.1. About this resource

[300 words: background; funding; project team - media: voiceover screencast of the resource; copyright statement, and ethics / permissions statement ]

1.2. How to useComment by Anna Gruszczynska: I propose to change this heading to "how to re-use" in the spirit of openness

[300 words: how to use this resource, its intended purposes ]

1.2.1 Scenarios for use

[300 words: a guide to making effective use of the resource; about Browse and Search; about the Key Questions (20); about DL for Teachers Course curriculum ]

1.2.2 Mapping of parts

[300 words: media: visual mapping of resources hyperlinked to contents; What you will find here - a description of each of the chapters; list of media and images ]

1.2.3 Guide to AccessibilityComment by Anna Gruszczynska: please note this is placeholder text - AG to revise once OT is ready following consultation with developer

[300 words: guidance on accessibility including font, colour, screen readers etc ]

Accessibility Statement

We haveendeavouredto make this site usable and fully accessible.

This elearning resource has been designed to be accessible to the widest audience possible and reviewed for compliance to accessibility standards by the [tbc]. This page lists some of the features used to make the resources easier to use. If you are experiencing problems using the resources, or have any questions and comments about their accessibility, please let us know by emailingdeft@shu.ac.uk

Browser compatibility

This site has been designed to display in the following browsers under the stated operating systems:

Windows:Comment by Anna Gruszczynska: check with developer - this is placeholder text!

Internet Explorer [check versions with developer]

Firefox [check versions with developer]

Safari [?]

Opera [?]

Google Chrome [?]

AppleMac:

Safari

Firefox

Formats of documents

All the documentation on the site is offered in Word or PDF.

The Open Textbook website offers the following usability and accessibility features to help users:

Increasing the text sizeThe majority of this website has been designed to be legible at larger font sizes.

The two most common methods to increase the font size on our web-pages are:

1. Use the browser text-resize functionality

2. Use the accessibility tools built in to the website. [note this is placeholder text]

Use your browsers text-resize functionalityModern browsers allow you to change the size of the text should you want to. To do this, hold down the Control Button and press + or - to increase or decrease text size respectively. For browsers where this does not work, please refer to the browser's help documentation.

Use the accessibility tools built in to the website. [TBC]

Changing the pagecolour

There are several ways to change thecoloursof our web pages to make them more readable:

1. Use the browser/operating system options available.

2. Use the accessibility tools built in to the website.

Use the browser/operating system options available.

Rich media content accessibility

Written transcripts of all audio and video elements are available as both webpages and Adobe PDF files. All images have been provided with alternative descriptions.

Using the resources without a mouse [placeholder text might be deleted]

All materials have been designed to be accessible using the keyboard. Use the Tab key to access navigational elements such as buttons and interactive diagrams. Pop-up windows with scroll bars can be accessed with the tab key, with the scroll-bar being operable via the up and down arrow keys.

Accessing the resources with a screen reader

All resources have a narration of the main text. However if you use a screen reader, we recommend using the Text Only version for each resource [placeholder text to be revised].

Further reading

Take a visit to the BBC's My Web My Waysite to find out other accessibility options available to you.

[insert link to JISC TechDis and especially ACTOER - AccessibilityChallenges andTechniques forOpenEducationalResources project resources]

1.3 Acknowledgements

[100 words: who did what ]

The Digital Futures in Teacher Education (DeFT) project was undertaken as part of the third phase of the HEA/JISC-funded UK OER programme.Comment by Anna Gruszczynska: we have to include this somewhere in the document to acknowledge the funder

1.3.1 Contacts

[50 words: who to contact for further information ]

Chapter 2: About Digital Literacy

[100 words: description of the chapter and its contents]

2.1 Defining Digital LiteracyComment by Anna Gruszczynska: for the entire chapter - see also papers produced by team - scoping paper and ECEL paper; digital literacy wiki page; Guy's blog posts tagged with DL; DeFT blog posts on DL

[500 words: definition that is used by this resource based on what the OT means by Digital Literacy ; definitions used elsewhere]

This project defines digital literacy as:Comment by Isabelle: Pass onto Guy Merchant for definition that team agrees upon

[explication of how the definition of digital literacy chosen for this resource directs the shape, focus, functionality and content of this resource]Comment by Isabelle: Need bullet points from Richard on this (might depend on definition maybe provide a provisional definition that Guy can review?)

[how definition maps to others]

Digital literacy can refer to a range of ideas, from specific skills and competences to more general awareness and perspectives (Bawden 2001). Definitions also reflect the focus of the authors. For example Futurelab (which has a focus on schools), defines digital literacy as:

the ability to make and share meaning in different modes and formats; to create, collaborate and communicate effectively and to understand how and when digital technologies can best be used to support these processes.

(Hague and Payton 2008).

JISC, which covers colleges and universities, describes digital literacy as those capabilities which fit an individual for living, learning and working in a digital society (JISC 2011). This focus beyond education towards work is reflected in other definitions from higher education, such as the capabilities required to thrive in and beyond education, in an safe when digital forms of information and communication predominate (Littlejohn, Beetham et al. 2012).

Because of the ever changing nature of technology, some authors emphasise that digital literacy is a condition, note a threshold (Martin 2006) and caution against defining digital literacy in a finite way. Lankshear and Knobel refer to new literacies meaning those practices that are mediated by post-typographic forms of text (Lankshear and Knobel 2011) of which digital literacy forms a part.

2.2 A review of literature on Digital Literacy in Education

[8000 words: based on Brents lit review commissioned for the project]

2.3 Current Digital Literacy FrameworksComment by Anna Gruszczynska: the scoping paper touches upon these frameworks

[500 words: an outline of (and links to) existing frameworks for digital literacy; the (now defunct) National Curriculum for ICT; JISC Framework for Digital Literacy; how these frameworks are (have been) realised in practice and policy and the effects of this on understandings and learning activities ]Comment by Isabelle: Richard to provide bullet points on this

[see also email from ITTE mailing list uploaded to wiki - ICT to be taken out of secondary school curriculum?]

[comment from the ECEL paper:

In a relatively short length of time, ways of thinking about digital technologies in schools seem to have shifted in the UK. When the Deft project began in September 2011, it was pretty clear that the ICT curriculum was the last place to look for interesting digital practices. But as the academic year has unfolded, competing conceptualizations of digital literacy have surfaced. Some of these are not too far away from the ideas first put forward by Glister (1997:290) who suggested that DL is:

'a set of skills to access the Internet; find, manage and edit digital information; join in communications; and otherwise engage with an online information and communication network. In simple terms, digital literacy is the ability to properly use and evaluate digital resources, tools and services and apply it to their lifelong learning process.' (Glister, 1997:220).

Yet, current work in fields such as literacy studies, media, popular culture and information studies continues to offer rich and competing views of what is central to an understanding of DL. This emphasises the sheer diversity of existing accounts of digital literacy (Lankshear & Knobel, 2010). In the context of the Deft project, our engagement with the case study material has focused on the constantly changing practices through which people make traceable meanings using digital technologies (Gillen & Barton, 2011).

2.4 Towards a revised framework for Digital Literacy in EducationComment by Richard: Not sure this title is correct

[3000 words: a summative analysis / commentary on the work of the project with respect to existing frameworks and approaches to digital literacy, highlighting (based on the work of the project) what they do not account for, what is partial or incomplete, and new insights that inform our understandings of digital literacy and the implications of this for learning and teaching.Comment by Isabelle: Need bullet points and more guidance on this able to edit but not sure I can provide text given I havent been engaged in the actual project

2.5 Digital Literacy in Schools: Values and IdentitiesComment by Richard: Not sure this title is correct

[200 words: introduction to cross-cutting themes; a mapping of these to case studies and other aspects of the OT ]

2.5.1 Identities

Identity is a concept that has many aspects. Moje and Luke (2009), in a review of the relationship between identity and literacy, identified five commonly used metaphors metaphors: identity as (a) difference, (b) sense of self/subjectivity, (c) mind or consciousness, (d) narrative, and (e) position. The primary metaphor drawn upon in this project is (b), identity as a sense of self/subjectivity. In many of the case studies, teachers enabled pupils to explore and present aspects of their identities in creative ways.

