assessing preservice teachers' knowledge of new literacies by

Assessing Preservice Teachers' Knowledge of New Literacies

by

Tala Karkar Esperat, M.P.A.

A Dissertation

In

Curriculum & Instruction

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved

Patriann Smith, Ph.D. Chair of Committee

Jaehoon Lee, Ph.D.

Aaron Zimmerman, Ph.D.

Mark Sheridan, Ph.D.

Dean of the Graduate School

August 2019

Texas Tech University, Tala Karkar Esperat, August 2019

ii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my loving parents, Aida and Michael Karkar,

who gave me the gift of a love for learning and the resilience, work ethic, and

perseverance to study throughout my life.

To all my former students, and my nephew and nieces -- Ameer, Teya, Mark,

Chris, and Kenzey -- who inspired me to pursue my dreams and believe in tomorrow. I

did, and I do.

Thank you to my triplet siblings, Diala and Tariq, and my older sisters, Hadeel

and Nadeen, who have been my life-long supporters and cheerleaders. All of you have

always been there for me. I dedicate my work to my family and friends who supported

me throughout my doctoral journey.

Also, I dedicate this work to my incredible, supportive uncle, Dr. Jack Karkar and

my guardian angel, Auntie Stella, and to my brilliant mentor and role model, Dr. Patriann

Smith.

And lastly, to the love of my life, my best friend, and my husband, Dominic R.

Esperat and my loving and supportive extended parents, Dr. Christina Roble Esperat and

Oswaldo Esperat. Thank you for all your support throughout the past years, thank you for

treating me like your own daughter, and for making Lubbock a home for me.


iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First and foremost, I would like to thank my unsung hero, my Committee Chair

and mentor, Dr. Patriann Smith, for all her commitment, feedback, and efforts in

inspiring me to always do my best and for assisting me in putting my vision into a

workable mission. I am truly thankful for all your efforts, and I am where I am today

because of you. You will always be part of my success. You taught me to be kind to

myself, and to take care of myself. Thank you, for always reminding me to be faithful to

everything I do, to share enlightenment with others, to stay focused, and to present good

work.

Thank you, my committee members, Dr. Jaehoon Lee, thank you for being patient

and for believing in me. You said one day, “I will be a pioneer in the field.” Hearing you

say that gave me confidence to pursue developing my Pedagogical Content Knowledge of

New Literacies (PCKNL) research instrument. Every time I asked you a question you

gave me brilliant answers. Thank you, Dr. Aaron Zimmerman, for always challenging me

to give my best and for preparing me to work hard in the field of education.

Thank you, Drs. Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis, for your inspiring work that

served as a foundation for my PCKNL model and instrument. Thank you to the external

reviewers for my PCKNL survey, Dr. Bill Cope, Dr. Allan Luke, and Dr. Jennifer

Schneider, for taking the time to validate the content of my instrument.

Thank you, Dr. Sonya Sherrod, for being a dedicated doctoral support coach and

for always being there for all the students. Throughout my consultations with you, I was

able to structure and organize my thoughts. I appreciate all the feedback you gave me and

thank you for assisting with the formatting of my dissertation. Thank you, Cynthia Henry,


iv

for assisting me in locating surveys and articles that accelerated my work in completing

my dissertation. I learned from you how to navigate different databases. Thank you,

Texas Tech Library, for your incredible services and wonderful staff. Your services gave

me access to the most valuable and updated resources.

Thank you, Dean Dr. Mark Sheridan, for making my last year at Texas Tech

count. Working with you as the Graduate Assembly President for Texas Tech University

helped me advocate for my fellow graduate students, launch the wellness campaign, and

embrace cultural diversity. Your support to the graduate students enhanced my

experience at Texas Tech. I really appreciate all the support you have given me. It gave

me the confidence to complete my dissertation in a timely manner. Thank you, Dr. Carol

Sumner, for all your support and for reminding me to always remain passionate and help

others.

Thank you, Dr. Dough Hamman, Dr. Amani Zaier, Dr. Raymond Flores, Dr.

Linni Greenless, Dr. Laura Brown, Sherre Heider, Anjanette Franklin, Linda Musquiz,

and everyone who helped me distribute my survey.

Also, thank you to my family – my parents Aida and Michael, my siblings, Diala,

Tariq, Hadeel, and Nadeen, and my extended family, Dr. Christina Roble Esperat and

Oswaldo Esperat – for your continuous support. Thank you to all my family and friends

who have been part of this journey, especially Uncle Jack, late Auntie Stella, and my dear

friends Jumana Sakakini, Dana Abu Lail, Elias Halabi, Rima Halabi, and Nadeen Bahour.

To my husband and best friend, Dominic R Esperat, thank you for believing in me

and not letting me give up. I appreciate all your support. This is just the beginning of our

amazing future together!


v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................................. iii

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. x

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xi

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

Problem Statement ....................................................................................................... 2

Purpose of the Study and Significance ......................................................................... 4

Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................ 6

Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 9

Overview of the Methodology ..................................................................................... 9

Definition of Terms .................................................................................................... 11

Summary .................................................................................................................... 15

II. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 17

Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................. 18

Overview of Social Constructivism ........................................................................... 19

The Epistemology of Social Constructivism ........................................................ 20

The Ontology of Social Constructivism ............................................................... 22

The Axiology of Social Constructivism ............................................................... 23

Constructivism and Pedagogy .................................................................................... 24

Overview of New Literacies ....................................................................................... 26

Dual Level New Literacies Theory ...................................................................... 27

New Literacies Pedagogies ................................................................................. 28

Pedagogical Literacy Practices .......................................................................... 30

Paradigmatic Shifts in Reading and Literacy Leading to New Literacies .......... 31

Pedagogical Content Knowledge ........................................................................ 40


vi

Models of Pedagogical Content Knowledge ....................................................... 42

Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Preservice Teachers ............................... 45

Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Information Technology ......................... 49

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Preservice Teachers ....... 51

PCK and Reading ................................................................................................ 54

The Use of New Literacies in the Classroom ...................................................... 57

The Significance of New Literacies to Preservice Teachers in Teacher Education ............................................................................................................ 60

Pedagogical Holistic Model of New Literacies .................................................. 62

Surveys Used in the Field ........................................................................................... 63

Summary .................................................................................................................... 73

III. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 75

Purpose and Objectives .............................................................................................. 75

Research Questions .................................................................................................... 76

Research Design ......................................................................................................... 76

Survey Instrument ................................................................................................ 94

Item Selection ............................................................................................................. 95

Three Form Design ............................................................................................. 95

Survey Dissemination and Administration .......................................................... 96

Sampling .............................................................................................................. 98

Analysis .................................................................................................................... 100

Statistical Analyses ............................................................................................ 101

Data Analysis for Quantitative Data ................................................................. 102

Data Analysis for Qualitative Data ................................................................... 105

Positionality ...................................................................................................... 110

Limitations ............................................................................................................... 113

IV. RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 115

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................ 115


vii

Review of Research Questions ................................................................................. 116

Description of the Sample ........................................................................................ 116

Quantitative Results ................................................................................................. 121

Missing Data ..................................................................................................... 121

Confirmatory Factor Analysis ........................................................................... 122

Findings From the Qualitative Data ......................................................................... 140

Preservice Teachers’ Partial Knowledge of New Literacies That Align With Preestablished Modes ............................................................................... 140

Preservice Teachers Misconception of Technologies and New Literacies ....... 148

Preservice Teachers Need More Exposure to the New Literacies Standards ........................................................................................................... 150

Pedagogical Content Knowledge Practices as Cultural Relevant Teaching ............................................................................................................ 152

Summary .................................................................................................................. 153

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...................................................................... 155

Interpretation of the Results ..................................................................................... 155

Quantitative Results .......................................................................................... 155

Qualitative Results ............................................................................................ 164

Ideological Model Versus the Autonomous Model ........................................... 164

Pedagogies of New Literacies ........................................................................... 165

Preservice Teachers and Constructivism .......................................................... 167

The Ontology and Axiology of Constructivism and Pedagogy ......................... 168

Preservice Teachers Have Misconceptions Between Technologies and New Literacies ................................................................................................... 170

Preservice Teachers Need More Exposure to Applying the New Literacies Standards .......................................................................................... 172

The Understanding That Integrating Student Cultural Knowledge is New Literacies ................................................................................................... 174

Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 176

Limitations ............................................................................................................... 177


viii

Implications for Research ......................................................................................... 178

Final Thoughts .......................................................................................................... 180

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 181

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 204

A. IRB Approval ...................................................................................................... 204

B. A Survey on Pre-service Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge of New Literacies ..................................................................................................... 205

C. Email to Participants ............................................................................................ 215


ix

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to assess the pedagogical content knowledge of new

literacies (PCKNL) among preservice teachers within and beyond the United States.

Through this study, I developed an instrument – the PCKNL survey – that assessed

preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies. The survey was

administered to a sample of preservice teachers who are in a wide range of teacher

preparation programs. Findings from the survey reflect the extent to which preservice

teachers possess knowledge of how to teach new literacies. It is expected that the study’s

findings will be generalizable to preservice teachers in teacher preparation programs

beyond those surveyed in the study. Through this study, implications for enhancing

literacy curriculum in teacher preparation programs are provided.

