This document discusses a model for training teacher education faculty to increase their digital literacy. It notes that while students are digitally literate, faculty are lagging behind, exacerbating a gap. As a result, students form "secret" social media groups for learning external to the classroom. The proposed Virtual Collaborative Model would transition faculty training from solely face-to-face to a hybrid model using social media. This would help open the "Zone of Proximal Development" and allow iterative socio-cognitive progressions to increase faculty digital pedagogical skills through implicit interactions in an online space.
1. Overcoming Low Digital Literacy
among Teacher Education Faculty
The Virtual Collaborative Model
REBECCA J. BLANKENSHIP, PH.D.
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ESOL
DIRECTOR OF TESOL PROGRAMS
FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL & MECHANICAL UNIVERSITY
rebecca.blankenship@famu.edu
SITE_2015
2. 4FEBRUARY2015BLANKENSHIP_SITE_2015
2
SESSION SUMMARY
In order for the 21st century teacher to acquire the necessary
professional skills to effectively instruct today’s digitally native
students, institutional constraints must be lifted such that the
institution does not impede the ability of the pedagogue to grow
beyond what is expected to that which is instructionally
transformational.
After examining current trends in teacher preparation programs,
there is a noticeable gap between the digital literacy of faculty
and the digital literacy of students.
Because of this deficiency, digitally literate teacher candidates
have looked to social media to form their own "secret"
communities of learning external to the university classroom.
The purpose of this round table discussion is to offer a hybrid
training model to assist teacher education faculty in increasing
their digital literacy skills.
3. 4FEBRUARY2015BLANKENSHIP_SITE_2015
3
DIGITAL NATIVES –
ARE THEY REAL?
The Myths and Realities of Teaching “Digital Natives”
Before postulating that teacher candidates are in need of a set of
culturally responsive digital literacy skills to effectively instruct the 21st
Century student, a consensus must be reached as to whether this need
actually exists.
While calls for the transformation of 21st century teacher training
programs to be more reflective of the modern student’s digital literacy
skills, it is important to situate this need in the definitional terms of
“digital natives” and “digital immigrants.”
However, it was not until the turn of the 21st century that a specific label
was applied to students born after 1980 at the precipice of the personal
computing and mobile revolution.
Here, it is important to emphasize that students born prior to 1980 were
exposed to varying technologies as well, but a specific classification
was not postulated until 2001 by Marc Prensky.
Prensky (2001) labeled students born after 1980 as digital natives.
4. 4FEBRUARY2015BLANKENSHIP_SITE_2015
4
DIGITAL NATIVES –
ARE THEY REAL, CONT.?
The Myths and Realities of Teaching “Digital Natives”, cont.
Adding to the definitional issues surrounding who should be identified
as a “digital native” is the lack of empirical research-based evidence
that such a generation of students actually exists.
Further complicating the definitional arena is the suggestion in some
studies that, while students use different technologies for different
educational and social purposes, those uses may not translate to
classroom practice, thus the case for the argument here that they form
“secret communities” specifically to address this gap.
Waycott, et al. (2010) suggest that students tend not to intermingle the
technologies they use for personal use versus technologies they
associate with classroom instruction further complicating the
conclusions of studies that have suggested that the digital native learns
best only when immersed in an instructional setting that maximizes
currently trending technologies.
5. 4FEBRUARY2015BLANKENSHIP_SITE_2015
5
DIGITAL NATIVES –
ARE THEY REAL, CONT.?
The Myths and Realities of Teaching “Digital Natives”, cont.
In order to arrive at a justification for a pedagogic paradigm shift driven
by currently trending technologies, there must be some consensus in
basic terminology moving forward.
Taking into consideration the fact that the empirical evidence of the true
existence of a digital divide among so-called natives and immigrants is
still emerging, for the purposes of the writing here, the postulation will
be that there is a distinction.
As such, Prensky’s terminology will be referenced while keeping in
mind that the definition is problematic and does not necessarily account
for the myriad of cultural, economic, psychological, and social nuances
that factor into the technology choices made by the 21st century teacher
candidate.
6. 4FEBRUARY2015BLANKENSHIP_SITE_2015
6
THE EFFECTS ON TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS
OF
LOW DIGITAL LITERACY AMONG FACULTY
While digitally literate students are embracing and integrating new technologies into their
course work, faculty and university programs are lagging behind.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that universities often minimalize the importance
of digital literacy and marginalize its integration into existing curriculum.
The situation is so incongruent that many students have taken to forming, via social media
such as Facebook, what has been characterized by Kim (2013) as “secret groups”.
Waycott, et al. (2010) characterized this notion as a distinction between technologies that
students and faculty use for “living” and those they use for “learning” and how the two can
be seamlessly blended to provide the most optimal learning platform.
7. 4FEBRUARY2015BLANKENSHIP_SITE_2015
7
A NEW MODEL
FOR FACULTY TRAINING
As more digitally literate teacher candidates enter teacher education programs, they
expect their candidate training programs to reflect a digitally rich environment as the
technologies they use change.
These digital natives crave interactions and simulations that mirror activities in daily life,
and this is evinced by the increase in the use of social media cites such as Facebook and
Twitter as external learning opportunities.
This is particularly noted with the rise in use, especially in the last decade, of the personal
computer, mobile devices, and social media (Prensky, 2010; Horizon Report, 2014).
The transition from face-to-face to hybrid and virtual pedagogy must reflect the alleviation
of institutional constraints and sufficient allocation of resources so that the participant
experiences positive socio-cognitive movement (Freire, 1990).
At Levels 1 and 2 of the socio-cognitive scale (Lantolf & Aljaafreh, 1994), the ZPD is
closed and remains closed until some interaction between the novice and master enables
the ZPD to open.
Once institutional constraints are lifted so that the interactions become more implicit, the
novice then experiences level 3.
Through these iterative progressions, the novice moves from an intermental to an
intramental state as the ZPD opens and self-regulation can occur .
8. 4FEBRUARY2015BLANKENSHIP_SITE_2015
8
A NEW MODEL
FOR FACULTY TRAINING, CONT.
As Rosen (2010) pointed out, there has not been a study conducted to suggest if or how
teachers are using virtually based programs, such as popular social media sites, to
supplement their training that they perceive as non-responsive to their preferred “anytime,
anywhere” learning preferences.
Therefore, in considering the technical skill set of the 21st-century teacher, teacher
education faculty must respond in kind by filtering their existing face-to-face models
through a model such as the Virtual Collaborative Model to enable the Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD) to open and salient training can occur among teacher education
candidates (Vygotsky, 1978).
External to the institutional setting, many teacher candidates are regular users of social
networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
If the efficacy of using social media is filtered through the VCM, not only will this facilitate
digital literacy among faculty but also enable the acquisition of pedagogic knowledge for
the preservice teacher candidate.
However, caution is suggested before radical changes are made. Simply relocating
existing face-to-face training to a hybrid or virtual environment does not necessarily
suggest that faculty will internalize a new set of digitally infused pedagogic skills.
Learning objectives for any training must be made abundantly clear and simulations of
how to incorporate trending technologies into existing course frameworks is crucial.
10. Overcoming Low Digital Literacy
among Teacher Education Faculty
The Virtual Collaborative Model
REBECCA J. BLANKENSHIP, PH.D.
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ESOL
DIRECTOR OF TESOL PROGRAMS
FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL & MECHANICAL UNIVERSITY
rebecca.blankenship@famu.edu
SITE_2015