In relation to identity in a digital world, there are a number of issues to consider. First is the way in which digital technologies enable expressions of identity across a range of forms. Personalisation of digital tools is made infinitely possible, as we can set our preferences and choose particular software, websites etc. for specific purposes related to identity expression e.g. background to blog posts, choice of photographs on Facebook pages and so on. Second, the case studies in this project demonstrate the relationship between the digital and identity construction and performance. As children blogged, filmed, edited and created multimodal texts, they also explored aspects of their identities, such as their identities as consumers of popular culture. Third, there is currently much emphasis on managing digital identities. Important in work with children and young people is engaging them in reflections on the way in which digital identities can be traced across the Internet and the implications of this for reputation. The networked self is part of complex and ever-changing networked publics and this requires reflexivity relating to status, engagement in rituals and online relationships. There are numerous resources for use in this context. Work on managing digital footprints (the online trails we leave as we use sites and services), for example, is embedded in materials relating to digital citizenship. Comment by Isabelle: Should resources be in this section (or is identity too abstract?)

2.5.1.1 References/Links to further resources

Moje, E.B. and Luke, A. (2009) Literacy and Identity: Examining the Metaphors in History and Contemporary Research. Reading Research Quarterly. 44 (4):415 - 437.

2.5.2 Learners and Teachers

In the digital age, the nature of learning and teaching is being constantly transformed. Here, we consider issues relating to the learner and the teacher separately.

2.5.2.1 Learners

Lankshear and Knobel (2004) identify four roles which they suggest characterise the practices people engage in as they learn to produce, distribute and exchange texts in the new media age. Using the phrase the digitally at home to describe a generation comfortable with and competent in the use of new technologies, the roles they outline for these digitally at home are: a designer of texts; a text mediator or broker; a text bricoleur and a text jammer (Lankshear and Knobel, 2004). These categories are not intended to be exhaustive; they serve as examples of the kinds of roles assumed by authors of digital texts.

With regard to the role of text designer, Lankshear and Knobel (2004) emphasise that the concept of design, rather than traditional conceptions of authorship, is important in the production of multimodal, digital texts. This has also been a constant theme in the work of Gunther Kress (1997; 2003; 2010). Kress suggests that:

Design takes for granted competence in the use of resources, but beyond

that it requires the orchestration and remaking of these resources in the

service of frameworks and models that express the makers intentions in

shaping the social and cultural environment.

(Kress, 1997:77)

This has implications for teachers in that an understanding is needed of the ways in which such decision-making processes can be supported and extended. In addition, recognition of the range of resources children draw on as they make these decisions need to be developed within nurseries and schools. Educators who have a broader understanding of the rich range of textual practices children bring to the classroom have greater opportunities to enhance childrens learning.

In addition to text designer, Lankshear and Knobel also identify the role of text bricoleur as being significant to contemporary communicative practices. Lankshear and Knobel elicit de Certaus concept of bricolage as being the artisant like inventiveness (1984:xv, 66) of peoples everyday practices in which they draw on whatever is to hand to create texts. Lankshear and Knobel illustrate the concept by focusing on web users creation of texts within online communities. Of course, this intertextual aspect of childrens texts is not particular to new technologies; as the work of Dyson indicates in relation to childrens paper-based writing tasks, Bahktinian principles of heteroglossia and dialogical processes permeate childrens classroom work (Dyson, 1997; 2002). However, the use of new media does make this bricolage process much easier and it is clear that a key role for the educator in the information economy is to facilitate childrens development of critical literacy skills in relation to web-based material so that children can effectively undertake the authorial role of text bricoleur.

The third role Lankshear and Knobel (2004) identify is that of text broker. In relation to new media practices, this could describe, for example, the role of people who manage discussion boards, or people who give online articles and blogs ratings so that readers have guidance, should they want this, in terms of which texts they should read. The broker mediates texts between the author and reader. Finally, the role of text jammer describes the process of changing or adapting electronic texts in order to subvert the messages given in effect, online critical literacy practices. All of these roles present challenges for the usual practices of primary classrooms, in which authorial roles in relation to texts are generally restricted to normative conceptions of what a writer does. In the following section, we explore the implications of the textual practices of the digitally at home (Lankshear and Knobel, 2004) for the teacher.

2.5.2.2 Teachers

Whilst many of the traditional roles of a teacher would be maintained in a new media age, such as teacher as facilitator, instructor, model and so on, Larson and Marsh (2005) suggest that there are three additional roles teachers need to adopt in order to facilitate childrens navigation of complex, multimodal, electronic worlds. These can be conceptualized in the following way:

Teacher as resource manager. This involves providing children with a range of resources which can enable them to develop the skills, knowledge and understanding needed to analyse and produce multimodal, multimedia texts. However, it is not simply a matter of provision; indeed, children themselves can bring valuable resources to the site of learning, given their knowledge of such resources, such as websites, outside of school. Rather, the teacher needs to ensure that, overall, resources are sufficiently broad and balanced to facilitate effective learning. In addition, the teacher needs to enable children to develop further their critical skills in relation to resources, helping children to make decisions about the affordances of different modes and media so that they can use these appropriately.

Teacher as co-constructor of knowledge. There has been much already written about how, in a new media age, the role of teacher needs to move from one of possessing authoritative knowledge to acknowledging that students will know as much, if not more at times and so an effective pedagogical model is one of teachers and students learning together (Lankshear and Knobel, 2011).

Teacher as design consultant. If one of the key authorial roles children adopt in a new media age is that of text designer (Lankshear and Knobel, 2004), then an important role for the teacher becomes one in which advice and feedback is given on the processes and products of designs. Consultancy assumes some sort of expertise on the part of the consultant. In this case, the expectation is not that the teacher would have a much broader knowledge of the range of electronic texts which children may analyse or produce; the opposite may, in fact, be the case, given childrens encounters with a multitude of texts outside of classrooms. Rather, the expertise would be related to the knowledge teachers have of curriculum and assessment frameworks and one of her or his main aims would be to ensure that childrens work helped them to meet these specific criteria. Feedback on design processes or products, therefore, would be predicated on an understanding of the kinds of skills, knowledge and understanding children need to demonstrate in order to meet externally-imposed criteria. In addition, consultancy usually involves an appraisal by the consultant of the areas that the client has not already considered and feedback on this; similarly, teachers need to provide advice to pupils on aspects of the assignment or product that have been overlooked. Often, this task is made easier in relation to technology-based activities, as children can often track decision-making processes in a more transparent manner because of the affordances of the electronic mode (e.g. ability to save different versions). Finally, a consultancy role is usually one in which the agenda is firmly within the hands of the client; he or she decides what the particular issue or problem is that requires a consultants input. Similarly, in literacy activities which involve new technologies, children need to be encouraged by teachers to make the kind of reflective decisions which lead to self-identification of issues for further consultation.

(Larson and Marsh, 2005)

The characteristics of learners and teachers in the digital age that are outlined above can be seen embedded across all of the case studies. They demonstrate how work on digital literacies can transform curriculum and pedagogy in order to enhance pupil agency and teacher flexibility.

2.5.2.3 References/Links to further resources

Dyson, A.H. (2002) Brothers and Sisters Learn to Write: Popular Literacies in

Childhood and School Cultures, New York: Teachers College Press.

Dyson, A. (1997). Writing superheroes: Contemporary childhood, popular

culture, and classroom literacy. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kress, G. (2010) Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary

communication. London: Routledge.

Kress, G. (2003) Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.

Kress, G. (1997). Before Writing: Rethinking the Paths to Literacy. London:

Routledge.