Keywords: Pedagogy, preservice teachers, new literacies, literacy, reading, survey


x

LIST OF TABLES

1. Surveys Used in Literacy, Pedagogy, and Technology .............................................. 65

2. Example of the Documentation of the Search for Surveys in Different Database ..... 79

3. Example of Article Analysis ...................................................................................... 81

4. Defining Pedagogical Approaches and Modes of Meaning Making .......................... 83

5. Linguistic Mode .......................................................................................................... 84

6. Gestural Mode ............................................................................................................ 85

7. Visual Mode ............................................................................................................... 86

8. Audio Mode ................................................................................................................ 87

9. Spatial Mode ............................................................................................................... 88

10. Synesthesia Mode ....................................................................................................... 89

11. Example of Survey Item Analysis Indicating the Source and Potential Survey Item Questions for New Literacies Linguistic Mode ................................................. 91

12. Classifying Items in Relation to the Pedagogical Approaches (Functional, Authentic, Didactic, and Critical Approaches) .......................................................... 93

13. Overview of Universities to Which Survey was Disseminated .................................. 99

14. Qualitative Data Analysis of the Pedagogical Content Knowledge of New Literacies .................................................................................................................. 107

15. Participant Demographics ........................................................................................ 118

16. Item Loadings – Initial Model .................................................................................. 124

17. Factor Correlations – Initial Model .......................................................................... 127

18. Composite Reliability – Initial Model ...................................................................... 129

19. Item Loading – Revised Model ................................................................................ 132

20. Factor Correlations – Revised Model ....................................................................... 134

21. Composite Reliability – Revised Model ................................................................... 135

22. Participant Average Scale Score .............................................................................. 137


xi

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Social Constructivism Framing Pedagogy for Learning of New Literacies. ................. 26

2. Integration of Pedagogical Literacy Practices, Content Knowledge Pedagogy, and Critical Pedagogy. .................................................................................................. 31

3. Pedagogical Holistic Model of New Literacies. ............................................................ 63

4. Word Cloud of the Keywords Used in the Searches. .................................................... 78

5. PCKNL Survey Process Development. ......................................................................... 97

6. Full Model of PCKNL. ................................................................................................ 136

7. Revised Model. ............................................................................................................ 139


1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Teacher preparation programs focus on training future teachers to teach

effectively. Throughout the coursework in teacher preparation programs, preservice

teachers are exposed to a variety of content knowledge (CK), teaching methods, and

theories (Gee, 1996). As a result of these experiences, these teachers develop pedagogical

expertise (Borko & Livingston, 1989). Preservice teachers are then expected to translate

their knowledge into the classroom, using a wide range of resources and new perspectives

on literacy education called new literacies (Cervetti, Damico, & Pearson, 2006;

Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). The term “new literacies” refers to the skills that learners

can utilize in various forms to infer meaning that goes beyond reading and writing, using

different modes of meaning making (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004; Rowsell &

Walsh, 2011). Students use different resources to obtain information, which include text

messages, blogging, social networking websites, and listening to or reading information

from electronic devices (Moss & Lapp, 2010). Using new literacies, students are

expected to identify, analyze, and synthesize information independently, and teachers are

required to use different modes of meaning making (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012; Leu,

Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2017; New London Group, 1996).

With the ongoing changes in the education field, teacher preparation programs

should reexamine how they prepare preservice teachers to teach new literacies. This

reexamination is necessary because preservice teachers often feel uncertain about finding

options to customize learning for their students (Leu et al., 2004; Li, 2017; Miles &

Knipe, 2018; Miller, 2015; Yi & Angay‐Crowder, 2016) One way to ensure that teacher


2

preparation addresses new literacies is for instructors to conduct assessments that

examine preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of new literacies and

for preservice teachers to conduct self-assessments. Conducting such assessments can

inform instructors of pedagogical practices needed by preservice teachers to address K-12

student needs. This research study intends to provide one such assessment.

Problem Statement

Effective teacher preparation programs provide coursework in specific content

curriculum and content pedagogical learning. Similarly, teacher preparation programs

offer preservice teachers opportunities to practice what they have learned and select

teaching practicums in which preservice teachers will practice what they will teach in the

future (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2009; Darling-Hammond et al.,

2007). Darling-Hammond, Burns, Campbell, Goodwin, and Low (2018) argued the

urgency of focusing on “system-building” (p. 13) of teacher preparation programs,

indicating that “the quality of teachers depends on the quality of their preparation” (Risko

& Reid, 2019, p. 423). In this process, pedagogical content knowledge and content

knowledge play a critical role.

The term “pedagogical content knowledge” represents the integrated knowledge

that teachers have, which guides their classroom practices and determines their ability to

reflect sufficient content knowledge, effective teaching methods, curriculum knowledge,

and curriculum resources (Shulman, 1987). The term “content knowledge” refers to

knowing the content needed by unpacking, representing, and making this content

accessible to students (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008). Specifically, teachers’ content

knowledge is the knowledge that teachers possess in a specific content area, the


3

knowledge of how to teach that content area, and the knowledge to understand students’

misconceptions and use different strategies to address them (Ball et al., 2008). Research

has shown that preservice teachers have inadequate CK and PCK (Cochran-Smith, 2003a;

Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2007; Gray, Tale, & O’Rear, 2015). With insufficient

PCK, teachers will have difficulty selecting appropriate materials when presenting

lessons in the classroom (Ayoubi, El Takach, & Rawas, 2017; Shulman, 1987).

However, even when PCK is formulated, it has been difficult to identify how to

scaffold PCK development and assess it (Metz, 2018). As a result, research has shown

that a gap exists between theory and practice (Borrero, Flores, & De La Cruz, 2016;

Risko et al., 2008). Without a clear mechanism to address this gap, such an obstacle will

continue to present challenges for teachers who complete teacher preparation programs

and must translate theory into practice in their classrooms. In turn, K-12 student needs

will remain unaddressed. I argue for the need to assess preservice teachers’ PCK while

they are in teacher preparation programs to determine if and what gaps may be present in

their PCK.

The Pedagogical Content Knowledge of New Literacies (PCKNL) survey is, thus,

proposed in this study to address the aforementioned concern and is intended to function

as a mechanism for assessing preservice teachers’ PCK in the area of new literacies. This

proposed instrument is a multiple-choice, fill-in-the-blank, and open-ended survey

instrument. The PCKNL survey includes six sections that represent modes of new

literacies, based on the literature, which have been identified as linguistic, gestural, audio,

visual, special, and synesthesia (Kalantzis & Cope, 2008; 2015; New London Group,

1996). It is also designed to assess four pedagogies that have been known to be central to


4

addressing these modes in classrooms: authentic, functional, didactic, and critical

(Kalantzis & Cope, 2008, 2015). The PCKNL survey is proposed for preservice teachers

in their first, second, third and fourth years of their teacher preparation programs.

Currently, there is no such instrument specifically designed to assess preservice

teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies. Such an assessment will help

educational instructors identify the pedagogical needs of preservice teachers in new

literacies, allowing instructors to determine how they might help teachers to address these

needs successfully. By proposing the PCKNL for assessing preservice teachers’ PCK of

new literacies, teacher preparation programs and the instructors who teach in these

programs are provided with a mechanism to help teachers refine their teaching in ways

that will facilitate their ability to teach using new literacies. Administering the PCKNL,

will also allow preservice teachers to identify their standing in terms of their preparation

to teach new literacies.

Purpose of the Study and Significance

It is largely established that knowledge of how to teach reading instruction, that is

“pedagogical content knowledge of literacy,” is critical to the preparation of reading

teachers (Haid, 2006). Evidence from the field has reiterated the usefulness of such

knowledge, previously described as practical knowledge, for reading teachers (Risko et

al., 2008). However, despite the evolved definition of reading as involving multiple

literacies—multiliteracies or new literacies—there remains a focus on pedagogical

content knowledge for reading that concentrates on traditional notions of literacy (Cope

& Kalantzis, 2009). Such notions of PCK as they relate to reading do not often capture

what teachers must know about how to teach new literacies (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012;


5

Leu et al., 2004, 2017). Yet, new literacies have become increasingly representative of K-

12 student education and function as the primary techniques that learners utilize in

various forms to infer meaning in the 21st century, even while teachers continue to teach

reading in ways that reflect these changes by using multimodal modules that include

reading and videos (Li, 2017). For instance, K-12 students use a variety of resources to

obtain information such as text messages, blogging, and social networking websites from

electronic devices (Moss & Lapp, 2010), which requires teachers to know how to teach

students using various forms of meaning-making: audio, visual, gestural, tactile, oral, and

written (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). Moreover, teachers who address new literacies in their

practice are required to acquire knowledge about different pedagogical approaches—

didactic, authentic, functional, and critical—to teach new literacies (Kalantzis & Cope,

2012; Cope & Kalantzis, 2015). In the absence of pedagogical content knowledge of new

literacies, teachers will struggle to meet the needs of 21st-century students who rely

heavily on technologies that lend themselves to multiliteracies. In turn, students will

continue to receive instruction based on the PCK of reading instruction that does not

align with the PCK of new literacies in the 21st century. As a result, they will not be

prepared for a multiliterate world.

