Access, Equity, And Empowerment - Supporting Digital Literacies for All Learners

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe rapid and continued globalproliferation of internet usage anddigital tools and technologies over thelast 26 years since the introduction ofthe World Wide Web has been welldocumented. Equally well documentedare ever-changing shifts in skillsnecessary for learning, working, andengaging in the world with newnetworks, digital tools, andtechnologies. Researchers andpolicymakers agree that deep learningexperiences with digital texts and toolsshape life options. Accordingly,supporting students’ development ofwhat we refer to as digital literacies iscritical for teachers, school leaders,community educators, and othereducational stakeholders. However,many educational settings, includingschools and community centers, do nothave the necessary resources –including trained teachers andpersonnel as well as access totechnologies and digital networks – tomake digital literacies a central

component of instruction and learning.The lack of clear policies to guideteaching and learning, professionaldevelopment, leadership, infrastructurebuilding, and research is a key factordriving these disparities. Based on areview of research related to digitalliteracies, this policy brief identifiesfive action items related both tosupporting the development of digitalliteracies through improving literaciesinstruction and increasing access todigital literacies for all learners.

INTRODUCTIONIn the 26 years since the creation ofthe World Wide Web, theintroduction of new digitaltechnologies, tools, platforms,networks, and devices has continuedrapidly and unceasingly. Cell phoneownership is now nearly ubiquitousfor adults in the United States.1 Andownership and usage of digital toolsand technologies has changed the

way Americans work, live, andlearn. Knowledge about technology,including an understanding of arange of devices (e.g., laptop, tablet,phone, gaming system, GPSdevice), platforms (e.g., iOS,Android), applications (e.g. Word,Adobe, Skype), and socialnetworking sites (e.g., Facebook,LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram) andhow to use them independently andwith each other when appropriate isessential knowledge forparticipating in civic, professional,and social life today. But in addition

Access, Equity, and Empowerment: SupportingDigital Literacies for All LearnersBy Nathan C. Phillips, University of Illinois at ChicagoMichael Manderino, Northern Illinois University

http://ruepi.uic.edu

about the authors

nathan Phillips is anAssistant Professor inthe Department ofCurriculum andInstruction in theCollege of Education

at the University of Illinois atChicago.

Michael Manderinois an AssistantProfessor in Literacyand ElementaryEducation in theCollege of Education

at Northern Illinois University.

policy BRIEFUIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

Vol. 4, Book 3

Pew Internet and American Life Project, Pew Research Center (2012). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.pewinternet.org.1

Policy Brief 2RV.qxp_Layout 1 4/13/15 5:20 PM Page 2

Pew Internet and American Life Project, Pew Research Center (2012). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.pewinternet.org.1Partnership for 21st Century Skills, P21 Framework Definitions (2009). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf.2James W. Pellegrino and Margaret L. Hilton (Eds.), Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2012).3Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel, “Introduction: Social and Cultural Studies of New Literacies from an Educational Perspective.” In Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel (Eds.), A New Literacies Reader:4Educational Perspectives (New York: Peter Lang, 2013): 1-19.Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel, New Literacies: Changing Knowledge in the Classroom (New York: Open University Press, 2006).5Kimberly Gomez, Brigid Barron, and Nichole Pinkard, “Introduction: The Digital Media Landscape.” In Brigid Barron, Kimberly Gomez, Nichole Pinkard, and Caitlin K. Martin (Eds.), The Digital Youth6Network: Cultivating Digital Media Citizenship in Urban Communities (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2014): 1-13.Frank Levy and Richard J. Murnane, The New Division of Labor: How Computers Are Creating the Next Job Market (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004).7

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF

2

to knowledge of what technologiesexist and how to use them,knowledge of when and why to usedigital texts and tools for learningand acting in the world is equallyimportant.

Agreeing on a way to describe thecollection of necessary knowledge,skills, and competencies forengaging and acting in the worldwith ever-changing technologiesand tools has been a difficult taskfor researchers and policy makers.The following names have all beenused to identify these competencies:“information literacy,” “twenty-first-century learning skills,”2

“twenty-first-centurycompetencies,”3 and “newliteracies.”4 With this background inmind, we refer to the broad notionof knowledge of technology forlearning and acting in the 21stcentury as digital literacies. Digitalin that learning and acting makesuse of texts, tools, and technologiesthat are online, mobile, and/ornetworked. Literacies in thatindividuals leverage multipleliteracy practices (i.e., interpretingand producing) when learning andacting with digital texts and tools. Inshort, we define digital literacies asthe use of digital tools to consumeand produce knowledge as well asthe mindset and competenciesneeded to make choices, interact,and engage in an open, networked

society.5

Supporting the development ofproficiency with digital texts andtools in society is critical forteachers, school leaders, communityeducators, and other educationalstakeholders. No matter how digitalliteracies are identified, researchersagree that deep learning experienceswith digital texts and tools shapelife options.6 Both improving digitalliteracies instruction and increasingaccess to digital literacies areessential to preparing young peoplefor a future workforce that isexpected to be increasingly focusedon “information labor”7 and toimproving the life opportunities ofpeople of all ages who need highlyfunctioning digital literaciescompetencies in order to engagesocially and in civic and communityprocesses that have import for theirlives. Recognizing this priority, allof the state and national standardsdocuments that guide K-12instruction in Illinois and nationally,including recently implementedCommon Core State Standards(CCSS) focused on Englishlanguage arts and mathematics,identify digital literacies as anexpected element of instructionacross content areas and gradelevels.

However, despite both the obviousneed for digital literacies learning

...in addition toknowledge of whattechnologies existand how to usethem, knowledge ofwhen and why touse digital texts andtools for learningand acting in theworld is equallyimportant.


Digital Literacies

policy BRIEF

3http://ruepi.uic.edu

and the inclusion of digital literaciesin curricular standards, manyeducational settings, includingschools and community centers, donot have the necessary resources –including trained teachers andpersonnel and access to technologiesand digital networks – to makedigital literacies a centralcomponent of all instruction andlearning. This is especially true ofeducational settings in under-resourced communities. Indeed,those people who do not have accessto digital literacies learningexperiences may not haveopportunities to developcompetencies that will be requiredfor work and civic action.

The lack of clear policies to guideteaching and learning, professionaldevelopment, leadership,infrastructure building, and researchis a key factor driving thesedisparities. While all state andnational standards identify digitalliteracies as an expected element ofinstruction across content areas andgrade levels, these standards are notstand-alone statements and may bedifficult for teachers andadministrators to identify asexplicitly related to digital literacies.In part because of how standardsaddress digital literacies, there areno clear policies ensuring that Pre-K-12 educators have the support,resources, and skills they need toleverage digital literacies indesigning day-to-day curricula.Similarly, while policies address thedevelopment of school leaders forends such as increasing student

achievement, they fail to address thedevelopment of leadership capacityto support the development ofdigital literacies. Yet, leadership andvision at the school and districtlevels in this field are crucial for thecurricular implementation needed todevelop digital literacies. Moreover,even if policies explicitly addressdigital literacies, provide support toeducators, and provide for thedevelopment of leaders, atechnological infrastructure must bein place that enables access forlearners of all ages–an infrastructurethat bridges the “digital divide.” Yet,no such infrastructure is in place.Finally, although we are developingknowledge about digital literacies,we need to develop more knowledgemore quickly. Given the changingnature of digital literacies and therelatively little research to date,more knowledge is needed to guidepolicies at national, state, and locallevels.