Lankshear, C. and Knobel, C. (2011) New Literacies:. Everyday Practices and

Social Learning (3rd ed) Buckingham: Open University Press.

Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2004b). Planning pedagogy for i-mode: From

flogging to blogging via wi-fi. Published jointly in English in Australia 139

(February) / Literacy Learning in the Middle Years 12 (1): 78 102.

Larson, J. and Marsh, J. (2005) Making Literacy Real: Theories and Practices for Teaching and Learning. London, New Dehli, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

2.5.3 Digital natives

[Isabelle, you might also find the following useful to help you edit this section:

slideshare document with findings from the focus groups with PGCE students in January;

Nicky's post there's generations and generations;

Anna's post and the three year old with an ipad

The concept of digital natives and immigrants was developed by Marc Prensky (2001), who argued that there were generational differences with regard to the use of and confidence with new technologies. The young, he suggests, are immersed in digital practices from a very young age and these digital natives feel it entirely at home in the digital terrain. On the other hand, older people who did not grow up with these technologies can be seen as digital immigrants who speak an outdated language and are unsure about many aspects of the digital landscape they encounter as a foreign land. The concept has been subject to widespread critique (see Thomas, 2011), given the way in which evidence suggests that not all children have access to or use technologies in the way that Prensky suggests (Marsh et al., 2005) and there are many older people who are extensive users of technology (Zickkuhr & Madden, 2012).

a number of studies critique this proposition and suggest a more nuanced understanding of divisions between individuals experience of digital technologies, where levels of access and competence/confidence are determined by factors such as societal position, race, and gender, rather than age and educational status (Selwyn2004; Hargittai, 2010). A further body of research, involving a large scale investigation in Australian Schools, questions if a digital divide even exists or if stakeholders are overreacting (Bennett et al., 2008).Comment by Anna Gruszczynska: from scoping paper - feel free to tweak/delete

Nonetheless, testimonies from many teachers would suggest that young children do have a range of competences with technologies that should be acknowledged by schools. Kate Cosgrove, teacher involved in the Mundella case study, commented on the skills of the children in her class:

My 6 and 7 yr olds were probably more confident than my now 14 yr old secondary school student. I realised that all I had to do was present them with the technology and they could instinctively move between programmes, games and the web to create a feedback laden world that was rich in communication and dialogue. The digital literacy here was about being digitally literate. Using the technology with confidence. Applying their skills to a new platform. Using their knowledge in a range of contexts.

Similarly, the 3 and 4-year-olds in Sharrow Nursery demonstrated a range of competencies in using iPads and cameras. Perhaps one way of noting this pattern without becoming embroiled in the difficulties embedded in the native/immigrant metaphor is to refer to the way in which many children and young people are digitally fluent. This does not preclude other generations from being similarly fluent, but the term points to the way in which many young children are immersed in the language of technology from birth and thus become confident in communicating through and with it before they begin formal schooling. Similarly, through their widespread engagement with new technologies and media outside of school, older children and young people may develop fluency in digital literacies that can be drawn upon and extended further in classrooms. If teachers do not feel as fluent in this digital language, then the learners can become the experts and lead the learning in classrooms, as we can see in many of the case studies in this project.

One of the key themes emerging from our conversations with the teachers was that a lot of them described their pupils as digital natives, arguing that their students were much more competent than themselves and that accordingly, they (i.e. the teachers) needed to work really hard to be able to keep up with their students - to be able to respond to the knowledge and skills that the students were bringing into the classroom. In terms of professional development, a number of project participants expressed their concerns about being able to keep up with the rapid changes in technology to keep their teaching interestingComment by Anna Gruszczynska: from the report - feel free to delete/amend

2.5.3.1 References/Links to further resources Reference

Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, Vol. 9 Iss: 5, pp.1 6. Accessed at: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky%20-%20digital%20natives,%20digital%20immigrants%20-%20part1.pdf

Thomas, M. (ed) (2011) Deconstructing digital natives: Young people, technology and the new literacies. New York: Routledge.

Zickkuhr, K. and Madden, M. 2012. Older adults and Internet use. Report for Pew Research Centers Internet & American Life Project. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Older-adults-and-internet-use.aspx

2.5.4 Digital literacy and age-related issues

[300 words authored by Nicky exploring age-related issues in the context of digtial literacy -possibly building on material in digital natives section but exploring some of the myths/issus/assumptions about age and DL which emerged in the context of the project]

2.6 Digital Literacy and Openness

The growth of digital technologies has highlighted access and ownership of digital texts. Previously physical texts were limited in their degree of being shared; books could be lent by a library but only to one patron at a time. Digital texts in contrast can potentially be made available to a wide range of readers. Consequently openness has a direct connection with digital technology reflected in the range of concepts openness is applied to. For example open source software, open access publishing, open data.

Within education the concept of openness has undergone a number of transformations. The open classroom movement originated in the work of Ivan Illich (1971), attempting to realise utopian educational ideals in the physical organisation of school architecture. Open schooling used the work of Froebel, Pestalozzi and Rousseau to create a child-centred philosophy of education without formal curriculum structures and traditional school hierarchies. This movement achieved a limited recognition in mainstream education in England and Wales through the Plowden Report (Central Advisory Council for Education 1967). The Open University, created at the same time (1969) used openness in a different form. Its mission statement was to be open to people, places, methods and idea. This introduced open access to education and pioneered distance and blended learning.

The most recent transformation of the concept of openness in education combines digital technology with philosophical ideas and includes open coursework whereby university level courses have been opened to use for all and open educational resources.

2.6.1 Open Education ResourcesComment by Anna Gruszczynska: AG to provide content for this section

[3500 words: what OERs are; types of OERs; what OERs mean for learning and teaching; links to external resources and information; open education practices ]Comment by Isabelle: Need more info on this section

JISC uses the following broad definition of open educational resources taken from OER Commons

Open Educational Resources (OER) are teaching and learning materials

that are freely available online for everyone to use, whether you are an

instructor, student or self-learner. Examples of OER include: full courses,

course modules, syllabi, lectures, homework assignments, quizzes, lab

and classroom activities, pedagogical materials, games, simulations, and

many more resources contained in digital media collections from around

the world.

The key element of OERs is the fact that they encompass a variety of teaching resources which are free at the point of access and that they can be re-used by anyone regardless of whether they are affiliated with a formal educational institution or not. Importantly, OERs are highly customisable and allow for re-use and sharing with few copyright restrictions given that they either reside in the public domain or have been released under a license (most commonly a Creative Commons [CC] license) that permits their free use or repurposing by others (Atkins et al., 2007:4). Mackintosh (2011) has broadened this definition to incorporate three interrelated dimensions: educational values (in terms of barrier-free access to the resources), pedagogical utility (anyone accessing OERs should be able to reuse, revise, remix and redistribute the resources) and technology enablers (i.e. OERs should be in a format which ensures that they are meaningfully editable). This means that potential (re)users of OERs are positioned not as mere consumers but as active participants in the process of creating and sharing the resources (Tosato and Bodi, 2012).

Existing research on OERs in the UK context engages mostly on issues of relevance to the higher education sector, with a number of studies examining the use of OER and their impact on academic practice as well as barriers and enablers to OER uptake (Browne et al., 2010; Nikoi et al., 2011; Rolfe, 2012). In terms of issues of relevance to the school sector, most existing research focuses on the implementation of OERs in developing countries. This includes initiatives such as The High School BLOSSOMS (Blended Learning Open Source Science or Math Studies Initiative) project in the Middle East Region (Larson and Murray, 2008) which examined low-tech solutions to overcoming barriers to accessing OERs. The Teacher Education in sub-Saharan Africa project (TESSA) undertaken by Open University examined issues involved in supporting user communities to harness and integrate OERs for their own systems and cultures (Thakrar et al., 2009, Wolfenden et al. 2010).