The purpose of this study was to propose an instrument that assesses preservice

teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies, which can serve as a

mechanism for ensuring that teachers are prepared to teach K-12 students in multiliterate

environments. Guided by the new literacies theory and social constructivism (Leu et al.,

2004; Vygotsky, 2005), I did the following: (a) developed an instrument (i.e., survey) that

assesses pre-service teacher pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies and reliably


6

measures preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies; and (b)

administered the survey to a sample of preservice teachers who were in their first, second,

third, or fourth years in teacher preparation programs to determine the extent to which

they possessed knowledge of how to teach new literacies. It is expected that findings

from the study can be generalized to teacher preparation programs beyond those reflected

in the current study, thereby stimulating them to modify or develop new literacies

curriculum based on the needs of their preservice teacher populations.

This study is significant because it provides a mechanism to assess preservice

teachers’ knowledge using different modes of new literacies and various approaches in

their teaching. It can also assist instructors in preparing curriculum for preservice

teachers that meets their needs. Often, teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is

overlooked and remains unassessed. This study fills a gap because it is the first, and

currently, the only instrument developed to assess teachers’ pedagogical content

knowledge of new literacies. In doing so, the study provides a mechanism to

continuously assess pre-service teacher knowledge, creating an avenue for teachers to

receive support that allows them to feel ready to teach with new literacies after

graduating from their teacher preparation programs.

Theoretical Framework

The social constructivism (Vygotsky, 2005) and new literacies (Leu et al., 2017)

theories that undergird this study served as lenses for examining the assessment of

preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies in teacher

preparation programs. According to the theory of new literacies, students learn through

practice by communicating, exchanging, negotiating, and applying what they learn in


7

meaningful literacy experiences (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). The theory of new

literacies aligns closely with Street’s (1984) theory, which presented a new perspective of

literacy as social change. Street described differences between the autonomous and

ideological models of literacy. The autonomous model indicated that introducing literacy

to people enhances their cognitive skills and economic prospects and helps them become

better citizens, regardless of their social, ideological, and economic conditions. In

contrast, the ideological model highlighted literacy as a social practice and called for

more cultural sensitivity that impacted how literacy was taught. Specifically, the

ideological model reflected that literacy “varies with social context, and with cultural

norms and discourses” (Street, 1997, p. 48) in more than one form. While it is universal,

learning experiences are created based on the learners and their cultures. The purpose of

learning is to enable the application of content in different contexts.

When new literacies are incorporated into classrooms based on the ideological

model of literacy proposed by Street (1997), students are provided with multiple avenues

and opportunities to engage in the current lessons, which may foster deep understanding

and higher order thinking among students (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012; Leu et al., 2004).

Using new literacies pedagogies—authentic, functional, didactic, and critical—based on

an ideological perspective of literacy, results in higher levels of student engagement, as

well as the design and redesign of meaning making (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012; Leu et al.,

2004). The similarities that exist across different modes of the representation of meaning

making (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012) allow for connections to be made that would not occur

without these modes. Identifying dissimilarities among these modes alerts teachers to

individualized instruction needed to attend to each student’s needs (Kalantzis & Cope,


8

2012). As a result of the emphasis on meaning-making in new literacies, which aligns

with the notion of literacy as a social practice (Street, 1997), teachers and students are

presented with a vast expanse of ideas that extend beyond those found in a traditional

textbook. Identifying literacies as a social practice thus embraces the affordances

provided by social contexts for actively recognizing ways of learning.

New literacies theory then clearly emanates from the social constructivism

paradigm, which states that students must engage in authentic literacy activities and skills

in context (Kalantzis, Cope, Chan, & Dalley-Trim, 2016; Leu & Zawilinski, 2007).

Social constructivism embraces “active engagement in processes of meaning-making”

(Au, 1998, p. 299), text development, and the varied nature of knowledge. It is human

practice and social interaction that form the basis of knowledge. By planning appropriate

activities, promoting group work, providing timely evaluations, and offering clearly

defined directions, teachers can cultivate the conditions that maximize student learning

(Vygotsky, 2005). Vygotsky (2005) proposed that interaction among peers effectively

promotes the development of skills and knowledge. Thus, social interaction among peers

plays a vital role in learning. Teachers are urged to facilitate student learning by

providing multiple resources and guiding students to gather, comprehend, evaluate, and

communicate information (Leu et al., 2017).

Some of the essential factors in constructivist pedagogy are that teachers serve as

facilitators of learning and present the content in various ways from different

perspectives. The constructivist learning environment involves the ongoing process of

social interaction, by which students can increase their communication capabilities and

become comfortable speaking in public (Miltiadous & Savenye, 2003). Teachers create a


9

collaborative community, using group-based instruction, managing dialogue among

students to promote deeper learning, and acknowledging student contributions (Kalantzis

& Cope, 2012). Given the connections between new literacies theory and social

constructivism, social constructivism functions as the broader paradigm through which to

understand the concept of new literacies. In turn, new literacies theory functions as the

lens through which to examine and analyze data in this study that reflect the multiple

modes through which meaning making tends to be enacted. New literacies theory also

provides an avenue to examine and analyze data regarding the corresponding pedagogies

through which new literacies tend to be leveraged.

Research Questions

Two questions guided this study:

1. Can pre-service teacher pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies be

measured reliably?

This question was addressed by describing the survey development and

psychometric properties as well as conducting statistical analyses (internal consistency

reliability: Cronbach’s alpha, item-total correlation, etc.) based on the survey.

2. What is the pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies reflected by pre-

service teachers?

This question was addressed by using descriptive statistics and interpretive qualitative

analysis based on survey responses from preservice teachers.

Overview of the Methodology

The current study used survey methodology to investigate pre-service teachers’

use of new literacies in the classroom. Overviews of surveys that have been developed


10

were used to examine constructs similar to those examined in this study. Quantitative

data collected from a sample of pre-service teachers across a variety of teacher

preparation programs were analyzed using descriptive statistics and bivariate tests. Using

the student responses, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the

constructs of the pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies (PCKNL). The main

goal of confirmatory factor analysis is to validate the psychometric properties of items in

a survey. I investigated how well the hypothesized factor structure described the

relationships of the observed variables (items) with their respective factors (modes) as

well as the associations among the factors. Analysis results were used to inform current

and future instructors’ pedagogical content practices. Missing data, due to either attrition

or nonresponse, were handled by Monte Carlo Markov Chain Multiple Imputation

(Enders, 2010). All measured variables were incorporated into the imputation process as

auxiliary variables, thereby achieving greater recovery of missing data (Schafer &

Graham, 2002).

Qualitative data was also collected based on one open-ended question in the

survey to investigate pre-service teachers’ use of new literacies in the classroom. The

answers were analyzed using inductive and interpretive qualitative analyses (Cohen,

Manion, & Morrison, 2011). An interpretivist perspective is based on the assumption that

individuals create personal, subjective, and intersubjective interpretations of the world

with which they interact (Paul, 2005). Interpretivism functions on the premise that

knowledge is socially constructed by the participants involved in the research. Therefore,

the researchers’ social constructions are equally as valid as the constructions of the

participants involved in their studies (Paul, 2005). From this perspective, an inextricable


11

link exists between the knower and knowledge (Paul, 2005). Furthermore, language

mediates reality via the active role of the mind, given that meaning about the world is

transformed to fit the shape of human sentences (Paul, 2005).

I used an interpretivist approach in analyzing the data, which allowed me to tap

into the meaning ascribed by preservice teachers to their own experiences with new

literacies, based on their open-ended responses. Their experiences could not readily be

captured in the assessments of these literacies, based on predefined survey questions as

provided in the rest of the survey. Through inductive analysis, via an interpretive

approach, I used open coding and constant comparative analysis (Charmaz, 2006) to

incorporate preservice teachers’ perspectives about new literacies into the notion

pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies. Such an avenue allowed me to extend

the theory of new literacies and redefine new literacies based on the unique perspectives

of preservice teachers.

Definition of Terms

New literacies. The term “new literacies” refers to the technique that learners can

utilize in various forms to infer meaning. Students use different resources to obtain

information, which include text messages, blogging, social networking websites, and

listening to or reading information from electronic devices (Moss & Lapp, 2010). “New

literacies include the skills, strategies, and dispositions necessary to successfully adapt to

the changing technologies that influence all aspects of our personal and professional

lives” (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack,, 2004, p. 3).

Muliliteracies. The term multiliteracies is defined as “metalanguages to describe

and interpret the design elements of different modes of meaning” (New London Group,


12

1996, p. 83). It includes negotiating a multiplicity of discourse and “extends the idea and

scope of literacy pedagogy to integrate a variety of texts forms associated with

information and multimedia technologies” (New London Group, 1996, p. 61).

Pre-service teacher. A pre-service teacher is a college or university student

involved in a school-based, field experience. Under the supervision of a cooperating

instructor, the pre-service teacher gradually takes on more classroom management and

instructional responsibilities (Virginia Wesleyan College, 2019).

Pedagogy. Pedagogy “involves a vision (theory, set of beliefs) about the society,

human nature, knowledge and production, in relation to educational ends, with terms and

rules inserted as to the practical and mundane means of their realization” (Davies, 1994,

p. 26).

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in the field of education. Shulman

(1987) described PCK as follows: “It represents the blending of content and pedagogy

into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized,

represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented or

instruction” (p. 8). Pedagogical content knowledge is the knowledge of how to teach the

specific content, which includes developing and using a variety of curriculum materials,

instructional strategies, technological resources, and assessments selectively and

appropriately (Haid, 2006).