Coordinated changes in policyshould significantly increase accessto and improvement of digitalliteracies instruction and learning. Inother words, such changes shouldequitably support digital literaciesdevelopment for all learners. Basedon a review of research related todigital literacies, this policy briefidentifies five action items relatedboth to supporting the developmentof digital literacies throughimproving literacies instruction andto increasing access to digitalliteracies for all learners:

Action 1: Promote teaching andassessment of digital literaciesacross grades and content areas asidentified in state and nationalstandards.

Action 2: Provide professionaldevelopment experiences thatensure Pre-K-12 educators havesupport, resources, and skills toleverage digital literacies indesigning day-to-day curricula.

Action 3: Build leadershipcapacity across educationalcontexts to allow for shareddecision making that leads toequitable access to instructionalsupports and technologies for alllearners.

Action 4: Provide structural andfinancial support that enablesequitable access to instruction andtechnologies related to digitalliteracies for all learners inschools, in communities, and infamilies.

Action 5: Collaborate in andsupport the development ofneeded research in digitalliteracies.



policy BRIEF

4

Inequalities in DigitalLiteracies

In describing the inequalities indigital literacies development forpeople in the U.S., KimberlyGomez, Brigid Barron, and NicholePinkard8 evoke the notion of adigital Matthew effect, the idea thatthe digital literacies divide widensover time between those with earlyopportunities to develop digitalliteracies and those without earlyopportunities. Just as traditionalmeasures of reading comprehensionhave identified persistent dividesbetween white and non-whitestudents with access to economicresources and those without access,9the most current research indicatessimilar divides when measuringonline reading and research.10 Thepresence of these inequalities indigital literacies development andthe recognition that they will persistand widen over lifetimes, points tothe necessity of addressing digitalliteracies development early andsystematically.

The inequalities in students’ digitalliteracies can be highlighted inseveral different ways, includingstudents’ development of digitalliteracies and the associated learningopportunities students have. Ifstudents are not given access to highquality learning experiences

involving digital tools andtechnologies, they have a lowerchance of experiencing significantdevelopment of digital literacies.

One way to describe thedevelopment of digital literacies isas a process involving three stages:11

digital competence denotes skills,concepts, approaches, anddispositions toward digital texts andtoolsdigital usage refers to theapplication of digital competencewithin a specific context (such asschool, after-school activities, work,recreation, etc.)digital transformation identifiesdigital usage that enables innovationand creativity within a domain

These developmental stages are notintended as mutually exclusivecategories nor ones that a learnermust move through sequentially.Further, even for individuals,aspects of digital competence,usage, and transformation will differwithin different domains (e.g.,professional, academic,recreational). But thesedevelopmental stages do help us toconsider the breadth ofcompetencies associated with digitalliteracies learning. To this end,below we have organized a snapshotof recent research related to digital

literacies competencies across allthree stages. The purpose of thissnapshot is to paint a picture of theways in which digital literaciescurrently intersect with teaching,learning, equity, and access in thelives of young people in the U.S.

Digital Competence96% of teachers agree•(including 52% who stronglyagree) that digital technologies“allow students to share theirwork with a wider and morevaried audience.”National Writing project•teachers reported disparateaccess to and skill with digitaltools among their students.50% of surveyed teachers•(across all subjects) say theinternet and digital tools makeit easier for them to teachwriting.12

Offline reading•comprehension scores aresignificantly correlated withonline reading comprehensionscores.13

Digital UsageAs of 2013,

95% of teens access the•Internet.78% of teens own a cell•phone.93% of teens own or have•access to a computer.

Kimberly Gomez, Brigid Barron, and Nichole Pinkard, “Introduction: The Digital Media Landscape.”8National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: A First Look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading (Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2014).9Retrieved March 19, 2015 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/main2013/pdf/2014451.pdf.Donald J. Leu, Elena Forzani, Chris Rhoads, Cheryl Maykel, Clint Kennedy, and Nicole Timbrell, “The New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension: Rethinking the Reading Achievement Gap,”10Reading Research Quarterly 50, no. 1 (2014): 37-59.Allan Martin and Jan Grudziecki, “DigEuLit: Concepts and Tools for Digital Literacy Development,” Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences 5, no. 4 (2006): 249-267.11Pew Internet and American Life Project, Pew Research Center (2013). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.pewinternet.org.12Julie Coiro, “Predicting Reading Comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of Offline Reading Skills, Online Reading Skills, and Prior Knowledge,” Journal of Literacy Research 43, no. 4 (2011): 352-392.13


Digital Literacies

policy BRIEF


81% of teens use some kind of•social media.14

However, only47% of low-income households•have broadband access athome.37% of teachers of low-income•students use tablet computers.35% of teachers of lower-•income students say theirstudents use cell phones as alearning device in class.15

Digital Transformation More than 200 million users•share 60 million photos permonth on Instagram. 100 hours of video are•uploaded to YouTube everyminute.95% of teachers from the•National Writing project havestudents research online.

However, only 29% edit others work or•provide feedback using acollaborative web based toollike Google docs.22% post their work online•where people other than theirclassmates can read it.16

This data snapshot clearly identifiesperhaps the most relevant finding forpolicy makers related to digitalliteracies learning and development:Nearly all young people are engagingin activities that involve digital

literacies, but access to high qualitylearning experiences with up-to-datedigital tools and technologies ishighly unequal. It is precisely thisaccess to digital literacies learningthat students most need in order todevelop competencies for careerpreparation and civic engagement.

Additionally, there seem to existdisparities between young people’sengagements with digitaltechnologies outside of school (i.e.,significant engagement) and withopportunities to learn and engagewith digital technologies inside ofschool (i.e., little to no engagement).Just as the Common Core StateStandards have focused ondeveloping students who are collegeand career ready, researchers arguethat students also need to benetworked for a globalized world.17

Several studies have documented thetypes of digital practices studentsengage in outside of school.18

However, these practices are notoften congruent with currentclassroom practice.19

To overcome these disparities and toconcertedly and collaboratively workto improve equity and access for alllearners to digital literacies learning,we need clear policies to help guideteaching and learning, professionaldevelopment, leadership,infrastructure building, and research.

Pew Internet and American Life Project, Pew Research Center (2012). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.pewinternet.org.14Digital Youth Network, Digital Literacy is the New Literacy. Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://digitalyouthnetwork.org/. 15Pew Internet and American Life Project, Pew Research Center (2012). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.pewinternet.org.16Linda Darling-Hammond, The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future (New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2010).17For example, see Danah Boyd, It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014); Glynda A. Hull and Mark E. Nelson, “Locating the Semiotic Power of18Multimodality,” Written Communication 22, no. 2 (2005): 224-261; Mizuko Ito, Sonja Baumer, Matteo Bittanti, Danah Boyd, Rachel Cody, Becky Herr-Stephenson, Heather A. Horst, Patricia G. Lange, DilanMahendran, Katynka Z. Martínez, C. J. Pascoe, Dan Perkel, Laura Robinson, Christo Sims, and Lisa Tripp, Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010).Amy Hutchison and David Reinking, “Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Information and Communication Technologies Into Literacy Instruction: A National Survey in the United States,” Reading Research19Quarterly 46, no. 4 (2011): 312-333.

nearly all youngpeople are engagingin activities thatinvolve digitalliteracies, butaccess to highquality learningexperiences withup-to-date digitaltools andtechnologies ishighly unequal.



policy BRIEF

6

Action 1: Promote teaching andassessment of digital literaciesacross grades and content areas asidentified in state and nationalstandards.