This context has a number of advantages to the specific area of the DeFT project and the broader areas of digital literacy in teacher education. Firstly, in the UK as elsewhere there is a diversity of models of teacher preparation, including university-school partnerships and programmes that are entirely school based. This means that trainee teachers, or for that matter early career teachers, are likely to need access to support materials at different stages in their preparation for teaching and at a variety of points during their academic or professional study. The flexibility offered by OERS fits well with the diversity of provision. Secondly, the field of digital literacy itself is characterised by its fluidity as new devices become available and new programmes and applications are being developed. The rapid changes in the curriculum structures of compulsory schooling promote this sense of fluidity, and the adaptability and reusability of OERS is well-suited to this catalyst.

The project offers models of engagement with and embedding of OERs in a way which is replicable and scalable as well as models of engaging teachers in reflection on issues related to OERs and openness. Materials developed in the context of the project such as reflexive activities[footnoteRef:1] could be easily modified and used to provide teaching professionals with an opportunity to share their perspectives on open sharing of teaching materials. [1: See http://www.slideshare.net/DEFToer3/digital-futures-in-teacher-education-reflexive-methodology]

under open practices mention the following [to be edited/cut down]:

A number of the case studies explored the affordances of open tools. Perhaps the most prominent example is that of Peter Winter at Monteney Primary School whose case study introduced a set of activities linked by the theme of "Monsters at Monteney" and aimed to develop childrens abilities to use a range of open source online tools for digital arts, storytelling and poetry. Peter was very clear that he wanted to develop a set of resources that would enable children to undertake a series of activities independently and which they could access both from home and school. He felt that it was important that these resources should be open source and able to access across any platform:

I really wanted this project to be about accessibility. Not just for the pupils. But for any teachers or parents who wish to try out some of the activities with their children. Too often the opportunity to try out new and exciting learning opportunities can be stymied by a reliance on one particular operating system, a piece of kit they do not possess (or cannot afford) or a level of technical expertise Mr Zuckerberg would quake at.

The case study illustrates further benefits of open approaches to teaching practice - using open source tools meant that pupils could continue working on project tasks outside of the school environment and continue their learning.[footnoteRef:2] Similarly, the open nature of the tools and resources would allow teachers to undertake tasks across the curriculum without being restricted by cost of software licences or specialised equipment. [2: At the same time, we are aware that access to technology is not always unproblematic for the learners and that it shouldnt be universally assumed children would universally be able to access free and open resources at home. ]

2.6.1.1 References/Links to further resources

OER Commons

Creating open educational resources. Open University courseComment by Isabelle: http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=3636

2.6.2 Open Education Practices in classroom context

[300-400 words on OER-related issues in school context on the basis of project findings]

the project has offered an insight into issues related to sharing of teaching materials online and embedding Open Educational Resources within the school sector, these are as follows:

The school context presents unique challenges when it comes to learner-produced resources, these include issues around e-safety and e-security, as well as ownership of resources and the need to consider permissions from parents/guardians for the open release of resources.

While few educators are aware of the concept of OERs, they are very keen to re-use materials from sources such online teaching resource banks and accordingly, websites such as Times Education Supplement or teachernet would be best placed to raise awareness about OERs and model best practices with regard to copyright and IPR

In the context of the school sector, it is probably more helpful to focus on open practices rather than solely OERs to acknowledge the involvement of teachers with practices of sharing resources, willingness to incorporate open source tools in their teaching practice etc. At the same time, a number of the case studies also show barriers to greater uptake of open practices and especially open source tools because of restrictions put in place within school IT networksComment by Anna Gruszczynska: Richard, does that make sense to you - is this the message we would like to share?

Overall, responses from project participants indicated high levels of re-use, especially with regard to online teaching materials from teaching resource banks such as TeachFind and Teachernet; at the same time, only a small minority indicated any familiarity with the concept of Open Educational Resources. A number of participants mentioned their frustration with the teaching resource banks arguing that resources were often not described in a way that met their needs - for instance, they mentioned they would like to be able to search for resources in a specific curriculum area. They also mentioned they would like to be able to filter the search results according to assessment objectives, levels (i.e. primary/secondary) and provenance (UK vs non-UK); they also wanted to have an indication of whether the resource was visual/auditory/kinaesthetic so that they could best adapt it to their teaching needs. Given that lack of description is one of the key barriers to reuse of Open Educational Resources (Conole and Adams, 2010), these issues should be addressed as a matter of priority to improve the uptake of OERs within the school sector.

One of the key motifs for engagement with OERs was to support professional practice. This is probably best exemplified by the case study undertaken at Wales High School, where Michael Payton-Greene created a school blog whose aim was to encourage the open sharing of resources and enhanced reflection on pedagogic practice. In the context of that case study, Open Educational Resources functioned as a tool to improve communication between and within departments, share best practices and support professional development.

[paragraph below is on issues related to learner-produced OERs - will be revised!]

The project has raised a number of both logistic and ethical issues involved when it comes to pupil involvement with OERs; for instance, issues of copyright become even more complex in the school context where issues related to e-safety and e-safeguarding are of key importance and parent permission has to be secured.

Furthermore, the open release of resources produced by learners involves securing permission from parents/guardians who may have little understanding of issues involved in open licensing and sharing of online teaching materials; this may raise complex ethical issues. The issue of attribution can be problematic with regard to learner-produced work - as a safety precaution, school pupils are cautioned not to release personal details online.

2.6.2.1 References/Links to further resources

to be added

2.6.3 Open Education Practices in teacher education

[300-400 words on OER-related issues in school context on the basis of project findings]

The findings of the project indicate the need to acknowledge issues related to Open Educational Resources/practices within the PGCE curriculum; OERs could also be particularly useful to support professional development of PGCE students and NQTs (Newly Qualified Teachers)

It is crucial to raise awareness of trainee teachers and their educators about Open Educational Resources to dispel some of the misconceptions but also demonstrate how resources could be shared to maximise benefit to creators. For instance, by releasing teaching resources into a well-respected educational repository, teachers could receive professional recognition from a wider community of practice and useful feedback which could in turn improve their practice. By licensing the materials with an appropriate Creative Commons license, they would remain in control of how the resources are (re)used and repurposed; and they could also collect information from the repository about the number of views and downloads.

Overall, the responses of PGCE students pointed to a widespread culture of sharing, especially within the immediate network of peers:

I have shared my resources with my course mates in a Facebook group. I have also shared them with the department at my placement school. I did this because I use others' resources so I think it is fair to share myself (quote from a focus group with PGCE students).Comment by Anna Gruszczynska: let me know if you feel there are better quotes I should use here

I think sharing good practice is a good part of developing professionally and using tried and tested resources- adapting them, differentiating them, reinventing them - saves time and often improves the quality of learning for students when I have run out of creative ideas! (quote from a focus group with PGCE students).

I have contributed resources a couple of timesto TES because it is sharing with other teachers. That is something I would like to do more of. It is such a big help, not having to reinvent the wheel (quote from a teacher involved with the project).

Thus sharing was seen as an essential element of professional identity (as one of the respondents indicated, "you are sharing with kids anyway all the time) and a crucial part of continuous professional development - an impulse to enhance/improve good teaching. At the same time, while both teachers and PGCE students were happy to share resources within their immediate network (i.e. peers on the course; teachers on placements), they had a number of reservations when it came to releasing their resources openly online and sharing them with a potentially unknown audience:

I am always willing to share my resources with other members of staff in school and have done this on a regular basis at my current placement. I have shied away from sharing materials online contexts, however, as I always feel a little protective of the things I produce because I invest a lot of time in making resources, and dont feel entirely comfortable at present to make it freely available for anyone to download. I like knowing who is using it! (quote from a focus group with PGCE students).