New literacies approaches.

a. The didactic literacy pedagogy involves teacher-centered learning. Teachers

use textbooks or a syllabus to transmit the rules of language to passive learners. Learners

copy, repeat, memorize, follow, and apply rules (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).


13

b. The authentic literacy pedagogy is a student-centered approach. It focuses on

learning by doing and is derived from student interests. Teachers facilitate the learning

process for the students, and they guide them through questioning. Students take

ownership of their learning and are considered social actors (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).

c. Functional literacies pedagogy is concerned with text and its social function. It

aims to establish structure and content in literacy teaching and emphasizes meaning-

making. Learners explain the ways texts deliver meaning to them and then apply their

knowledge of language and meaning making in social contexts. They are exposed to

different types of texts that enable them to succeed in the real world (Kalantzis & Cope,

2012).

d. Critical literacies pedagogy is one approach to teaching students “to challenge a

text” (Moss & Lapp, 2010, p. 287). It focuses on using or creating authentic texts that

address challenging issues, like discrimination, which are of interests or concerns to

learners. Learners are seen as social actors as they are encouraged to raise questions and

identify problems. They learn about differences in language, power, cultures, and new

media. This pedagogy aims to assist learners to understand how things are constructed by

people’s actions, cultures, and values (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).

Modes of meaning making.

a. Gestural meanings are expressed in bodily appearances, movement, and

positioning. They are multilayered, connected to behavior, feeling effect, and gesture. It

includes body spacing (posture), bodily movement (feelings of motion), and gaze

(gestural meets visual; Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).


14

b. Spatial meanings are proximity and movement shaped by the places in which

we live. Spaces have meaning based on the functions and meanings designed by people.

As observed by Kalantzis & Cope (2012), “spatial communication includes giving

directions, making maps, drawing plans, creating models, and diagramming flows” (p.

283).

c. Visual communication involves creating the meaning from mental images such

as paintings, photographs, pages, advertisement, and colors (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).

d. Audio meaning refers to sound effect such that “meaning making occurs when

we put signifiers together into a coherent system that more or less corresponds with the

sense of the world of our experienced meanings, or what signified” (Kalantzis & Cope,

2012, p. 177).

e. Linguistic meanings are text-based meanings that traditionally dominate the

field (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).

f. Synesthetic approach. This approach involves using more than one mode --

multiple modes -- to represent and communicate ideas that can facilitate deeper

understanding (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).

The distinction between new literacies and new technologies. Literacies build

on traditional elements of literacy that include comprehension, writing, phonics, and

phonemic awareness by emphasizing strategies to identify important questions, search

texts, read, evaluate, synthesize, and communicate information (Leu et al., 2004). From a

new literacies perspective, students are expected to use various forms of text such as

electronic texts, visual texts, graphic books, and resources that may include the use of

technology, all of which connects them to modes of representation and meaning-making,


15

which include visual, audio, spatial, oral, and written elements (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).

New technologies (O’Brien, Salinas, Reinhart, & Paratore, 2018) serve as supporting

tools and machines used to deliver information for representation and meaning making

that occur through new literacies, and they are continuously developing. Educators used

new technologies to support the learning of their students, and new technologies may be

considered as part of new literacies.

Summary

This study proposes the PCKNL survey to assess preservice teachers’ pedagogical

content knowledge of new literacies with a broader goal to ensure that preservice teachers

are equipped to address K-12 students’ needs in multiliterate environments. The

dissertation describes the process of development and validation of this instrument. There

is no instrument currently available to measure preservice pedagogical content

knowledge of teaching new literacies for preservice teachers despite the need for this

assessment. Thus, the study fills a gap in the field.

Social constructivism, in conjunction with new literacies theory, serve as lenses to

undergird the study. Social constructivism supports the principle that learners actively

construct meaning through their individual experiences and schema (Schuman, 1996).

Meaningful learning happens when learners are engaged in social interactions,

negotiation, communication, application, and reflection in meaningful literacy

experiences (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; Prawat, 1992). Acknowledging the social

constructivist foundation of new literacies, this study examines teachers’ knowledge of

how to teach reading for developing and using a variety of curriculum materials,

instructional strategies, technological resources, and assessments selectively and


16

appropriately (Haid, 2006), it is cognizant that such knowledge is instantiated within the

social contexts in which literacies evolve.

The PCKNL instrument may be administered by teacher preparation programs at

the beginning of an academic semester to determine preservice teacher knowledge and

the resources and educational materials required for their success. This instrument may

also be used at the end of the semester to determine the progress preservice teachers have

made in acquiring PCKNL. Teacher preparation programs as well as instructors can use

this information to direct curriculum development and to facilitate preservice student

learning and progress with regards to new literacies. The implication of this study is for

teacher preparation programs to develop new literacies curriculum that aligns with the

needs of preservice teachers based on indications obtained from the PCKNL.


17

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

As established earlier, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) refers to a

combination of content knowledge and the skills to teach effectively (Shulman, 1986),

while content knowledge refers to knowledge of facts, concepts, and theories in the

subject area in which teachers expect to teach and students are expected to learn (Ball,

Thames, & Phelps, 2008). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge impacts their content

knowledge and performance (Ball & Bass, 2000; Ball et al., 2008). Previously, the focus

of literacy teacher preparation has been on the teachers’ need to possess pedagogical

content knowledge (Ball, 2009; Cochran-Smith, 2003b; Ladson-Billings, 1994).

However, today, the field of teacher education, and specifically literacy teacher

preparation, has identified a disconnect between theory and practice (Borrero et al., 2016;

Risko et al., 2008), creating the need for pedagogical content knowledge that is aligned

with contemporary strides made in our thinking about literacy (Street, 1997). Thus, the

focus has become how teachers deliver instruction and the resources they provide to

prepare students in this digital age (Loos, Ivan, & Leu, 2018). Students having equal

access to information is imperative (De Jong & Rizvi, 2009). As a result of the ongoing

changes in conceptions of literacy, teacher dispositions are focused on using different

pedagogies, employing different skills, beginning with identifying resources to

synthesizing information with students and identifying literacies as a social practice—


18

new literacies (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). I asked two questions in proposing the

development of the pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies (PCKNL) survey:


measured reliably?


service teachers?

To facilitate an understanding of the development of the PCKNL tool, this chapter

provides an extensive review of the literature on social constructivism theory, new

literacies theory and pedagogies, and pedagogical content knowledge in relation to

preservice teachers in the new literacies era. In doing so, I demonstrate the progress made

in the field, identify tensions in conceptions among constructs, confirm gaps that indicate

a need for the current study, and problematize the ways in which previous research has

examined constructs in this work, thereby providing a rationale for the development of

the PCKNL assessment proposed.

Theoretical Framework

New literacies theory (Leu et al., 2017), derived from social constructivist theory

(Vygotsky, 2005), provides a framework for this study. Social constructivism is a major

theory of learning used in literacy education research to show how leaners “structure

knowledge” (Hruby, 2001, p. 48). Social constructivism theory supports the principle

that learners actively construct meaning through their individual experiences and schema

(Schuman, 1996). Meaningful learning happens when learners are engaged in social

interactions, negotiation, communication, application, and reflection in meaningful

literacy experiences (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; Prawat, 1992). Social constructivism


19

theory is most associated with the developmental theories of Lev Vygotsky, Jerome

Bruner, and Albert Bandura's social cognitive theory (Schunk, 2000). Knowledge via

social constructivism is seen as a social product, influenced by cultural and historical

factors, as well as contextual understanding brought about when teachers build on

students’ background and knowledge (Derry, 1999; McMahon,1997; Prawat & Floden,

1994). Social constructivist methods may include approaches that involve reciprocal

teaching, peer collaboration, cognitive apprenticeships, and problem-based instruction

(Schunk, 2000). Using the social constructivist framework within the context of new

literacies, this study focused on pedagogical content knowledge of preservice teachers,

which includes the knowledge of how to teach reading for developing and using a variety

of curriculum materials, instructional strategies, technological resources, and assessments

selectively and appropriately (Haid, 2006)

Overview of Social Constructivism

The fundamental principles of constructivism are adopted from developmentalist

teaching practices of the 18th century, which were a consequence of the rigid educational

practices in both Europe and America (Stone, 1996). French philosopher Jacques

Rousseau, John Dewey, G. Stanley Hall, and Arnold Gesell were involved in this period

(Stone, 1996). Developmental education indicates that learning occurs naturally. Dewey

posited that child educational development starts with the child rather than external-

mediators, like teachers (Boydston, 2008). Social constructivist theory sparked a shift

from traditional, teacher-centered teaching to a more interactive, shared interplay of

knowledge that is learner-centered (Prawat, 1992). Constructivism, a contemporary


20

movement in education, was derived from the work of the Swiss developmental

psychologist Jean Piaget (1973) and Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (2005).

The Epistemology of Social Constructivism

What is knowledge? Knowledge is a product of interactive social practices

(Vygotsky, 2005). Constructivism explains that learners construct knowledge through

their social interactions with their world (Vygotsky, 2005); the learners’ engagement in

activities through their social interactions with their peers and teachers will affect what

they learn. Goodman (1986) referred to interaction as “the dialectical interplay of more

than one mind” (p. 87). Constructivism embodies physical and temporal events gained

through the senses, interactions, beliefs, roles, and mental processes (Paul, 2005).

Learning is contingent on “actual and concrete situations” (Paul, 2005, p. 60).