All of the state and nationalstandards documents that guide K-12 instruction nationally and inIllinois identify digital literacies asan expected element of instructionacross content areas and gradelevels. However, these digitalliteracies standards are not stand-alone statements disconnected fromother content requirements.20 Rather,digital literacies principles arewoven into and embedded in otherstandards and are also sometimeswritten in language that may bedifficult for teachers andadministrators to identify asexplicitly related to digital literacies.For example, the Common CoreState Standards authors note that “tobe ready for college, workforcetraining, and life in a technologicalsociety, students need the ability togather, comprehend, evaluate,synthesize, and report oninformation and ideas, to conductoriginal research in order to answerquestions or solve problems, and toanalyze and create a high volumeand extensive range of print andnonprint texts in media forms oldand new.”21 This statementemphatically and explicitly calls for

digital literacies instruction to beembedded throughout content areasand grade levels, but using languagesuch as “life in a technologicalsociety” and “range of print andnonprint texts in media forms oldand new” may obscure the messagethat digital literacies instruction isexplicitly required as an essentialelement of everyday instruction inall content areas and grade levels.

Because digital literacies elementsare embedded across standards andbecause the language of thestandards can obfuscate the focus onprinciples of digital literaciesinstruction, teachers andadministrators may interpret

standards with embedded digitalliteracies elements as not requiringdigital literacies instruction ormultimedia and multimodal texts.22

And while revising standards to uselanguage that makes it more clearthat digital literacies instruction isexpected across grade levels andcontent areas would be beneficial,current standards already explicitlyrequire the integration of digitalliteracies elements in all gradelevels and content areas.

It is outside the scope of this brief toidentify all of the standards relatedto digital literacies across state andnational standards documents, butbelow we provide several examples,

Common Core State Standards Initiative, Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010),204. Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy.Ibid.21Paul Barnwell, “The Common Core’s Digital-Literacy Gap,” Education Week (2012, August 22). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2012/08/22/barnwell_digital.html.22Common Core State Standards Initiative, Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, 10.23National Research Council, National Science Teachers Association, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Achieve, Next Generation Science Standards, Appendix F: Science and Engineering24Practices in the NGSS (2013). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards. Additionally, the Next Generation Science Standards include Common Core StateStandards literacy connections for each standard at each grade level. These connections include interpreting and producing diverse text formats and media.Illinois State Board of Education, Illinois Learning Standards (1997). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.isbe.net/ils/. 25National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and26History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/c3/C3-Framework-for-Social-Studies.pdf.


Digital Literacies

policy BRIEF


across content areas, standardsdocuments, and grade levels. Thepurpose of this chart is to giveexamples of the breadth of digitalliteracies learning principlesrequired in standards documents andto make clear that policy makersmust promote the inclusion ofdigital literacies across grades andcontent areas as identified innational and state standardsdocuments.

Because the standards are clear thatdigital literacies are expected acrossall grades and content areas, thefollowing actions, if taken, willpromote the teaching and learningof digital literacies in schools andcommunities.

1.1 Identify and distributeappropriate digital literaciescurricula materials that focus onevolving skills and practices thatenable productive inquiry.

Because technologies and tools willcontinue to change and evolve,digital literacies instruction cannotfocus on static knowledge regardingthe use of available tools. Rather,digital literacies instruction mustfocus on supporting students inacquiring competencies that canadapt to new circumstances and toever-changing technologies.27

Access to digital literacies curriculathat prepare young people to“communicate, produce, and designwith technology”28 rather than

merely connect socially or consumemedia is particularly important forstudents in under-resourcedcommunities, many of whom do nototherwise have access at home or inthe community to opportunities tolearn and engage in adaptable digitalliteracies competencies. Severalprofessional and educationalorganizations have preparedcurriculum guides and standardsalignment documents thatcomprehensively identify nationalstandards that map onto digitalliteracies principles and providematerials for teaching digitalliteracies across grade levels andcontent areas. As examples, seeCommon Sense Media’s“Alignment and Standards:Standards Alignment in the K-12Digital Literacy and CitizenshipCurriculum,”29 National Council ofTeachers of English’s (NCTE)“Framework for 21st CenturyCurriculum and Assessment,”30 orthe National Association for MediaLiteracy Education’s (NAMLE)“Media Literacy Education and theCommon Core State Standards.”31

These and other curriculum guidesrepresent the kinds of resources thatwould support teachers in focusinginstruction on areas that will havethe most impact for digital literacieslearning. Additionally, because thesecurriculum guides are aligned tostandards documents, teachers willboth recognize the otherwisepotentially obfuscated need toaddress digital literacies and will be

able to validate their choices tofocus on digital literacies instructionto administrators, parents, andstudents. Getting these kinds ofresources, which are readilyavailable, into the hands of teachersshould be a priority.

1.2 Empower teachers, schools,and districts to use formativeassessments that improveinstruction related to digitalliteracies.

High quality and effective digitalliteracies instruction, of the kinddescribed above, is only possible ifteachers, schools, and districts areempowered to assess learning,capacity, and student digitalliteracies development utilizingassessment tools in addition toexisting standardized assessments.The Partnership for Assessment ofReadiness for College and Careers(PARCC) assessments,32 rolling outfor the first time during the 2014-2015 school year, include digitalliteracies competencies as anelement of mathematics andlanguage arts assessments. Forexample, in terms of the test formatand structure there is an expectationof low-level digital competence(e.g., digital tools for responding toquestions), but there are no taskitems connected to digitalcompetence. It also appears thatdigital usage will be assessed in a

Donald J. Leu, Jr., “Caity’s Question: Literacy as Deixis on the Internet,” Reading Online (1999, July). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/rt/caity.html. 27Kimberly Gomez, Brigid Barron, and Nichole Pinkard, “Introduction: The Digital Media Landscape,” 3.28Common Sense Media, Inc., Alignment and Standards: Standards Alignment in the K-12 Digital Literacy and Citizenship Curriculum. Retrieved March 10, 2015 from29https://www.commonsensemedia.org/educators/classroom-curriculum/alignment.National Council of Teachers of English, NCTE Framework for 21st Century Curriculum and Assessment (2013). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentframework.30David C. Moore and Emily Bonilla, Media Literacy Education and The Common Core State Standards (National Association for Media Literacy Education, 2014). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from31http://namle.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/NAMLEMLECCSSGUIDE.pdf.See http://parcconline.org. 32



policy BRIEF

8

limited way (e.g., tasks that requiremaking meaning from multiple textsacross multiple media). Butexpecting digital competence fromtest takers and assessing digitalusage, however deeply, still does notaddress assessment of digitaltransformation—of the ways inwhich students are innovative andcreative within domains with digitaltools and technologies.

It is clear that teachers, schools, anddistricts will need additional data toinform and target instruction toidentified gaps in students’ digitalliteracies learning opportunities. Forexample, teachers, schools, anddistricts will want to know whichstudents have not yet had experienceproducing digital texts, criticallyinterpreting multiple media, orutilizing mobile devices for scientificdata collection. Additionally,teachers, schools, and districts willwant to measure competenciesacquired during digital literacieslearning opportunities at home, incommunity settings, and in schools.