Other disincentives for sharing were related to copyright, with some project participants openly admitting that they wanted to "avoid the hassle of figuring out copyright stuff" and assumed that sharing within the network of their peers bypassed the need to address these issues. Some believed that copyright was irrelevant if resources were shared for educational purposes and reasoned that "nobody would bring it up they are not going to go back to someone". Others went as far as to argue that if resources are available online then by default they can be reused without regard for copyright as evidenced in the following quote:

Thats the one thing that I have not really thought about, I mean the images that I use, I think if they are freely available to get on line, and if you can to listen to it on line - that might sound really bad, but that's my impression, then surely they are free to use (quote from a focus group with PGCE students).

The above exchange illustrates a number of misconceptions related to copyright and sharing open resources - such as for instance that copyright is irrelevant if resources are intended for private and/or educational use. These misconceptions need to be addressed so that teachers can model good practice and take full advantage of benefits offered by Open Educational Resources.

2.6.3.1 References/Links to further resources

to be added

2.6.24 AccessibilityComment by Isabelle: Can Anna provide this?

[ 500 words: what the issues of accessibility are; a description of how these can be overcome; links to external resources and information ]

Accessibility isabout the provision of content and services in a manner most suitable to the user, no matter what disability they may have, in order for them to fully participate with it. By sensible design, based on awareness of user needs (and provider responsibilities) the delivery of materials should not present any significantbarriers to the user. Accessibility is absolutelyvital for a project to produce truly 'open' educationalresources. The ethos of 'open' is to be accessible consider 'open' in the widest social sense, not (as often illustrated) geographically. If the outputs are not meeting appropriate accessibility requirements then they have failed to be 'open' before they have even left the building, and a sustainability decline has alreadycommenced.

A principal philosophy behind Open Educational Resourcesis to maximise opportunity for others to be able to engage - not only as recipients but also as potential contributors. For a resource to be adopted (i.e. used 'as is') or adapted (i.e. enhanced, disaggregated or integrated into other resources)in another institution it must be attractive in terms of its content and the standards it follows. But accessibility does not have to be onerous or restrictive; a lowest common denominator - from http://www.booki.cc/oer-tech/accessibility/

barriers and enablers ///key issues and recommendations:Comment by Anna Gruszczynska: copied and pasted from a report I wrote to be edited

The responsibility for the provision of accessible OERs should not solely reside with resource creators. While it is vital to increase awareness of teaching professionals of OER-related accessibility issues, at the same time, there is a need to provide adequate support in terms of technical resources, relevant institutional policies as well as guidance from learning technologists and accessibility specialists as and when needed.

There are a number of relatively simple strategies that could greatly enhance the accessibility of OERs, such as using of accessibility features embedded within software packages or addressing accessibility considerations within resource description and so resource creators should be encouraged to take advantage of these simple "fixes"

The key accessibility features iinclude the provision of transcript for any audio/video material and ensuring that the resource is an easily customisable format

There is a need to provide OER-related accessibility resources which address discipline specific issues alongside more generic resources which address the needs of teaching professionals who work in cross-disciplinary contexts

There is a need to address accessibility features of platforms where OERs are deposited, and education repositories should be designed with accessibility in mind

Accessibility issues are complex and should not be discussed in isolation from other OER-related issues such as copyright or academic practices related to sharing resources

Finally, accessibility issues should be explicitly addressed within OER projects, such as UKOER programme; ideally, project managers should be encouraged to address accessibility issues within project documents and workpackages

2.6.4.1 References/Links to further resources

to be added

2.6.3 5 E-safetyComment by Anna Gruszczynska: possibility of YHGfL contribution here

E-Safety concerns managing safety in insert link to relation to a range of technologies, not just the use of the Internet. However, much of the focus for E-Safety work concerns the Internet, given that it enables users to engage with unknown others through the use of e-mail, chat rooms, social networking sites, games and so on. Schools E-Safety policy suggests that:

E-Safety concerns safeguarding children and young people in the digital world

E-Safety emphasises learning to understand and use new technologies in a positive way

E-Safety is less about restriction and more about education about the risks as well as the benefits so we can feel confident online

E-Safety is concerned with supporting children and young people to develop safer online behaviours both in and out of school

The principles above emphasise that E-Safety should not be focused on restriction, but instead help children and young people to use technologies in a reflexive and confident manner. Sonia Livingstone, in a review of her extensive work on children and young peoples use of the Internet, outlines that there are both risks and opportunities in this area and that to restrict Internet use is to inhibit children's development of strategies to manage risks effectively. It is also important to acknowledge that this is a complex area and that simplistic approaches to safety, such as those that focus on stranger danger (despite evidence that negative experiences of the Internet and other technologies can arise from interactions with people we know), will not provide children and young people with the skills and knowledge they need.

There are various resources that provide guidance on managing E-Safety. The UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS) is a voluntary organisation that focuses on managing risks such as cyberbullying, harmful e-content and loss of privacy. It offers a range of resources for teachers, children and parents at the UK Safer Internet Centre website. Kidsmart is another organisation that produces resources aimed at a variety of audiences, including primary school children. Similarly, Childnet international provide a website that offers resources for the youngest children and considers the needs of children with special educational needs.

School policies and practices on E-Safety need to attend to the following issues, depending on the age of children:

management of technology use

privacy

safeguarding (e.g. not sharing passwords)

management of online reputation and digital footprints

cyber-bullying

security in social networking sites

safe searching on the Internet

sexting

online grooming

file-sharing and downloading

embedded adverts and advergames

data-mining and cookies

viruses and scams

The management of E-Safety is a partnership between schools, children and parents, but it is important for schools not to assume that pupils will develop E-Safety strategies at home. Schools can be an important source of information and support for parents. For example, one of our case study schools, Monteney primary, has a page on the school website which offers guidance on Internet safety for parents.

One of the most successful ways of approaching the development of E-Safety knowledge and skills with children is to embed the learning of them into meaningful digital literacy activities in the classroom and not teach them as an isolated set of skills and practices. In the case study conducted at Bradfield School, the teacher, Chris, aimed to develop pupils understanding of E-Safety through the development of a blog. Chris was aware that it is important not to over-emphasise issues of risk and stated that:

In some cases I was surprised how strict some of the children were regarding E-Safety. They were very aware of many of the issues relating to posting personal information and photos online, based on previous work we had done. However, some of the responses did make me wonder if we had perhaps over-stated the dangers of the Internet - is it possible to scare children off the using the Internet? There's a fine line to tread between safety and paranoia - however, I also get the feeling that some of the children were telling us what they thought they wanted to hear!

There are now many resources that can help teachers, children and parents to develop a range of strategies for managing E-safety and E-safeguarding, some of which we have referred to here. However, the most important skill that teachers could develop in this context is reflexivity. Being constantly alert to the needs of the pupils, their prior experience and knowledge and the risks and opportunities inherent in any classroom activity will mean that teachers can draw on the resources to hand in strategic and thoughtful ways and can, therefore, guard against some of the dangers Chris refers to above.

2.6.35.1 References/Links to further resources

Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the Internet. Cambridge: Polity.

2.6.4 6 Digital Citizenship

Digital Citizenship is an umbrella term that brings together issues of openness and digital literacy in an educational context. It has also been defined as the ability to participate in society online Comment by Isabelle: (http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/2131/1942).

Digital citizenship is a concept that refers to a person taking an active part in society through technology. Being a digital citizen is not just about using technology, but about meaningful participation and engagement. The website created by Childnet International, Digizen, contains a range of resources which help to explain the concept further. Digital citizenship incorporates work on E-Safety, but is a much broader concept that is concerned about using technology both safely and responsibly. It has obvious overlaps with citizenship and many of the approaches used in citizenship education could be adapted to ensure that digital lives are included. Digital citizenship is about being responsible, making informed decisions and participating in all aspects of digital life and it requires reflection on issues relating to values, ethics and rights. Enabling pupils to explore issues such as rights, responsibilities and obligations as digital citizens will help them to develop the skills and knowledge that can enable them to take part effectively in a digital society.