Constructivism brings objectivity and subjectivity together (Crotty, 1998), a shared

medium in which humans construct meaning through facts and a meaningful reality

presented in the learning process (Crotty, 1998). Vygotsky (2005) was the theorist who

had a great influence on literacy from a constructivist perspective; this perspective

included active learning and knowledge development through social interaction and the

“engagement processes of meaning making” (as cited in Au, 1998, p. 299). People make

meaning through social exchange, using social artifacts (Schwandt, 1998). Au (1998)

specified that constructivism is a sociological learning approach.

Social constructivism research focuses on the process of knowledge construction

by collaboration and social integration within a social group and the concept of mediated

learning to further knowledge and cognition (Vygotsky, 2005). Social constructivism

centers attention on the dimensions of literacy: cognitive and motivational. The form of


21

motivation is grounded in the intrinsic view of motivation for literacy learning that is

based on the social processes in which learning takes place. Meaning is constructed and

facilitated within the school culture through interaction (Oldfather & Dahl, 1994).

Learning is based on the learner’s motivation and interests, which act as mediators in the

social construction of meaning in literacy learning. In turn, the learner’s motivation is

grounded in his or her cognitive processes (Oldfather & Dahl, 1994). Literacy is a social

accomplishment as learners engage in meaning construction (Allen, Michalove, &

Shockley, 1993; Bloome, 1986). Social constructivism emphasizes the role of the

teachers, peers, and family members in facilitating learning and the practices of the

classroom instruction (Au, 1998). Constructivist teaching strategies help teachers

understand how to incorporate effective methods and practices. Teachers are the

facilitators of learning. Social constructivism is an effective method of teaching by which

social interaction and cooperative learning are considered the integral parts of acquiring

knowledge. Social constructivism includes a “wide range of phenomena from historical,

political, and cultural trends to face-to-face interactions, and reflecting group processes”

(Au, 1998, p. 299). Learners are involved in constructivist dialogue and are encouraged

to find information. Teachers convey information and use effective tools like

conversation, discussion, and inquiry (Powell & Kalina, 2009).

Social constructivism undergirds the new literacies theory, which is used to

explain the importance of adopting pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies into

teacher preparation programs with a social paradigm. Vygotsky (2005) advocated for

students to engage in authentic literacy activities and teachers to teach skills in context.

When new literacies are incorporated into classrooms, students are provided multiple


22

ways and opportunities to engage in the relevant lessons, which may foster deeper

understanding and higher order thinking among the students (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012;

Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004). Using new literacies pedagogies—authentic,

functional, didactic, and critical—results in higher levels of student engagement as well

as the design and redesign of meaning making (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012; Leu et al.,

2004).

The Ontology of Social Constructivism

What is reality? Paul (2005) explained that reality is constructed through the

interaction of (a) a physical and temporal reality that consists of interactions with tangible

objects, such as streets, desks, families, and coworkers; and (b) an enacted reality in

which individuals produce meaningful understanding by “meaning making, sense

ascribing, holism producing, and role assuming activities” (p. 61) through the interaction

of the physical world and the human mind. The study of ontology is focused on the

learner’s environment and surroundings and the reality in which they are constructing

knowledge. Learners are expected to use their senses, visual tools, and audio tools that

are part of their norms. With ontology, the reality is different for the learners and

teachers who must recognize that these differences will actually assist them in planning

and individualizing instruction. The reality is teachers and students can construct

meaning through their environment. By understanding new literacies, teachers are

expected to recognize student individualities and realities. When teachers use new

literacies, they step into the child’s world and teach them, using tools with which they are

comfortable. Reading and writing are cultivated through social, historical, cultural, and


23

economic practices by which teachers can use resources to acknowledge student

identities (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006).

The Axiology of Social Constructivism

Axiology refers to the intent of the research (Hart, 1971). Research inquiry is

infused with human values. The teachers’ values, ethics, commitment, and love that they

share with students impact the way they plan lessons, implement instructions, and assess

students. With new literacies, teachers are expected to use four different approaches for

learning: didactic, authentic, functional, and critical. They are compelled to use these

approaches to make sure their students are able to identify, summarize, analyze, and

synthesize text (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). Constructivism is based on the values that

humans ascribe to their research (Paul, 2005). Constructivist teachers believe they are the

facilitators of the educational process and that students are active learners (Vygotsky,

2005). They value originality, student uniqueness, and creativity (Matthews, 1994).

Teachers’ values provide students with an engaging environment to assist them in

constructing meaning. Teachers use online discussion forums and group activities to

allow social negotiation. They also encourage a variety of interpretations. Teachers

expect learners to take responsibility for their learning, utilize their prior knowledge, and

continuously reflect on their learning. Teachers provide learners with opportunities to

serve as peer editors. Additionally, they are constantly exploring content and reflecting

and assessing their learning (Matthews, 1994). Within new literacies, teachers use

different modes (audio, visual, and spatial modes) of learning as a reflection of their

belief that each student is unique and has unique needs. These experiences assist students


24

in exploring a wide range of topics and applying what they have learned (Kalantzis &

Cope, 2012).

Constructivism and Pedagogy

Pedagogy is the art of teaching and learning. It involves teachers, students, and

content knowledge (Daniels, 2016). It answers the question of what to teach in terms of

theory, as well as constructing and communicating knowledge (Daniels, 2016). Social

constructivism provides the framework of how to teach within a social context. For

Vygotsky, pedagogies are “shaped in particular social circumstances” (Daniels, 2016, p.

5). Vygotsky (2005) posited that authentic teaching and learning take place when adults

cooperate with children and adolescents. Vygotsky pictured pedagogy as a social act that

focuses on learners. It bridges thought processes, conceptual development, and social

communication with instruction (Daniels, 2016). Vygotsky (2005) argued that

pedagogical concepts are not constructed in pre-packaged form. He believed that the

pedagogical experience of direct instruction is “pedagogically fruitless” (p. 170). As a

result of direct instruction, the child learns words but not the concepts because of

insufficient application. Also, Vygotsky (2005) observed, “Sometimes instruction and

development do not coincide . . . . Instruction is only useful when it moves ahead of

development” (p. 212). Vygotsky theorized the concept of the zone of proximal

development theory (ZPD) to explain how participatory and social leaning occur.

Vygotsky argued that individuals develop meaning through engaging with content and

concepts within social activity. He defined ZPD as:

the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent

problem solving and the higher level of potential development as determined


25

through problem solving under adult guidance, in collaboration with more capable

peers. (Vygotsky, 2005, p. 86)

Vygotsky (2005) wrote about helping children learn through collaboration and providing

direction, demonstrations, and leading questions. Vygotsky recommended using semiotic

mediation to facilitate learners’ understanding by using artifacts to build knowledge

(Bussi & Mariotti, 2008). According to Vygotsky, teaching and assessment should be

focused the learners’ capabilities instead of achievement. Daniels (2016) explored the

pedagogic implications under the influence of Vygotsky’s ZPD to understand teaching

and learning practices in schools. Daniels (2016) stated that pedagogy should be

“constructed as referring to forms of social practice which shape and form the cognitive,

affective, and moral development of individuals” (p. 1). Pedagogy “involves a vision

(theory, set of beliefs) about the society, human nature, knowledge . . . to educational

ends” (Davies, 1994, p. 26). Vygotsky informed the design of social context in learning.

His work suggests that social, cultural, and historical factors influence individual

development (see Figure 1). The principles that influence the design of instructional

environments include “meaning is negotiated and refined, and classrooms invoke

multiple zones of proximal development; meaning is negotiated and refined; ideas are

appropriated; common knowledge and distributed expertise are both essential” (Daniel,

2016, p. 119). Social constructivism thus frames the pedagogy for learning within the

new literacies era.


26

Figure 1. Social constructivism framing pedagogy for learning of new literacies.

Overview of New Literacies

The definition of “new literacies” has changed over time with the development of

technology and the growing knowledge of literacies. New literacies mean different things

to different people, depending on their reality and the way they construct knowledge.

According to Leu et al. (2004), “New literacies include the skills, strategies, and

dispositions necessary to successfully adapt to the changing technologies that influence

all aspects of our personal and professional lives” (p. 3). In using new literacies, students

are expected to use various forms of text. Students use different activities to obtain

information, which include text messages, blogs, social networking websites, and various

electronic devices (Moss & Lapp, 2010). New literacies pedagogy is associated with an

ascending social paradigm (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011) in which teachers help students

learn to the best of their abilities in different social contexts, using the different modes of

new literacies and encouraging group collaboration and peer review. Through these social


27

experiences, students learn the soft skills of being better collaborators, communicators,

community members, and problem solvers with these developed social skills. Effective

teaching requires educators and learners to be active participants in this social paradigm,

reflecting social change and engagement in critical issues.

Dual Level New Literacies Theory

Dual level new literacies theory, proposed by Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, and

Henry (2017), takes advantage of “multiple perspectives . . . [and] captures the

complexities” (Leu et al., 2017, p. 4) by defining literacies using both a lowercase theory

of new literacies and an uppercase theory of new literacies. The lowercase theory of new

literacies explores a specific area of new literacies and/or new technology such as using a

multimodal application (e.g., Glogster). Scholars from a particular discipline or

conceptual approach can develop and present a lowercase theories of new literacies. In

order to see the commonalities and trends among lowercase theories of new literacies, an

uppercase theory of new literacies is used. This uppercase theory of new literacies allows

scholars the opportunity to see the trends from a broader point of view. I use the

uppercase theory of new literacies in this study—New Literacies—to refer to the broader

theory and conception of new literacies as it applied across contexts. When I use the

lowercase theory of new literacies—new literacies—I refer to the modalities of new

literacies being used in this study within the specific context of the field of literacy.