To create assessments that can guideinstruction in this way, teachers,schools, and districts should be givenspace, opportunity, and resources todevelop and implement local,formative assessments. Formativeassessment, which is “a plannedprocess in which assessment-elicitedevidence of students’ status is usedby teachers to adjust their ongoinginstructional procedures or bystudents to adjust their currentlearning tactics,”33 can best addressmeasurement of digital literacies

competencies that are not accountedfor in current standardized testing.Further, teachers and students canquickly adjust instructional andlearning practices based on formativeassessment results. In order tosupport this effort, teachers should begiven resources to support thecreation and implementation offormative assessments. Modelassessments of digital literaciescompetencies have been developedthat teachers can use. For example,the Online Research andComprehension Assessments(ORCAs),34 developed at theUniversity of Connecticut, areavailable to teachers to use with theirstudents. ORCAs are problem-basedscenarios that engage middle schoolstudents in online informationrequests and measure students’digital literacies performance. Inaddition to utilizing modelassessments such as ORCAs, we urgeteachers, schools, and districts todevelop assessments that makepossible more complexrepresentations of students’ digitalliteracies beyond comprehension ofreading online. Specifically,assessments are needed that take intoaccount innovation and creativitywith digital texts, technologies, andtools (i.e., digital transformation).35

1.3 Ensure that all national, state,and local assessments based onstandards include items and tasksconnected to digital literacies.

While empowering teachers, schools,and districts to create and implementformative assessments that guide

W. James Popham, Transformative Assessment (Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2008), 6.33Donald J. Leu, Elena Forzani, Chris Rhoads, Cheryl Maykel, Clint Kennedy, and Nicole Timbrell, “The New Literacies of Online Research and34Comprehension: Rethinking the Reading Achievement Gap.” See also www.orca.uconn.edu. Allan Martin and Jan Grudziecki, “DigEuLit: Concepts and Tools for Digital Literacy Development,” Innovation in Teaching and Learning in35Information and Computer Sciences 5, no. 4 (2006): 249-267.

because state- andnational-levelstandardized testshave led to anarrowing ofcurriculum andlearningopportunities inclassrooms,nationalassessments basedon standards mustinclude items andtasks connected todigital literacies. ifthey do not,students willcontinue to bedisadvantaged.


Digital Literacies

policy BRIEF


Sheila W. Valencia and Karen K. Wixson, “Policy-oriented Research on Literacy Standards in Assessment.” In Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, P. David Person, and Rebecca Barr (Eds.), Handbook of36Reading Research Vol. 3 (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2000): 909-935.Linda Darling-Hammond, The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future.37Ibid., 282.38Laura M. Desimone, “Improving Impact Studies of Teachers’ Professional Development: Toward Better Conceptualizations and Measures,” Educational Researcher 38, no. 3 (2009): 181-199; Thomas R. Guskey,39“Professional Development that Works: What Makes Professional Development Effective?” Phi Delta Kappan 84, no. 10 (2003), 748.Punya Mishra and Matthew J. Koehler, “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge,” Teachers College Record 108, no. 6 (2006): 1017-1054.40

instruction will improve equity andaccess to digital literacies learningopportunities at the classroom level,this effort will not ensure thatnational and state assessments basedon standards include items and tasksrelated explicitly to digital literacies.Because state- and national-levelstandardized tests have led to anarrowing of curriculum andlearning opportunities inclassrooms,36 national assessmentsbased on standards must includeitems and tasks connected to digitalliteracies. If they do not, studentswill continue to be disadvantaged.For example, Darling-Hammond37

argued, “Students in schools thatorganize most of their efforts aroundthe kinds of low-level learningrepresented by most widely usedtests are profoundly disadvantagedwhen they need to engage in theextensive writing, critical thinking,and problem solving required incollege and the workplace.”38 This isall the more true when instruction inpreparation for these standardizedtests does not include access todigital literacies technologies, tools,and dispositions but focuses insteadon narrow or static knowledge oftechnology or digital practices thatis likely to change. It remains to beseen how the PARCC assessmentswill explicitly integrate digitalliteracies competencies, buthowever that looks, policy makersneed to clearly articulate anddoggedly pursue a change to allstandardized assessments so thatthey include items and tasks

connected to digital literacies.

Action 2: Provide professionaldevelopment experiences thatensure Pre-K-12 educators havesupport, resources, and skills toleverage digital literacies indesigning day-to-day curricula.

For any school-based initiative to beunderstood and implemented,adequate professional developmentis necessary. Educators are the keychange agent for student success. Tobuild support for teacher practice,professional developmentexperiences need to besystematically implemented,sustained, and ongoing. Effectiveprofessional development is multi-tiered and focuses on affectingbeliefs, knowledge, change inindividual practice, and cohesiveimplementation.39 The types ofprofessional development that weadvocate span preservice teachers,advance degree and certificationprograms, in-school professionaldevelopment, professional learningcommunities, and self-drivenprofessional development with agoal to develop teachers’technological pedagogical contentknowledge (TPACK).40

2.1 Align teacher licensure andprogram accreditationrequirements to standards thataddress digital literacies.

Starting early in preservice teacherpreparation, teacher candidates need

starting early inpreservice teacherpreparation, teachercandidates needguidance to infusedigital literacies intotheir instruction.


guidance to infuse digital literaciesinto their instruction. The most directway to ensure digital literacies are apart of preservice teacher preparationis to have digital literacies standardsaligned to program and certificationrequirements. Currently, the IllinoisProfessional Teaching Standards41

contain nine overarching standardsand several knowledge andperformance indicators under eachindividual standard. For example,under Standard 5, “InstructionalDelivery,” there are eight knowledgeindicators and 11 performanceindicators. Only KnowledgeIndicator 5C, “the competent teacherknows how to implement effectivedifferentiated instruction through theuse of a wide variety of materials,technologies, and resources,”42

explicitly addresses digital literacies.The standards themselves makelimited mention of digital literaciescompetence for preservice teachers.Therefore, these types of standardsneed to be explicitly foregrounded inpreservice teacher preparation. Itwould be productive to not simplyoffer stand-alone educationaltechnology courses but also tointentionally weave digital literaciesinstruction and practices in allpedagogy courses.

Groups have begun to createframeworks for developing digitalliteracies competencies. For example,the International Society forTechnology Education (ISTE) has aseries of standards for teachers,

students, administrators, and coaches(i.e., instructional, technology, andliteracy coaches).43 And the non-profit Mozilla Foundation has beguna collaborative effort to develop aweb literacy map44 (i.e., a map of theskills and competencies needed forreading, writing and participating onthe web) that preservice teacherscould benefit from as integrated intotheir teaching materials.

2.2 Provide professionaldevelopment experiences for alleducators that prepare them toleverage the affordances of currentand future technologies forlearning as they design day-to-daycurricula.

Because digital texts and tools evolveso rapidly, practicing teachersdeserve sustained professionaldevelopment in the area of digitalliteracies. A nationwide survey ofpracticing teachers revealed thatteachers reported low levels oftechnology integration in theircurriculum as well as obstacles totechnology integration.45 Thissuggests that teachers need fargreater support than they receive.This support can come in a numberof forms.