Ribble (2011) suggests that there are nine elements to digital citizenship which are represented in the diagram below:

SOURCE: HTTP://LEARN-THE-ROPES.WIKISPACES.COM/DIGITAL+CITIZENSHIP

Not sure if this is useful here - but see quote below from Michael Payton-Greene (Wales case study):

Michael Payton-Greene: Participation in the project has made me increasingly aware of the importance of developing students' and teachers' digital literacy, but probably more significantly, the responsibility educators have to enhance students' digital literacy skills and to encourage responsible digital citizenship. It also have given me the opportunity to work with a range wide of colleagues, both in and out of school, and enabled me to have a reflective and professional dialogue that I would not ordinarily have had. The opportunity to use a range of resources and participate in various INSET and teaching & learning conversations has also encouraged me to think more carefully about learning processes and thus had an impact on my teaching.

2.6.46.1 References/Links to further resources

Brainpop UK (2012). "Brainpop UK Spotlight: Digital Citizenship." Retrieved 26 September 2012, from http://www.brainpop.co.uk/spotlights/digital-citizenship/

Edutopia (2012). "Five-minute film festival - teaching digital citizenship." Retrieved 26th September 2012, from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/film-festival-digital-citizenship

Digizen.org (2012). "What is Digital Citizenship? Digital Citizenship from Childnet's point of view." Retrieved 26 September 2012, from http://www.digizen.org/digicentral/digital-citizenship.aspx

Childnet (2012). "Digital Citizenship: lesson plan." Retrieved 26 September 2012, from http://www.tes.co.uk/teaching-resource/Digital-citizenship-lesson-plan-6069499/

Chapter 3: Practice with Digital Literacy

[100 words: description of the chapter and its contents jigsaw or quilt of these as a visual map]

3.1 Digital Literacy

[1000 words: a discussion of the social construction of the concept of digital literacy and the implications of this for learning and teaching]

3.2 Creativity

Creativity is a rather nebulous concept, but has been variously defined as involving imaginative processes with outcomes that are original and of value (Robinson 2001:118). As Csikszentmihalyi (1996) points out, however, what is to be considered original and of value has to be socially determined in the first place. A further tension in defining this concept is that creativity has been viewed both as an act of genius and as everyday original and imaginative production, which Csikszentmihalyi (1999) has characterised as Big C and little c. In an attempt to capture something of the complex and nebulous nature of the concept and move beyond this binary account, Banaji and Burn (2010), in a review of the concept of creativity, outline eight rhetorics of creativity that underpin research, policy and practice in the field. These include the rhetorics of: creative genius; democratic and political creativity; ubiquitous creativity; creativity as a social good; play and creativity; creativity and cognition; creative affordances of technology and the creative classroom.

In their discussion on technology and creativity, Banaji and Burn (2010) point out that the use of technology does not necessarily mean that teaching and learning becomes more creative, but suggest there are affordances of technology which can facilitate creativity, such as provisionality, interactivity and the particular functions of software programs. They point to the research that has identified that whilst technology can promote creativity, what is important is not using technological tools for their own sake, but to pursue meaning-making in projects that enable pupils to develop their ideas over time, with opportunities to both complete carefully structured tasks and engage in open-ended experimentation.

This approach is also advocated by Avril Loveless in a Futurelab review of research on the relationship between technology and creativity (Loveless, 2007). She suggests that in considering how technologies might support creativity, we can consider clusters of purposeful activities, outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Clusters of purposeful activities with digital technologies for learning

(from Loveless 2007:7)

Knowledge building

Adapting and developing ideas

Modelling

Representing understanding in multimodal and dynamic ways

Distributed cognition

Accessing resources

Finding things out

Writing, composing and presenting with mediating artefacts and tools

Community and communication

Exchanging and sharing communication

Extending the context of activity

Extending the participating community at local and global levels

Engagement

Exploring and playing

Acknowledging risk and uncertainty

Working with different dimensions of interactivity

Responding to immediacy

Each of the DEFT case studies demonstrate a range of creative practices embodying the clusters of purposeful activities identified by Loveless (2007), practices that have enabled children to produce a variety of exciting texts and artefacts. However, in order to explore the clusters identified in Table 1 in greater depth, we will illustrate how the different activities identified by the bullet points can be undertaken through an analysis of the Monster@Monteney case study. Comment by Anna Gruszczynska: I believe Mundella case study/ Digital Bloom should also feature here

3.2.1 Knowledge building

Peter Winter began the sequence of activities he undertook as part of this project by enabling children to develop their knowledge of programming. The children accessed the Scratch website at MIT and explored some of the featured projects. Peter modelled the use of the Scratch programming software before the children attempted to make their own monsters using it. He then enabled the children to spend time playing with the program in order to adapt and develop their ideas. Finally, they demonstrated their understanding of the knowledge gained through their production of their own monsters. Peter was able to determine whether childrens lack of knowledge was limiting the development of their programming skills by careful observation. For example, he noticed that the children were able to create the monsters, but when they attempted to enable their monsters to engage each other in conversation, the speech bubbles from the monsters occurred simultaneously. Peter then brought the class together to review this problem and attempted to solve it collectively by working out how to sequence the speech bubbles effectively, using the interactive whiteboard. The children were then able to return to their workstations to undertake this task individually or in pairs.

3.2.2 Distributed cognition

Distributed cognition is a concept developed by Ed Hutchins and colleagues in the US in the 1980s to counter previous notions that cognition is an individual activity (see Hutchins, 1995). Hutchins identified that, in fact, cognitive activities extend beyond individuals and involve people thinking and learning alongside others, a process also referred to as intersubjectivity. The project enabled children to learn together and to help each other when specific children groups lacked particular knowledge or resources. For example, following the work using Scratch, children were invited to create their own monsters using Spore, 3-D animation software developed by Will Wright, the creator of Sims. Children who could follow the online tutorials that Peter created were quick to develop their monsters and other children who found aspects of the production process difficult asked their peers for help. Children had to think about giving their monster adaptations that would enable them to survive in the rainforest. This led to the children finding out about rainforests and the types of dangers they might present and then sharing the knowledge they had gained with each other.Comment by Anna Gruszczynska: link inserted

3.2.3 Community and communication

The children were able to share the work developed in the project with external audiences through the use of the School website. So, for example, parents and family members were able to view the monster poems the children created through the use of the site Voki. In some of the other case studies, such as Camp Cardboard, pupils were able to engage external audiences in communication through the use of blogs. As Davies and Merchant (2009) identify, blogs, wikis and other Web 2.0 sites facilitate authentic purposes for communication with individuals and groups external to classrooms in ways which were limited before the digital age.Comment by Anna Gruszczynska: link to monster poems inserted

3.2.4 Engagement

Pupils were engaged throughout the Monster@Monteney project because it involved opportunities to explore software and websites and to play with them before creating specific texts. When children are able to take risks and accept uncertainty, such approaches enable them to experiment without needing to commit to specific outcomes. This sort of approach can enhance levels of pupils engagement in learning tasks, as identified in the Digital Beginnings (Marsh et al., 2005) project, in which the Leuven Engagement Scale was used to determine childrens levels of engagement before and during tasks that involved media and new technologies. Levels of engagement can impact on the breadth and depth of learning and projects have identified how classroom activities that promote creative uses of technologies can have positive impacts on attainment (e.g. Marsh and Bearne, 2008).

3.2.5 Summary

Whilst creativity is a slippery concept, it is possible to discern across all of the case studies ways in which pupils engaged in the creative process and produced outcomes that were original and of value (Robinson 2001:118). However, questions remain about how the development of creativity can be assessed in order to support learners in developing their creative potential. Spencer, Lucas and Claxton (2012) have developed a framework for assessing this area. They identified 5 habits and 15 sub-habits of creativity and teachers in two separate field trials used this assessment tool with pupils aged 5 to 14 (see Table 2). The teachers found that the tool was useful as a formative assessment practice. There was little appetite for making summative judgements about levels of creativity, which is, perhaps, not surprising given the complex nature of the creative process and outcomes.Comment by Isabelle: Should this section and the table appear earlier on? Not really a summary

Table 2: Habits and sub-habits of creativity, as defined by Spencer, Lucas and Claxton (2012).