28

New Literacies Pedagogies

The following new literacies pedagogies have been found to be effective for

preparing preservice teachers: authentic, critical, functional, didactic (Kalantzis & Cope,

2012).

Authentic literacy pedagogy. This pedagogy is a student-centered approach. It

focuses on learning by doing and is derived from student interests. Teachers facilitate the

learning process for students and guide them through questioning. Authentic pedagogy

promotes the natural growth of using the language, starting with spoken language.

Reading and writing experiences are guided by the needs of learners (Kalantzis & Cope,

2012). Learners use “authentic resources” instead of following formal textbooks. They

take ownership of their learning, and they are considered social actors. They make

meaning for themselves depending on reading and writing choices based on their

interests. Learning is purposeful and relevant to the learners themselves (Kalantzis &

Cope, 2008, 2012).

Functional literacies pedagogy. This pedagogy is concerned with text and its

social function (Kalantzis & Cope, 2008, 2012). It aims to establish structure and content

in literacy teaching and emphasizes meaning-making. Learners explain the ways texts

deliver meaning to them, and then apply their knowledge of language and meaning

making in social contexts. They are exposed to different types of texts that enable them to

succeed in the real world. Reading and writing take place in three phases, starting with

the modeling phase in which students are exposed to a variety of texts to learn about a

topic and then encouraged to explore different genres. Learners are involved in a joined

“negotiation of a class text” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2008, p. 141) in which they participate in


29

a set of activities: observing, researching, interviewing, discussing, and taking notes.

Students subsequently write their own reports in the third phase, guided by the teacher.

They engage in peer conferencing, and critically evaluate their texts.

Critical literacies pedagogy. This pedagogy is one approach to teaching

students “to challenge a text” (Moss & Lapp, 2010, p. 287). It focuses on using or

creating authentic texts that address challenging issues such as discrimination, that are of

particular interest or concern to the learners. Learners, seen as social actors, are

encouraged to raise questions and identify problems. They learn about differences in

language, power, cultures, and new media. This pedagogy aims to assist learners in

understanding how things are constructed by people’s actions, cultures, and values.

Critical literacy “creates a space for modes of expression that have historically been

suppressed and devalued” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012, p. 181). Learners are engaged with

real-world issues. They are consistently asked to use their critical analysis skills to

analyze and interrogate the purpose of text and give reasons for these analyses. This

pedagogy requires applying higher order thinking.

Didactic literacies pedagogy. This is the traditional approach that is most often

applied in schools. The didactic approach in literacy requires students to learn the formal

rules and correct usage of a language such as how letters and sounds correspond.

Teachers closely follow the syllabus and the textbooks. Students are expected to give the

correct answers. They are engaged in literacy activities such as copying, repetition,

memorization, and applying rules (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).


30

Pedagogical Literacy Practices

Research shows that teachers’ capacity to teach diverse learners can be improved

by combining pedagogical content knowledge with content knowledge pedagogy and

critical pedagogy, the interrelationship of which is presented in Figure 2.

Content knowledge pedagogy. Content knowledge is an important predictor of

student success (Monk & King, 1994). This pedagogy focuses on teachers’ having

adequate knowledge of the subject matter that they teach. As observed by Howard and

Aleman (2008), “Mastery of the subject matter is the most essential aspect of teacher

capacity” (p. 159). It involves teachers having “accurate” command of the language and

being able to communicate it in different and effective ways to diverse learners

(Grossman, 2006). Research shows a connection between a teacher’s mastery of the

subject she/he teaches and his/her student’s achievement (Ball & Bass, 2000). Preservice

teachers can make a positive change in all of their prospective students’ learning by

thoroughly understanding the area they are teaching (Howard & Aleman, 2008). The

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards requires teachers to show their

integration of content and pedagogical knowledge, “ensuring teachers knowledge of

subject matter is not negotiable” (Howard & Aleman, 2008, p. 160). Howard and Aleman

(2008) suggested content knowledge pedagogy because it recognizes student background

knowledge and culture.

Critical pedagogy. This pedagogy involves higher order thinking skills:

questioning, investigating a problem, discussing solutions, analyzing, creating

knowledge, and reflecting (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). It encourages preservice teachers to

develop a critical stance to challenge biases, such as racism (Nieto, 2000), and engages


31

them in reflection of their own practices (Milner, 2003). By adopting this pedagogy,

preservice teachers can help their students develop critical habits to question things

(Parker, 1987) and empower culturally and linguistically diverse students. Beyer (2001)

advocated for critical pedagogy “to focus on the social dimensions and consequences of

educational practice, the ideological meaning of the text . . . and the need to integrate

theory and practice in new ways” (p. 155). Teachers should encourage students to

question things around them, prioritize issues, and identify solutions. All these

pedagogies have proven to be effective for preservice teachers.

Figure 2. Integration of pedagogical literacy practices, content knowledge pedagogy, and critical pedagogy.

Paradigmatic Shifts in Reading and Literacy Leading to New Literacies

Seven paradigmatic, overlapping, and interdependent shifts have been reflected in

reading and literacy research, beginning with the moment of invention and leading up to

the media moment (Robinson, 2005), all of which have influenced the emergence of new

literacies theory. The first three moments were the moment of intervention; the moment

of instruction; and the clinical moment, focused on reading instruction, depth of


32

comprehensive instruction, reading achievement, and teacher effectiveness (Duffy, 1983;

Durkin, 1978; Robinson, 2005).

Intervention. During the moment of intervention, Edmund Huey’s Psychology

and the Pedagogy of Reading was published in 1908, and afterwards, educators and

education researchers began to think and reflect on the learning process of reading (Huey,

1908). Thorndike (1917) explained, “Understanding a spoken or printed paragraph is then

a matter of habits, connections, mental bonds” (as cited in Robinson, 2005, p. 114). In

this moment, reading was thought of as an active process. Researchers, such as Allington

(1983), believed that success in reading was determined not only by reading ability, but

also by instruction and individual learning styles.

Instruction. During the moment of instruction, researchers looked for the amount

and depth of comprehensive instruction that teachers provided during reading lessons. In

her classroom studies, Durkin (1978) offered the following definition of comprehensive

instruction: “Teacher does/says something to help children understand or work out the

meaning of more than a single isolated word” (p. 488). Vocabulary instruction was found

to be an important practice in helping students learn to read. Dolch (1936) compiled a list

of words that was present in 75% of all primary school reading materials, such that

learning to spell involved memorization. Other techniques involved phonetics and draft

writing (Sipe, 2005). Reading comprehension itself was seen as an important practice in

comprehensive instruction, leading to the creation of a model of reading comprehension

instruction in which teachers would assume a primary and active role (Pearson, 2005).

Clinical. Prior to the clinical moment, researchers viewed reading achievement as

an outcome produced when certain variables were manipulated in the classroom.


33

However, during this clinical moment, researchers focused on observing real classrooms

to gather primary data and gain insights in reading instruction and teacher effectiveness

(Duffy, 1983). One area of importance in the classroom was the reading process itself and

how it has been assessed. Reading tests were used to measure reading ability, but the

results were used in other important areas like class placement, teacher evaluation, and

the choice of reading materials (Robinson, 2005). Teachers themselves played an

important role in the response and remedy to reading difficulties in children. As Betts

(1934) claimed, “Educators, not the parents, are primarily responsible for the early

emphasis on reading” (as cited in Robinson, 2005, p. 208). The clinical movement and its

focus on what went on in the classroom, thus helped researchers see what teaching

methods were truly effective in reading instruction (Duffy, 1983). During this time,

researchers emphasized two of the most important elements in reading: teachers and

students.

As seen in the description above, the first three moments were focused on reading

instruction as an isolated practice. In these moments, there was largely an absence of the

influence of social contexts in ways that are emphasized by new literacies. The focus was

only on the rules of the standard language. Thus, students passively acquired elements of

literacy (e.g., phonic rules, spelling, grammar, reading, writing). This focus corresponded

with the didactic approach, identified by new literacies pedagogy and presented by new

literacies theory (Kalantzis & Cope, 2008; 2012). In the absence of a view of literacy as a

social practice by which teachers could provide students with opportunities to apply

knowledge or skills in different contexts (Street, 1984), this period lacked the use of a

wide range of diverse texts that could have helped students negotiate meaning through


34

different contexts and styles (Kalantzis & Cope, 2008). In these three moments, literacy

was about the right usage and representation of meaning but not about communicating

meaning effectively in different settings (Kalantzis & Cope, 2008).

Street (1984) brought a new perspective to literacy; he foresaw it as social change.

Street talked about the autonomous and ideological models of literacy. The autonomous

model indicated that introducing literacy to people enhances their cognitive skills and

economic prospects and helps them become better citizens, despite their social,

ideological, and economic conditions. In contrast, the ideological model highlighted

literacy as a social practice and called for more cultural sensitivity that impacts how

literacy is taught. The ideological model corresponded to the functional, authentic, and

critical approaches of new literacies pedagogy by which learning “varies with social

context, and with cultural norms and discourses” (Street, 1997, p. 48) in more than one

form. The ideological model offered cultural sensitivity. Using this model, instructors

created learning experiences that their students could relate to, use and apply their

knowledge, based on their background and identities (Street, 1984).