One potential avenue for providingrobust support is through the use ofjob-embedded coaching.46 Coachingcould take many forms, includingproviding technology coaches tobuild capacity at the building level by


policy BRIEF

10

if teachers are toinstruct and supportstudents’development ofdigitalcompetencies thenthey needopportunities todevelop their owncompetencies.

Illinois State Board of Education, Illinois Professional Teaching Standards (2013). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from41http://www.isbe.net/peac/pdf/IL_prof_teaching_stds.pdf.Ibid., 4.42International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), ISTE Standards. Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.iste.org/standards. 43Mozilla, Mozilla Webmaker, Web Literacy Map – 1.1.0. Retrieved March 10, 2015 from https://webmaker.org/en-US/literacy. 44Amy Hutchison and David Reinking, “Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Information and Communication Technologies Into Literacy45Instruction: A National Survey in the United States.”Jim Knight, Instructional Coaching: A Partnership Approach to Improving Instruction (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2007).46


specifically connecting technologycoaching with literacy coaching orinstructional coaching. A secondavenue is to connect digital mentorswith teachers. Examples of digitalmentors include the ConvergenceAcademies in Chicago47 wheredigital media artists work side-by-side with teachers to create units ofinstruction that integrate digitalmedia arts into the curriculum.

A third possibility is to createprofessional learning opportunitiesakin to the National WritingProject48 where teachers becomedigital curators and creators withsupport from fellow teachers. Ifteachers are to instruct and supportstudents’ development of digitalcompetencies then they needopportunities to develop their owncompetencies. Teachers needopportunities and time to constructmedia, to play, to think about howtechnologies function, and how toengage with them personally andpedagogically.

Ultimately, professionaldevelopment for practicing teachersin the area of digital literaciesshould empower teachers to makedesign choices with their curriculaso that as technologies change,curricular change can remain fluid.When teachers received substantialprofessional development (anaverage of 49 contact hours spreadover six to twelve months) theywere able to boost their students’achievement scores an average of

21 percentage points. Sporadic orlow dose professional development(5 to 14 hours total) correlated to nostatistically significant effects onstudent achievement.49 Thus,professional developmentopportunities for digital literaciesshould be sustained and coherent.

2.3 Fund and pilot newcredentialing systems foreducators at all levels thatrecognize the changing nature oftechnologies and changing roles ofeducators in teaching andsupporting student learning.

In addition to professionaldevelopment opportunities, teacherswould benefit from opportunities toacquire additional credentials forgaining digital competencies.Credentialing systems can be formalor informal. Examples of formalcredentialing include certificates ofgraduate study or certifications fromtechnology companies like Google.These types of formal certificationsrequire additional coursework ortime in training. Because they are atthe formal institutional level thereare specific parameters to obtainadditional credentials. As such, werecommend multiple pathways foreducators to learn and share theirspecialized knowledge about digitalliteracies. Some possibilities are tocreate partnerships with differentlearning networks throughout thestate in order to leverage resourcesfor digital literacies learning. Oneexample is the Hive Chicago

Learning Network,50 a network ofyouth-serving civic, cultural, andeducational institutions focused onsupporting Connected Learning51

experiences for youth in Chicago.Through its School-HiveConnections working group,52 HiveChicago is bridging networkresources for digital literacieslearning with classroom teachersand schools through online andface-to-face professionaldevelopment opportunities. Thesetypes of partnerships provideopportunities for teachers to accessinnovative tools and technologiesfor teaching and to showcase to thenetwork and to their peers what isworking in their practice and whatcan be replicated. Additionally,regional events around the state thatlink teachers with colleges anduniversities can provideopportunities for learning andprofessional development. One andtwo day events with partnershipsbetween school districts andinstitutions of higher educationafford opportunities to showcaseteachers’ practice and connect withthe latest developments in researchand pedagogy. Finally, we advocatefor ways to connect teachers onlineand through social media.Connected Learning TV53 is anexample of a national effort toshowcase promising digitalliteracies practices. Funding forlocal offshoots of connected web-based learning opportunities couldconnect teachers across the state.Regardless of the type of

policy BRIEF

Digital Literacieshttp://ruepi.uic.edu 11

See http://convergenceacademies.org/. 47See www.nwp.org. 48Linda Darling-Hammond, Ruth Chung Wei, Alethea Andree, Nikole Richardson, and Stelios Orphanos, “State of the Profession: Study Measures Status of Professional Development,” Journal of Staff Development 30,49no. 2 (2009), 42.See http://hivechicago.org.50Mizuko Ito, Kris Gutiérrez, Sonia Livingstone, Bill Penuel, Jean Rhodes, Katie Salen, Juliet Schor, Julian Sefton-Green, and S. Craig Watkins, Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design (Irvine, CA:51Digital Media and Learning Research Hub, 2013).See http://hivechicago.org/moonshot/hive-school-connections/.52See http://connectedlearning.tv.53


UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative12

credentialing, teachers who pursueprofessional development related todigital literacies instruction should beformally recognized as technologyleaders in their schools and districts.

2.4 Fund and encouragepartnerships among universities,community colleges, schools,communities, school districtconsortiums, and regionalnetworks to pool resources andbroaden opportunities for educatorlearning.

As stated in the previous section, werecommend greater cooperationbetween university, communitycolleges, school district consortiums,and regional networks to integratedigital literacies as a part of collegeand career readiness. If we considerdigital literacies as a set of emergingcompetencies rather than all-or-nothing skillsets, then partnershipsacross grade levels from Pre-kindergarten through college arevital. One example of a sustainedcollaboration is the Alliance forCollege Readiness through ElginCommunity College and their localfeeder districts.54 This is one exampleof the types of possibilities to alsoinfuse digital literacies as a criticalelement of college and careerreadiness as well as leverage digitalliteracies as a mechanism for morepartnerships Pre-K-16.

Action 3: Build leadership capacityacross educational contexts toallow for shared decision-makingthat leads to equitable access toinstructional supports andtechnologies for all learners.

Any curricular implementation needs

to have a clear vision that is guidedby strong leadership. In this sectionwe propose that Pre-K-12 schoolleadership capacity in the area ofdigital literacies needs to beexpanded. First, institutions need toprovide more access and equity todigital technologies. School leaders,community, and state leaders canprovide unified leadership and accessto digital technologies for schoolsand the communities they serve.Second, preparation of school leadersshould include digital literacies as acore component of preparations.Third, policies should be crafted thatexpand access to personal and schoolprovided technology to ensureinclusion in day-to-day learningactivities. The following action itemsaddress the powerful role schoolleaders play in promoting andensuring digital literacies instruction.

3.1 Urge school, district, state, andcommunity leaders to implementshared decision-making withregard to any efforts to block orcurtail access to technologies.

Access to the Internet and websites iscritical for teaching and learning.While certain filters may be requiredfor schools, we advocate that shareddecision-making be open andtransparent when filtering orblocking websites. These decisionsshould be made by committees withinput from all stakeholders includingstudents. While blocking internetsites like YouTube or Twitter mayseem to create more safeenvironments, impediments to theiruse can create more issues. First,many students have access to cellulardata that can override a district blockfilter granting access anyways. This

while certain filtersmay be required forschools, weadvocate thatshared decision-making be open andtransparent whenfiltering or blockingwebsites.

policy BRIEF

See http://elgin.edu/community.aspx?id=2664.54


Digital Literacies

policyBRIEF

http://ruepi.uic.edu

then can encourage students tobreak school rules leading to moreof a disciplinary focus on digital userather than creating instructionalopportunities. Second, blockingsites wholesale that include usefulcontent can send an unintentionalmessage that students are not to betrusted. Keeping sites open can leadto more opportunities to teach tostudents how to responsibly andsafely navigate the web. Third,blocking of sites can also hamperteachers’ efforts to construct andshare robust digital literacy lessonsand curricula.