Habit

Sub-habits

Inquisitive

Wondering and questioning

Exploring and investigating

Challenging assumptions

Persistent

Sticking with difficulty

Daring to be different

Tolerating uncertainty

Imaginative

Playing with possibilities

Making connections

Using intuition

Collaborative

Sharing the product

Giving and sharing feedback

Co-operating appropriately

Disciplined

Developing techniques

Reflecting critically

Crafting and improving

There are obvious overlaps between the habits identified in Table 2 and the clusters outlined by Loveless (2007). Key concepts that appear across both include exploration, risk-taking, play, co-operation and persistence. The importance of fostering these competences can be seen across the DEFT case studies.

3.2.6 References/Links to further resources

Banaji, S. and Burn, A. (2008) Rhetorics of Creativity. (2nd ed.) London: Arts Council. http://www.creativitycultureeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/rhetorics-of-creativity-2nd-edition-87.pdf

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996) Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. London: HarperCollins.

Davies, J. and Merchant, G. (2009) Web 2.0 for Schools: Learning and Social Participation. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press.

Loveless, A. (2007) Creativity, Technology and Learning. Bristol: Futurelab. http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/literature-reviews/Literature-Review382

Marsh, J. and Bearne, E. (2008) Moving Literacy On: Evaluation of the BFI Training Project for Lead Practitioners on Moving Image Education. Leicester, UKLA.

Marsh, J., Brooks, G., Hughes, J., Ritchie, L., & Roberts, S. (2005). Digital beginnings: Young childrens use of popular culture, media and new technologies. Sheffield, U.K.http://www.digitalbeginings.shef.ac.uk/

Robinson, K. (2001) Out of our minds: Learning to be Creative. West Sussex: Capstone Publishing.

Spencer, E., Lucas, B. and Claxton, G. (2012). Progression in Creativity: developing new forms of assessment Final Research Report. Newcastle: CCE. http://www.creativitycultureeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/Progression-in-Creativity-Final-Report-April-2012.pdf

3.3 AssessmentComment by Isabelle: Can this section be sub-divided?Comment by Anna Gruszczynska: Michael Payton-Greene's case study could potentially be relevant here- while his emphasis is on professional development, the resources he chose to showcase on his blog focused on assessment

Assessment of literacy has become a complex process in an era in which children are developing skills, knowledge and understanding across a range of modes and media. Before considering what is to be assessed, the how of assessment needs to be considered. As Murphy suggests:

Warrants for assessment should recognize the possibilities as well as the limitations of design in relation to the situation or circumstances of any one assessment activity. In particular, the representational possibilities for knowing offered by assessment designs should be acknowledged as limiting some representations while enabling others. Reasoned and reasonable warrants form the basis for thinking about the consequences of an assessment.

(Murphy, in press)

This would suggest that we need a broad portfolio of tools to draw on in assessing pupils literacy learning, including diagnostic tests, observation, analysis of products, questioning, the use of diaries and portfolios and techniques such as recall. Certainly, over-reliance on high-stakes testing is counter-productive and can narrow the curriculum. In considering reading and writing in the digital age, we also require approaches to assessment that capture and enable teachers to analyse multimodal interactions across media and so, to the above list, we could add electronic portfolios and the use of screen-capture software, for example.

In terms of identifying the knowledge, skills and understanding that should be assessed, we are in the early stages of developing a full understanding. The United Kingdom Literacy Association has undertaken some work, under Eve Bearnes directorship, mapping the assessment foci for reading developed by the now-defunct English Qualifications and Curriculum Authority onto the reading and analysis of multimodal texts. In Reading on Screen Bearne and team draw on a range of projects undertaken in schools and found that the childrens learning could be mapped on to the existing assessment foci (see Table 1).

Table 1: Assessment foci for the digital age

However, these assessment foci need to be extended to enable the identification of progress in some of the skills outlined in Table 1. For example, how do we assess childrens developing understanding of the visual mode, or their awareness of the grammar of moving image? These are areas that need to be focused upon in future work in this area. Bearne (2010) has recently drawn together the work of the Reframing Literacy project to offer an outline of how teachers might begin to understand the stages in pupils analysis of multimodal texts. She identifies four stages of competence: (i) emergent early reader/viewer; (ii) developing reader/viewer; (iii) experienced reader/viewer; (iv) expert reader/viewer. Table 2 provides an example of the stages in development in relation to scale up inference and deduction in reading/viewing multimodal texts.

Table 2: Example of stages in multimodal analysis

Stage

Knowledge and skills

Emergent/early reader/viewer

Makes literal interpretations, but may identify different aspects of modality

Developing reader/viewer

Draws together ideas and information from across the whole text, using simple signposts e.g. changes of settings in comics, computer games films; organisational features on website

Experienced reader/viewer

Discusses and infers reasons the characters behaviour, referring to a specific point in the text e.g. a particular dialogue exchange in comic, film, magazine picture book; specific frame(s) in comics, episode(s) in computer games films; facial expressions, gestures posture in still and moving images.

Expert reader/viewer

Infers authorial/directorial perspective, commenting on how messages, moods, feelings and attitudes are conveyed and making reference to the text e.g. recognises bias in magazines, websites and can identify particular modesimages sounds wordswhich support the bias.

This work provides a significant platform for future developments, at the same time as highlighting the need for the extension of this framework to the production of multimodal texts.

The assessment of children's multimodal texts can be undertaken by identifying the ways in which children have used the various modes effectively in meaning making. However, John Vincent (2006) suggests that, at present, practice is limited in this area and that educators have only developed appropriate assessment criteria for written language and images. He argues that this is disadvantageous to children who perform best when engaging with multimodal texts:

multimodal composition is not just a desirable extra, but should be brought

into the mainstream of literacy teaching for two main reasons. Firstly it is the

way in which students see the world, and secondly it releases certain children

from the trials of monomodal, verbal expression where they are unlikely to

succeed. This study suggests that it is unfair to some children for us to restrict assessment to written language and the conventional literacy of school.

(Vincent, 2006:56)

The development of appropriate assessment criteria is obviously a key area for future development.

3.3.1 Assessment of student teachers digital literacyComment by Richard: Should this be in chapter 4?

The case studies conducted in the initial teacher education programmes at Sheffield Hallam University and the University of Sheffield indicate the significance of ensuring that assessment processes enable students skills and knowledge in relation to digital literacy to be assessed. In the case of the University of Sheffield, this involved the tutors assessing students responses in the process of creating their films, but also the final products themselves. Similarly, at Sheffield Hallam University, students presentations were assessed by the tutors in addition to the way in which they engaged in workshop activities. Perhaps more importantly, the case studies illustrate the significance of the development of students abilities to self-assess. Tutor supported students critical reflections on the progress they had made, which enables students to identify priorities for future development. In addition to the use of presentations and multimedia texts produced by students for assessment purposes, open means of assessing student teachers understanding of digital literacy could include e-portfolios and their reflexive use of social networking sites such as blogs.

3.3.1.1 References/Links to further resources

Bearne, E. with Bazalgette, C. (2010). Beyond words. Leicester: United Kingdom Literacy Association.

Bearne, E., Clark, C., Johnson, A., Manford, P., Mottram, M. and Wolstencroft, H. With Anderson, R., Gamble, N. And Overall, L. (2007). Reading on screen. Leicester: UKLA.

Murphy, S. (in press). Finding literacy: A review of the research on literacy

assessment in early childhood education. In N. Hall, J Larson, & J.

Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy (2nd ed.). London:

Sage.

Vincent, J. (2006) children writing: multimodality and assessment in the writing classroom. Literacy, Vol. 40 (1) pp51-57.