Moving beyond the emphasis on reading comprehension, reading instruction,

teacher practices and choice of textbooks, the cognitive, collaborative, critical and media

moments ensued. Street’s (1997) proposition of an ideological approach to literacy,

which aligned closely with social constructivism (Vygotsky, 2005), set the groundwork

for these moments, through which emerged the theory of new literacies (Leu et al., 2004).

Cognitive. Early reading instruction focused on the process of learning to read,

but during the cognitive moment, educators placed more emphasis on teaching students

how to comprehend and understand what they were reading. Dreher and Singer (1981)


35

conducted studies in the area of reading comprehension. They tested the instantiation

hypothesis, which posits, “As people read, they spontaneously infer and store

contextually appropriate instance for general terms in sentences” (Dreher & Singer, 1981,

p. 223). They found that college students were able to use their comprehension skill when

they read, but school children were not. These results highlighted the importance of

improving reading comprehension for school children and finding ways to motivate them

to read. The study indicated that teachers play an important role in the development of

their students’ love of reading, and that they must embrace recreational reading

themselves, practice it, and find books that will attract the interests of their students.

Collaborative. According to the collaborative moment of reading, effective

reading was achieved when students could apply those reading skills to a variety of areas

and subjects (Robinson, 2005). For the collaborative moment to occur, both teachers of

reading instruction and specific content areas were required to introduce literacy skills to

their students. Teachers of every school subject and activity were expected to teach

reading and literacy (Robinson, 2005). By building a solid base of reading capability,

students were thought to be able to use reading to improve their content literacy.

McKenna and Robinson (1990) defined content literacy as “the ability to use reading and

writing for the acquisition of new content in a given discipline” (as cited in Robinson,

2005, p. 167). In the collaborative moment, it was thought that students could use their

reading skills outside of the classroom in their consumption of popular culture

(Alvermann, 1990). Students would be expected to develop their critical media literacy

by using their reading skills.


36

Critical. The critical moment was a response to the cognitive and collaborative

moments in the form of social media. During the critical moment, a considerable amount

of work was done by schools, administrators, and teachers to put together class

curriculum (Allington, 2002). Allington (2002) explained that the factors most

responsible for the dilemma in reading during this critical moment was the confusion

about the reading requirements of content-based books, the individual reading levels of

students, and the overall lack of support for students in Grades 5-12. It was thought that

the way to curb this textbook discord was through exemplary teaching (Allington, 2002).

Allington studied teachers who had addressed these issues and found that they followed

three practices: (a) used a variety of texts that were written on multiple levels; (b)

accepted feedback from students and offered choice in how lessons were taught; and (c)

individualized their teaching instruction for students.

Media. The media moment describes the current paradigm in the field of research

on reading and literacy today (Robinson, 2005). Many different uses of technology have

been registered in the history of reading instruction (Robinson, 2005). Eye movement-

measuring systems, programmed reading systems, and speed-reading machines have all

been used in this regard. Since the 1970s and 1980s, the computer has established itself in

the reading classroom. However, during this time, teachers only used the computer as an

instrument of supplemental instruction (Robinson, 2005). Today, computers are not the

only technological tools used in the classroom. The ubiquity of the Internet has made

computers more useful and even made other tools, such as mobile phones, essential in

classrooms. These new technologies can help teachers meet the different needs of

students from diverse backgrounds (Balajthy, 2007). During this current paradigmatic


37

shift, teachers have been forced to adapt their teaching methods and nurture their

students’ literacy with different technological tools (Smolin & Lawless, 2003).

In the media moment, new technologies have been shown to affect reading

instruction and literacy instruction, thus requiring new literacies to fully utilize these

technologies (Leu et al., 2004). Based on the media moment, the words may be the same

on both a printed page and a digital screen but that does not mean reading and

understanding those words will be the same (Coiro, 2003). The major implication of new

technologies in the media moment for new literacies is that teachers need additional

support in the classroom environment. Professional development for teachers needs to

match the ongoing changes in technology (Sutherland-Smith, 2002).

The media moment, emerging out of the collaborative and critical moments, has

led to an era of a multiliteracies (i.e., new literacies) approach to literacy, which has also

been identified as new literacies/New Literacies (New London Group, 1996). As stated

earlier, new literacies acknowledges traditional reading and writing approaches and

supplements those with new adaptive approaches, which allows learners to make

meaning and communicate meaning using multimodal communications (i.e., linguistic,

spatial, visual, gestural, and audio). This leads to an acknowledgement of the importance

of teaching practices and teacher pedagogical knowledge that align with these forms of

communication.

The media moment saw the importance of adopting multicultural education and

using differentiated instruction to meet all students’ needs. Multicultural education is the

movement towards equity pedagogy, which intends to give equal opportunities to

marginalized and economically disadvantaged students so they can obtain the highest


38

standards of academic excellence (Bennett, 2001; Silverman, 2010). Bennett (2001)

suggested the curriculum should include multiple perspectives on and experiences with

various events, detect bias in text and stereotypes, focus on inaccuracies, adopt equity

pedagogy, and center on providing a positive classroom environment. And Cochran-

Smith (2003a) offered a “conceptual structure for interrogating the multiple meanings of

multicultural framework” (p. 8). She focused on multicultural education in the school to

best serve culturally and linguistically diverse students. In her framework, she questioned

how schools serve all students coming from different backgrounds, the knowledge that is

most useful for these students, and the purpose of schooling itself. She recommended the

adoption of a comprehensive understanding of multicultural education, which should

permeate all teacher preparation practices. Banks (2008) also identified five dimensions

of multicultural education, which are content integration, knowledge construction, equity

pedagogy, prejudice reduction, and empowering school culture. Ladson-Billing (1995)

proposed culturally relevant pedagogy. The prevailing belief is that the culturally relevant

pedagogy actually empowers students (Ladson-Billings, 1994).

In the media moment, differentiated instruction has been foregrounded as a

teaching and learning approach that focuses on students. It is a tailored way to teach

learners with “diverse needs and behaviors” (Rock, Gregg, Ellis, & Gable, 2008, p. 39),

and warns that adopting one style of teaching would not work for all learners, especially

ethnically diverse learners. Tomlinson (2004) defined differentiated instruction as

“ensuring that what a student learns, how he/she learns it, and how the student

demonstrates what he/she has learned is a match for that student’s readiness level,

interests, and preferred mode of learning” (p. 188). Stanford and Reeves (2009) further


39

proposed a universal design for learning (UDL) literacy framework that emphasizes the

success of the students by requiring teachers to be proactive facilitators, planning diverse

instruction for multileveled learners. The UDL framework, when used in the classroom,

considers “processes of timeline manipulations, performances, presentations, technology

utilization, demonstrations, and experiments” (Rock et al., 2008, p. 6). Teachers plan

instructional formats, including mini-lecture and station teaching centers. Teachers use a

variety of assessments, activities, and teaching styles. The UDL framework builds on the

notion of the teacher–student relationship and on the assumption that this relationship

contributes significantly to student motivation to learn.

All students should have the best available opportunities to learn and to become

active and productive citizens. The frameworks presented in the media moment, as

described above, serve as key approaches that assist students in becoming their best

selves. When teachers adopt these frameworks, they acknowledge individual student

needs, differences, and ultimately, they motivate students to learn elements that build

upon the social constructivist paradigm from which the new literacies theory emerged.

Being literate today, as part of the media moment, means being able to use

multiple sources, especially the Internet. Learners are able to use multiple sources, and

literacy requires them to use the Internet (Leu et al., 2017). Literacy practices are driven

by the changes in social practices and technologies, such as the Internet, as well as public

policy that combine literacy practices and the Internet in instruction (Leu et al., 2017).

Teachers are expected to use various modes of design for teaching content knowledge

that include the linguistic, audio, gestural, spatial, and visual design. As a result, teachers

in the current media moment are required to use a variety of pedagogical teaching


40

approaches that are didactic, authentic, functional, and critical to meet the needs of 21st-

century students, who rely heavily on technologies that lend themselves well to new

literacies/multiliteracies.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Shulman (1986) introduced the concept of “pedagogical content knowledge”

(PCK) in the mid-1980s. Pedagogical content knowledge refers to the knowledge

required for teaching, which includes content knowledge and teaching methods

(Shulman, 1986, 1987; Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987). Shulman considered PCK as

the foundation for teaching because it combines the knowledge of the subject with the

pedagogy of the teaching process (Shulman, 1986, 1987). PCK is an understanding of the

order composition of concepts, teaching strategies, the student’s prior knowledge, and

subject-specific conceptions and misconceptions (Hill, Ball, & Schillings, 2008; Shulman

1986). Shulman (1987) described PCK as follows: “It represents the blending of content

and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are

organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and

presented or instruction” (p. 8). Zeichner (1988) wrote that teachers develop their PCK

throughout their enrollment in teacher education. PCK is considered a teacher’s

knowledge base about their subject matter and how to make it accessible and

comprehensible to students, using illustrations, examples, and explanations (Carter, 1990;

Depaepe, Verschaffel, & Kelchtermans, 2013; Shulman, 1986). PCK connects content

knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge; pedagogical content knowledge is

defined as the ability to teach both types of knowledge that are used for instruction that

has resulted in successful student outcomes (Baumert et al., 2010; Förtsch, Werner, von


41

Kotzebue, & Neuhaus, 2016; Mahler, Großschedl, & Harms, 2017; Sadler, Sonnert,

Coyle, Cook-Smith, & Miller, 2013; Trobst et al., 2018)

According to Shulman (1986), PCK is comprised of three general components of

knowledge: (a) knowledge from subject area teaching; (b) knowledge from representation

of ideas; and (c) knowledge from student understanding of these ideas. In 1987, Shulman

expanded on PCK and suggested seven categories of subject knowledge for teaching that

he considered the base knowledge for teaching: content, pedagogy, learners and learning,

contexts of schooling, educational philosophies, goals, and objectives. Tamir (1988)

extended Shulman’s ideas by including the knowledge of evaluation as an element of

PCK. Grossman (1990) further contributed to Shulman’s and Tamir’s work by adding the

conceptions of: (a) the purpose for teaching a subject matter; (b) curricular knowledge;

and (c) the knowledge of instructional strategies to the conception of PCK. Many

scholars agreed that the critical factor for developing PCK is teaching experience (Gess-

Newsome & Lederman 1993; Van Dijk & Kattmann, 2007).