There are examples of schools thathave empowered students to accessthe internet along with moreresponsible participation. LeydenHigh School55 has been featurednationally as a leader in fosteringmore connected learning. Theirprincipal has incorporated ways tomentor students in digitalenvironments like Twitter. Eachweek, students have access to theschool Twitter handle and tweettheir activities and experiencesthrough the hashtag #leydenpride.Students are granted more voice andparticipation in a safe and mentoredway rather that through wholesaleblocking of a site.

We propose that whenever possible,access to the Internet remain openwith instructional supports andmonitoring rather than banning. Acritical part of preparing students tobe college and career ready is theyneed to be ready for the digitaldemands of college and the

workforce. Decisions should becurricular, not simply the purview ofnetwork managers.

3.2 Ensure that preparationprograms for leaders of learningorganizations at all levels includedigital literacies as an essentialelement of day-to-day learningand instruction and identifystructures and practices thatpromote inquiry with andequitable access to technologies.

School leaders also need to beproficient in digital technology usein order to lead students and staff.Research demonstrates that specificleadership characteristics affectstudent achievement outcomes:focused instruction, professionalcommunity, shared leadership,instructional leadership, and trust inprincipal (as caring, ethical, andcompetent). When combined, theyare positively related to studentachievement outcomes.56 In order toprovide instructional leadership andbuild competence, school leaders,like teachers, need sustained andcoherent professional developmentaround digital learning. Schoolleaders can also promote digitalliteracies learning by recognizingareas in which they lack expertiseand inviting teachers to lead. Byempowering teachers who alreadyeffectively employ technologies intheir teaching, school leaders candistribute leadership to exert upwardand horizontal influences on schoolcapacity for digital literaciesinstruction and learning.

3.3 Promote policies at the school,

district, community, and statelevels that explicitly allow forpersonal and providedtechnologies as part of day-to-daylearning and instruction.

While on the surface it may seemintuitive to protect students onlineby limiting in-school access, theresult may lead to further gaps inaccess and achievement in readingonline. A recent study found thatreading achievement gaps betweenlow and high income students onoffline reading measures are alsofound with online reading tasks.57

Schools cannot afford to focussolely on offline reading as studentswho are behind suffer a secondconsequence of being behind intheir online reading as well. Policiesthat explicitly allow and supporttechnology use are critical.

School leaders can forward policiesthat allow for personal devices suchas cell phones and tablets as well asprovide access to tablets andlaptops. Such policies can benefitstudents’ online readingachievement by providing moreopportunities for online readinginstruction. Second, when schooland institutions provide access totechnology devices, it may helpmitigate technology access issuesthat do exist.58

Action 4: Provide structural andfinancial support that enablesequitable access to instruction andtechnologies related to digitalliteracies for all learners inschools, in communities, and infamilies.

policy BRIEF

13

See www.leyden212.org.55Karen S. Louis, Beverly Dretzke, and Kyla Wahlstrom, “How Does Leadership Affect Student Achievement?: Results From a National US Survey,” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 21, no. 3 (2010): 315-56336.Donald J. Leu, Elena Forzani, Chris Rhoads, Cheryl Maykel, Clint Kennedy, and Nicole Timbrell, “The New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension: Rethinking the Reading Achievement Gap.”57Pew Internet and American Life Project, Pew Research Center (2012). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.pewinternet.org.58


policy BRIEFWhile the thrust of this brief hasfocused on digital literacies in thecontext of schools and schoolstudents, equitable access tolearning opportunities with digitaltools and technologies requirestechnological infrastructures thatenable access for learners of allages, children to adults, in schools,in homes, and in communities. Theprimary takeaway for policy makersfrom recent research into access totechnology is that what was knownas the “digital divide”—thedifference in homes, communities,and schools between those who hadphysical access to a computer andthose who did not—is less of anissue than it was ten years ago.59

The current digital divide is aroundaccess to high quality opportunitiesto learn with new technologies. Thisnew digital divide exists for tworeasons: First, even whentechnologies are physicallyavailable, they may not be used;60

and second, access to technologiesdoes not ensure learning how to usetechnologies to leveragecompetencies for work and civicengagement in the twenty firstcentury. For students in under-resourced communities, this digitaldivide is stark. For example,Margolis et al.61 found that eventhough students in under-resourcedcommunities in Southern California

took computer classes, these classesfocused on static skill building andlow-level experiences withcomputers. The divide also plays outin students’ preparedness to conductresearch and comprehend whenreading online.62

Homes are an important site toconsider as hubs of digital literacieslearning. While internet access inthe U.S. is increasingly available viamobile devices such as smartphones(56% of American adults own asmartphone), internet access athome continues to be the primaryway that Americans connectonline.63 And there is a large gap inaccess to the internet in homes withlower household income (32% of allhouseholds with incomes of lessthan $15,000 have broadband accesscompared to 90% of householdswith incomes over $150,000).64

Additionally, parents have asignificant impact on children’s andyouth’s digital literacies learning byproviding technologies, tools,resources for learning, and technicaland non-technical support.65

Because many children and youthdo not have access to families thatcan support digital literacieslearning, policy makers can have asignificant impact on improvingaccess by funding infrastructures inhomes, communities, and schools as

identified below.

4.1 Fund infrastructure thatenables equitable access toinstruction and technologiesrelated to digital literacies foryoung children and families atpreschools, child care centers,Head Start programs, and otherearly childhood learning sites.

Adolescents are not unique inengaging with digital literacies inmultiple ways out of school andhaving little to no access to digitalliteracies in school. Young children(0-6 year olds) are also highlyengaged and agentive in digitalliteracies while away frompreschool (e.g., 83% use screenmedia, 77% turn on the TV bythemselves and 67% ask forparticular shows, 33% use thecomputer by themselves and 12%ask for specific websites)66 but havelittle to no access to digital literacieslearning in preschool settings, evenwhen technologies are present.67

Policy recommendations68 and ajoint position statement from theNational Association for theEducation of Young Children andthe Fred Rogers Center for EarlyLearning and Children’s Media atSaint Vincent College69 argue that