3.4 Barriers and EnablersComment by Anna Gruszczynska: see also scoping paper which discusses barriers and enablers with regard to DL

There are both barriers and enablers to teachers introduction of digital literacy practices in the classroom. In the discussion of this theme, these will be discussed in turn.

3.4.1 Barriers

There has been extensive work that has reviewed the lack of integration of ICT across the curriculum, an issue which is related but has different concerns to that of the development of new literacies. Nevertheless, this literature can be drawn upon in a review of the lack of curricula and pedagogical progress in relation to new literacies. As Hennessey, Ruthven and Brindley (2005) suggest, in any systematic study of schools use of ICT in England, appropriate and effective classroom use of ICT is found to be rare (2005, p162). There are numerous reasons for this. Ertmer (1999) identifies first- and second-order barriers to more extensive use of ICT in classrooms. First order barriers are those external to teachers and include factors such as lack of access to resources and training. Second-order barriers are internal and include teacher beliefs and attitudes, some of which may prevent innovative developments from taking place. In a review of research in this area, Hew and Brush (2007) reiterate Ertmers conceptualisation of first-and second-order strategies and suggest that the first-order barriers to integration of technology into teaching are: resources; institution; subject culture; and assessment. Second-order barriers were found to be: attitudes and beliefs; knowledge and skills. Whilst this is helpful in suggesting that the obstructions to progress work at both structural and agentic levels, the factoring together of quite disparate elements in the first-order category means that the roots of the issues are not identified and as a result some barriers are not considered at all. Instead of presenting an external/ internal dichotomy, we propose that the barriers to curriculum and pedagogical change in relation to digital literacy are examined in terms of their social and cultural, historical, economic and political roots. This enables a review of structural and agentic issues across key areas and emphasises the dynamic between factors that are internal and external to educators themselves.

3.4.1.1 Social and cultural

The social and cultural milieu in which educators operate has a significant impact on their work. As technological developments intensify the pace of change in society at large, there is a corresponding proliferation of moral panics in relation to childrens use of these technologies. The first of these moral panics is the way in which public spaces are changing for children and young people. Many children and young people are involved in social networking sites such as Bebo and MySpace and this is potentially confusing and alienating for teachers who grew up with very different experiences of engagement with known and unknown audiences. Some teachers are anxious about safety aspects of the Internet (Demos, 2007) and yet in a US study conducted by the National School Boards Association (NBSA, 2007), only 0.08 young people reported meeting people they had met over the Internet without their parents permission. This is not to minimise the concerns expressed by teachers, but suggests that instead of becoming over-protective in online spaces, we need to engage with young learners as they develop further their critical capacities and begin to make judgements about, for example, which aspects of their identities they share with which audience(s) at any one time. In addition, as Web 2.0 dissolves further the boundaries between production and consumption and celebrates a mash-up or remix culture (Lankshear and Knobel, 2006) in which produsage (Bruns, 2006) abounds, anxieties around copyright and the line between collaboration and collusion proliferate.

A further social and cultural barrier to change is the concern about a digital divide. Some teachers express worries that increasing the use of technologies in classrooms might exacerbate the differential expertise of children due to their access to and use of hardware and software outside of school, which, it is assumed, is related to class. Whilst there are some social class differences in childrens access to and use of technologies outside of school (Marsh et al., 2005), there are also indications that socio-economic status does not relate simply to access and use (Selwyn and Facer, 2007; Valentine, Marsh and Pattie, 2005). In the future, the digital divide might focus more squarely on the differences between those who have an understanding of how technologies and related resources (such as social networking sites) can enable them to achieve their aims than those who do not (Lankshear and Knobel, 2006).

Finally, in relation to the social and cultural dimension, an additional challenge to be faced is the growing divide between home and school literacy practices. For example, despite the burgeoning popularity of virtual worlds and other Web 2.0 sites for this age group, primary schools in general have yet to recognise their potential. Indeed, firewalls implemented by many LAs prevent teachers from exploring these worlds and other social networking sites in school. We will now move on to analyse the historical factors that might preclude curricula and pedagogical development.

3.4.1.2 Historical

There are a number of historically-constituted barriers to change, not least the way in which educational institutions operate on 19th and 20th century models in terms of subject divisions. In relation to the development of the subject of English, we are in a period characterised by immense change and uncertainty appear to be at a key juncture in curriculum development and need to consider the implications for subject English (Green, 2006; Kress, 2006). In the face of this turmoil, the work of Kress (2006) has been significant to furthering understanding of how the subject should be shaped in the twenty-first century and he emphasises the need for it to focus, above all else, on meaning:

In a society dominated by the demands of the market, by consumption

therefore, by its constant and insistent demands for choice no matter

how spurious that choice may be there is an absolute demand that the

curriculum overall should include a subject that has meaning as its

central question, has as its central concern principles for making choices.

(Kress, 2006, p3)

A further historical difficulty is a lack of a tradition of research and development in relation to new literacies, particular within early years and primary literacy learning and teaching. Historically, research in the area of early literacy development has focused on the acquisition of the alphabetic principle and this has led to a lack of knowledge about the stages of learning in relation to other modes. In the next section, we move from an analysis of historical barriers to curricula and pedagogical change to focus on economic and political restrictions.

3.4.1.3 Economic

Resource issues teacher frequently mention as barriers to increasing digital practices are: a lack of technological hardware and software, a lack of time in the curriculum overall to extend the literacy curriculum in the way that they would wish to, a lack of teaching assistants to support individual and group work and limited or no technical assistance with the hardware and software used. Whilst some of these economic factors linked to local and national educational policy, others are embedded within institutional habitus, with some schools choosing to prioritise traditional literacy practices in terms of acquisition of resources.

3.4.1.4 Political

Whilst there were, under New Labour governance in the early 21st century, moves to include multimodality in the literacy curriculum in the UK, the policy context remains resistant to more radical revision and the term can no longer be found in curriculum documents in England. Alongside the narrowing of the political focus in relation to literacy, there has been a corresponding withdrawal from the systematic funding of teachers professional development as budgets are devolved to individual schools, which has led to a lack of resources for CPD in digital literacy.

When the barriers to curricula and pedagogical development are analysed in this way, rather than focusing on factors external and internal to teachers as two separate entities, it becomes clear that they work dialectically and that the strand that has normally been excluded from analyses of barriers to progress is the social and cultural dimension. In order to illustrate this, the factors identified in the most recent review of barriers to integration of ICT (Hew and Brush, 2007) are mapped in Table 1 against the areas discussed in the analysis above.

Table 1: Comparative analysis of barriers

Barriers to curricula and pedagogical change identified in this discussion

Barriers to curricula and pedagogical change identified in Hew and Brush, 2007

Social and cultural

-

Historical

Attitudes and beliefs

Knowledge and skills

Institution

Subject culture

Economic

Resources

Political

Assessment

Whilst individual teachers attitudes and beliefs are shaped by the wider social and cultural context in which they work, and so this factor could arguably placed in the first box, Table 1 indicates that there has been a lack of attention in research on barriers to social and cultural issues. Strategies need to be developed that will enable educators to address some of the challenges faced in this area, alongside approaches that have been outlined to address the other areas, such as the provision of sufficient resourcing and professional development and changes to assessment regimes (Hew and Brush, 2007). The additional strategies need to counter social and cultural barriers could include, for instance, facilitating educators sustained critical analysis of media discourses around issues such as toxic childhoods or engaging with teachers in collaborative research projects which explore the way in which the public/ private divide is changing for children in contemporary society and analyse the implications for their classrooms.

Having undertaken this critical review of the barriers, we will now move on to consider some of the barriers identified by Ertmer (1999), drawing on the case studies at Notre Dame and Wales secondary schools, and the student teacher education case studies, to illustrate the points made and to identify how the barriers can become enablers if they are addressed in an appropriate manner.

3.4.2 Barriers and enabl