For example, see Mark Warschauer, Laptops and Literacy: Learning in the Wireless Classroom (New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2006).59Kevin M. Leander, Nathan C. Phillips, and Katherine Headrick Taylor, “The Changing Social Spaces of Learning: Mapping New Mobilities,” Review of Research in Education 34, no. 1 (2010), 329-394; Mark60Warschauer and Tina Matuchniak, “New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing Evidence of Equity in Access, Use, and Outcomes,” Review of Research in Education 34, no. 1 (2010), 179-225.Jane Margolis, Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008).61Donald J. Leu, Elena Forzani, Chris Rhoads, Cheryl Maykel, Clint Kennedy, and Nicole Timbrell, “The New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension: Rethinking the Reading Achievement Gap.”62Pew Internet and American Life Project, Pew Research Center (2012). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.pewinternet.org.63Economics and Statistics Administration and National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Exploring the Digital Nation: Computer and Internet Use at Home (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of64Commerce, 2011). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/exploring_the_digital_nation_computer_and_internet_use_at_home_11092011.pdf. Kimberly Gomez, Brigid Barron, and Nichole Pinkard, “Introduction: The Digital Media Landscape”; Kevin M. Leander, Nathan C. Phillips, and Katherine Headrick Taylor, “The Changing Social Spaces of Learning:65Mapping New Mobilities.”Victoria J. Rideout, Elizabeth A. Vandewater, and Ellen A. Wartella, Zero to Six: Electronic Media in the Lives of Infants, Toddlers and Preschoolers (Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Foundation, 2003). Retrieved March 10, 201566from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED482302.pdf.Karen E. Wohlwend, “A is for Avatar: Young Children in Literacy 2.0 Worlds and Literacy 1.0 Schools,” Language Arts 88, no. 2 (2010): 144-152.67Ibid.68National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College, Technology and Interactive Media as Tools in Early69Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8 (Washington, DC: NAEYC, 2012). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.naeyc.org/content/technology-and-young-children.


policy BRIEF

Digital Literacieshttp://ruepi.uic.edu

young children in early childhoodeducational settings should haveaccess to technology and interactivemedia that enable them to play,create, interact, and collaborate.Specifically, mobile devices arerecommended as ideal tools inpreschool settings because they arechild-sized.

In early childhood settings, then,policy makers should fundinfrastructure that would makeengagements with digital literacieslearning possible. Infrastructureincludes not only tools, devices,internet access, and technologies,but also professional developmentand training for early childhoodeducators so that they have thecapacity for and examples ofsuccessful practices for integratingdigital literacies learning in earlychildhood educational settings.

4.2 Fund infrastructure thatenables equitable access toinstruction and technologiesrelated to digital literacies incommunity settings available tochildren, youth, adults, andfamilies.

One way of addressing disparitiesin access to digital literacies inhomes and communities, asdescribed above, is through fundinginfrastructure in community literacysettings available to children,youth, adults, and families. TheInformation Policy and AccessCenter70 promotes digital inclusionas a concept for considering howpublic libraries do and can better

address issues of opportunity andaccess at the level of policy. TheCenter’s annual Digital InclusionSurvey focuses on evaluating waysthat libraries promote digitalinclusion within the communitiesthey serve. Findings from the 2013survey71 indicate urban/ruraldivides in access to technologies,broadband, and training, with urbanlibraries making available morecomputers, higher bandwidth (over100Mbps average download speedin city libraries, just over 21Mbpsin rural libraries), and more training(77.6% of city libraries offer formalcomputer skills training comparedto 32.5% of rural libraries). But58.8% of all libraries report thatbudget constraints keep them fromincreasing bandwidth. While nearlyall libraries offer training, the kindsof high-level digital literacieslearning indicative of digitaltransformation72 is far lesscommon, with only one in 10libraries offering training in websitedevelopment, digital contentcreation, or cloud computing.Maker spaces, which are physicallocations with resources for peopleto gather to work on digital andother media projects, sharingknowledge and resources, arelocated in 16.8% of public librarieswith a significant divide betweenurban libraries (one in four) andrural libraries (one in 10).

Libraries clearly act as communitycenters for digital literaciesresources and opportunities tolearn. But even as use of librarieshas increased (36% increase in

15

Information Policy and Access Center (IPAC), 2013 Digital Inclusion Survey: Survey Findings and Results Executive Summary (College Park, MD: IPAC, 2014). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from70http://digitalinclusion.umd.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/2013DigitalInclusionExecutiveSummary.pdf. Ibid.71Allan Martin and Jan Grudziecki, “DigEuLit: Concepts and Tools for Digital Literacy Development,” Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences 5, no. 4 (2006): 249-267.72

the current digitaldivide is aroundaccess to highqualityopportunities tolearn with newtechnologies.


policy BRIEF


public use of technology classesduring fiscal year 2011-2012, 58%increase in use of electronicresources, 60% increase in use ofcomputers, 74% increase in Wi-Fiuse), 57% of libraries reported flator decreased funding.73 All of thispoints to a decisive need forincreased funding to publiclibraries for infrastructure,including the tools, technologies,and resources detailed in thissection.

4.3 Fund infrastructure thatenables equitable access toinstruction and technologiesrelated to digital literacies inschools.

A framework for addressing thegap we have identified related toyoung people’s engagement indigital literacies outside of schoolcompared with disengagement withdigital literacies in school ispresented in “Connected Learning:An Agenda for Research andDesign.”74 There, the authors arguefor learning that connectsclassroom, community, and homethrough integration of digitalliteracies and interest-drivenlearning in formal and informalsettings in and out of school.Funding for infrastructure thatsupports connected learning effortsin schools will have a significantimpact on improving access todigital literacies learning.

One promising development fornurturing connected learning inschools is the creation of digital

atelier, or digital studio, spaces intwo Chicago Public Schools. Thesedigital studio spaces are oneelement of a whole-school reforminitiative funded by an Investing inInnovation (i3) grant from the U.S.Department of Education to theCenter for Community ArtsPartnerships at Columbia CollegeChicago. The initiative, calledConvergence Academies,75 incollaboration with Chicago PublicSchools, is building supports fordigital literacies learning byintegrating digital media andtechnology into curriculum andculture across entire schools. Thedigital atelier space, built into eachschool, “is a marriage of formaland informal learning within theculture and space of what we callschool. It is a place forconvergence that asks us to re-imagine learning spaces as fun,playful, and engaging.”76 Through atoolkit,77 Convergence Academiesprovides resources for planning andcreating digital atelier spaces inschools. We encourage policymakers to fund innovative effortslike this one to increaseopportunities for digital literacieslearning in schools.

4.4 Provide and promoteopportunities for learners of allages to access skills,opportunities, experiences, andknowledge to engage in fullparticipation with digitalliteracies.

Although not exclusively an effort

American Library Association, U.S. Public Libraries Weather the Storm: Innovative Services Continue Despite Continuous Budget Cuts (Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 2012). Retrieved March 10,732015 from http://www.ala.org/research/sites/ala.org.research/files/content/initiatives/plftas/issuesbriefs/issuebrief-weatherstorm.pdf. Mizuko Ito, Kris Gutiérrez, Sonia Livingstone, Bill Penuel, Jean Rhodes, Katie Salen, Juliet Schor, Julian Sefton-Green, and S. Craig Watkins, Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design.74See http://convergenceacademies.org/.75Archeworks, Toolkit for Planning a Digital Atelier (Chicago, IL: Archeworks, 2014), 16. Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://convergenceacademies.org/2015/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Toolkit-Digital-Atelier-76Archeworks-New-Practice-team_sm.pdf.Available at http://convergenceacademies.org/2015/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Toolkit-Digital-Atelier-Archeworks-New-Practice-team_sm.pdf.77

libraries clearly actas communitycenters for digitalliteracies resourcesand opportunities tolearn.


to support opportunities for digitalliteracies learning, Chicago City ofLearning78 is an example of the kindof city-wide effort policy makersshould be supporting in order topromote digital literacies learning forall. Chicago City of Learning is acity-wide initiative to bring togetherlearning opportunities for youngpeople in a way that allows them topursue interests. The initiative bringstogether more than 100 youth-serving organizations, many of themwith focuses on digital literacieslearning, in the city of Chicago toboth promote access to learningacross the city but also to create acity-wide digital badging platform.Digital badges, onlinerepresentations of learned skills orachievements, can be earned andcollected by anyone participating inChicago City of Learning whocompletes specific training,programs, skills orientations, orlearning pathways of other kindsdeveloped by any of the participatingyouth-serving organizations. ChicagoCity of Learning uses Mozilla’s OpenBadges79 infrastructure to create,issue, and display these badges, withthe hope that they will gain currencyon social networks and amongemployers and educationalinstitutions. The goal is for badges tobe recognized as evidence of learningthat occurs anywhere and by learnersof any age. While it remains to beseen whether or not digital badgeswill be recognized in this way acrossmultiple systems of accreditation,credentialing, schooling, andlearning, this kind of an innovativecity-wide approach to supportingaccess for all learners to

opportunities for digital literacieslearning is precisely what cities,communities, neighborhoods, andpolicy makers at all levels should beproviding and promoting.

Action 5: Collaborate in andsupport the development of neededresearch in digital literacies.

Policy and practice alike can andshould be informed by research.Research is useful for instrumentalpurposes, conceptual insight, andpolitical strategies. Collaborating onresearch and evaluation projects alsooffers policymakers and practitionersinsights into the logic of research,which may ultimately inform theirown work in new and useful ways.80

However, policymakers andpractitioners do not always turn toresearch as much as to otherresources to inform their work,81

though not necessarily for lack ofinterest or desire,82 and thus there isfrequently a disconnect betweenresearch and policy/practice. As aresult, research that is produced mayhave little to no practical utilityoutside of academia. Finding ways tobridge the divide is key todeveloping better policy and practicethat are grounded in researchevidence.

5.1 Engage with researchers inIllinois, nationally, andinternationally to develop acoherent research agenda relatedto digital literacies for the children,youth, adults, and families ofIllinois.

policy BRIEF

Digital Literacieshttp://ruepi.uic.edu 17

See https://chicagocityoflearning.org.78See http://openbadges.org/.79Sandra M. Nutley, Isabel Walter, and Huw T.O. Davies, Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services (Britsol, UK: The Policy Press, 2007).80Janis Elliot, Arthur Emlen, Karen Tvedt, and Bobbie Weber, Research and Child Care Policy: A View from the States (Albany, OR: Oregon Child Care Research Partnership, 1999). Retrieved March 10, 2015 from81http://health.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/sbhs/pdf/1999-Research-and-ChildCare-Policy.pdf. Karen Bogenscheider and Thomas J. Corbett, Evidence-Based Policymaking: Insights from Policy-Minded Researchers and Research-Minded Policymakers (New York, NY: Routledge, 2010).82

Given the changingnature of digitalliteracies and therelatively littleresearch to date,there is a clear needfor a depth andbreadth of studiesthat examine digitalliteracies practiceslocally and globallyas well as overshort and longperiods of time withindividuals andcommunities.


policy BRIEF

18

Illinois is home to the NationalCenter for SupercomputingApplications, over 75 institutions ofhigher education, a robust networkof community colleges, andnationally ranked K-12 schools. Thepotential for a digital literaciesresearch agenda that is rigorous.Concerted efforts to bridge researchand practice is vital to improving thelives of Illinois citizens. Digitalliteracies research in Illinois wouldbenefit from local and statewidepartnerships that centercommunities as an integral part ofthe research. Given the changingnature of digital literacies and therelatively little research to date,there is a clear need for a depth andbreadth of studies that examinedigital literacies practices locallyand globally as well as over shortand long periods of time withindividuals and communities.

5.2 Develop a system foradequately funding researchrelated to digital literacies.

Given a national focus on collegeand career readiness for the 21stcentury, it is pressing that researchbe funded to inform what it meansto be digitally literate and howschools and communities can fosterdigital literacies learning for all.Conducting high quality researchalong these lines requires significantfunding in order to be rigorous andimpactful. The National ResearchCouncil’s Policy Primer onEducational Research proposes sixguidelines for rigorous educationalresearch83 that emphasize researchthat is carefully designed, rigorouslytested, replicable, and disseminated

widely. We urge policy makers tocontinue to fund rigorous researchthat meets these guidelines and isfocused on a collaborativelyidentified research agenda related todigital literacies learning.

CONCLUSIONThe action items presented here areintended to be treatedinterdependently rather than as a setof disparate items. Coordinatedchanges in policy could significantlyincrease access to and improvementof digital literacies instruction andlearning. The coordination of thesechanges should be driven by thepriorities of students, families, andcommunities rather than by specialinterests (e.g., technologycompanies, political groups, contentproviders). These recommendationshave implications for all thoseinvolved in school and communityinstruction and learning includingchildren, adolescents, and adultswho interact daily with digital textsand technologies; teachers andinstructors in school and communitysettings; local and district schoolleaders; neighborhood, ward, city,and state leaders; researchers; andprivate and government fundingagencies.


//www.ecs.org/html/educationissues/research/primer/appendixB.asp83


about usThe Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative (RUEPI) is an education policy research project based in the Universityof Illinois at Chicago College of Education. RUEPI was created in response to one of the most significant problemsfacing urban education policy: dialogue about urban education policy consistently fails to reflect what we know and whatwe do not about the problems education policies are aimed at remedying. Instead of being polemic and groundedprimarily in ideology, public conversations about education should be constructive and informed by the best availableevidence.

The UIC Center for Literacy is a public service and research center that works to improve literacy education, policy andresearch at the local, state and national levels. We provide leadership and technical assistance to Chicago area schoolsand community- based organizations for the purpose of enhancing the quality of literacy services. We also work withpublic and private entities to formulate policies that support effective literacy programs. The Center responds to issues inliteracy education by serving as a public clearinghouse for literacy information; establishing partnerships with universitydepartments and external agencies; contributing to enhanced graduate education for future leaders in literacy education;and creating innovative, research-based programs that serve as exemplary models for public practice. Our activities areespecially focused on helping to reduce literacy as a barrier to full societal participation for all individuals.

our MissionRUEPI’s work is aimed at fostering more informed dialogue and decision-making about education policy in Chicago andother urban areas. To achieve this, we engage in research and analysis on major policy issues facing these areas,including early childhood education, inclusion, testing, STEM education, and teacher workforce policy. We offer timelyanalysis and recommendations that are grounded in the best available evidence.

our aPProachGiven RUEPI’s mission, the project’s work is rooted in three guiding principles. While these principles are not grounded inany particular political ideology and do not specify any particular course of action, they lay a foundation for ensuring thatdebates about urban education policy are framed by an understanding of how education policies have fared in the past.The principles are as follows:

• Education policies should be coherent and strategic

• Education policies should directly engage with what happens in schools and classrooms

• Education policies should account for local context

RUEPI policy briefs are rooted in these principles, written by faculty in the University of Illinois at Chicago College ofEducation and other affiliated parties, and go through a rigorous peer-review process.

The development and publication of this brief was supported by the University of Illinois College of Education and Centerfor Literacy.

learn more at http://ruepi.uic.edu and http://cfl.uic.edu

contact [email protected]@uic.edu

1040 West Harrison StreetChicago, Illinois 60607

Digital Literacies

policy BRIEF

http://ruepi.uic.edu 19


Documents

Access, Equity, And Empowerment - Supporting Digital Literacies for All Learners