In contrast to Shuman’s detailed definition for PCK, Kind (2009) defined PCK

holistically, stating, “It represents the knowledge teachers use in the process of teaching.

It is the hidden knowledge” (p. 3–4). Kind’s definition points to the instructor beliefs,

knowledge, actions, and values that are reflected in their teaching that should be

considered when examining PCK. Similar to Shulman’s definition, Abell (2008) believed

PCK includes subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of

using appropriate instruction. In other words, teachers combine content and pedagogy in

instruction to promote student learning. The teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge

guides the teachers’ practice in the classroom and helps them to develop an interactive


42

process in the classroom (Grossman, 1990; Jang, 2011; Shulman, 1986). PCK is

imperative for improving classroom instruction and student achievement (Baumert et al.,

2010; Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005; Tröbst et al., 2018) because PCK focuses on the

“knowledge about teaching and learning of the topic” (Bucat, 2005, p. 2). Demonstrating

PCK in the teacher preparation program assists in improving the quality of teachers

(Kind, 2009).

Models of Pedagogical Content Knowledge

It is agreed that teaching knowledge is derived from the teachers’ personal

knowledge, knowledge of the curriculum, and knowledge of professional practice

(Fernández, 2014). Shavelson and Stern (1981) created a model of pedagogical content

knowledge that states that the teachers’ beliefs and conceptions about the subject they are

teaching influence their planning. There are different models of PCK, starting with the

models based on Shulman’s proposals.

Marks (1990) established a model of PCK based on data gathered from eight

primary mathematics teachers. He added media for instruction and used the instructional

process to refer to instructional strategies. Marks (1990) listed student learning

difficulties as student misunderstandings, based on the findings from the data in this

study. He noticed that teachers did not take the mathematical concepts seriously and

teachers focused on pedagogy and important ideas more than on content knowledge.

Teachers were unable to characterize their teaching as an amalgamation of their content

knowledge and pedagogy. Fernández-Balboa and Stiehl (1995) found evidence similar to

that of Marks (1990) with university lecturers. They suggested that PCK should include


43

knowledge of subject content, students, and instructional strategies. Fernández-Balboa

and Stehl believed that lecturers’ competence was determined by the knowledge and

beliefs that directed their actions and the decisions. By taking PCK into consideration,

teachers could prepare instructional strategies based on the content to be taught.

Certain models of PCK are employed based on theoretical perspectives. For

instance, Cochran, King, and DeRuiter (1993) believed that teacher PCK is always

changing based on the students’ needs and the teacher environment, requiring teachers to

modify their instructional strategies based on an understanding of students’ needs.

According to this perspective, the teacher environment is influenced by different factors,

including social, cultural, political, and physical factors. In contrast, Veal and MaKinster

(1999) indicated that PCK should be based on a hierarchical structure and that the

components of PCK for teaching science could be classified into four layers. The first

level, at the base, is an understanding of the pedagogical concepts that are applied to

different subjects. The second layer, the one above the base layer, is the subject-specific

PCK knowledge. The third layer, the one below the top layer, is subject-specific or area-

specific strategies. Finally, the last layer, the layer at the top, is the topic-specific PCK

strategies. Extending beyond the two models already presented, Banks, Leach, and Moon

(2005) posed a model of teacher professional knowledge that combines school

knowledge (how knowledge is adjusted for school use), subject knowledge (the teachers’

understanding of how their subjects are organized for teaching objectives), pedagogical

knowledge (the practices and beliefs that inform teachers’ teaching), and the teachers’

personal subject area teaching knowledge (teachers’ beliefs about teaching their subject).

This model focuses on the process of learning.


44

Some researchers see PCK differently and have thus proposed different models

based on their research findings, some of which focus on subject matter knowledge

(SMK) within PCK. Both models by Grossman (1990) and Magnusson, Krajcik, and

Borko (1999) identify SMK as a separate category, and posit that teachers use PCK to

translate their SMK to support student learning. These models were created to connect

teaching to curricular knowledge, directing teachers to teach with a purpose in mind.

Grossman based her model on data she had gathered from conducting an empirical study

on the curricular knowledge of English literature teachers. She observed a teacher

assisting students in making connections “between the texts and their lives” (Grossman,

1990, p. 8) and another teacher using strategies only to analyze text. Grossman mentioned

that the teachers’ purposes, “the overarching conceptions of teaching a subject” (p. 8),

inspire their adoption of instructional strategies that contributes to PCK. Grossman added

that curricular knowledge, since teachers used “horizontal and vertical” (p. 9) curricula in

teaching, in essence, is knowing which books are needed to teach different age groups

and the timing by which to teach those books. Magnusson et al.’s (1999) model for

teaching science notes different purposes, which they called orientations, that include

discovery, conceptual change, process, inquiry orientation. Teachers can use different

strategies dictated by the purpose of the study. For instance, using the discovery approach

allows the student to take initiative in searching for information. Koballa, Gräber,

Coleman, and Kemp (1999) added “multidimensional knowledge” (p. 278) to the SMK

model. After they collected data from preservice chemistry teachers, who were preparing

to teach high school in German “gymnasium” schools, they learned that chemistry

knowledge should be the focus of teacher PCK.


45

A teacher’s subject matter knowledge has historically been the focus of teacher

education (Shulman, 1986). More recently during the last several decades, research in

teacher education has shifted towards examining the efficacy of methods of pedagogy

that are not related to subject matter content (Ball & McDiarmid, 1990), such as the

assessment of student performance, the use of questions by teachers, and the makeup of

curriculum and assignments. Research in the area has shown that there is a large number

of instructional strategies that also helps increase student achievement, such as pre-

instructional strategies, wait time, manipulatives, concrete examples, and formative

testing (Cochran et al., 1993; Gess-Newsome et al., 2019; Tröbst et al., 2018). In most

instances, these educational issues have been examined in the context of the general

classroom, apart from material that is specific to content.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Preservice Teachers

Research has been conducted to examine the effectiveness of PCK for both

inservice and pre-service teachers. For instance, there is evidence that PCK has been

examined with inservice teachers. Ayoubi, El Takach, and Rawas (2017) focused on the

extent to which the inservice chemistry teachers improved their PCK after attending a

professional development training program at the Faculty of Education Training. It is the

general consensus that PCK training impacts both content and pedagogical knowledge,

which further improves student learning. The findings from the study were that PCK

training helped teachers use active teaching approaches and constructivist approaches in

planning student-centered activities. Jang (2011) used an instrument to evaluate college

students’ perceptions of their teachers’ PCK knowledge to assist their teachers in

understanding how they teach. Mulholland and Wallace (2005) indicated that teacher


46

PCK requires years of teaching experience. Ayoubi et al. (2017) recommended more

research on teacher PCK knowledge on student learning.

Similarly, research has been conducted on examining the pedagogical content

knowledge effectiveness for preservice teachers, which is the focus of this study. Studies

of preservice teachers’ PCK are on the rise. The context of the studies varies, although

most focus on science, and the methodologies include both quantitative and qualitative.

The current literature documents a variety of trends. In one study, Aydogdu and Celebi

(2017) used a questionnaire to explore the extent to which training teachers in pedagogy

benefits teacher candidates. The results of the study indicated that teacher candidates

recommended that the courses of the teacher training education program be delivered

face-to-face over 4 years of undergraduate education, within eight semesters. Van Driel,

Jong, and Verloop (2002) explored the effect of PCK on 12 pre-service teacher practices.

They found classroom experiences had the greatest influence on PCK development and

positively impacted the preservice teacher knowledge of representation or instructional

teaching and teaching approaches they used. Gee (1996) studied 58 senior-level students,

specializing in science, in the teacher preparation program. Findings from observations,

surveys, interviews, and self-evaluations indicated that students, with their own

interpretation of the interdisciplinary nature of science knowledge, did not practice what

they learned in the teacher preparation program. Few students incorporated innovating

teaching strategies in their science lessons. The study suggested that paper-and-pencil

assessments could not predict what would happen in future classroom practices.

Most research on teacher formation of pedagogical knowledge has been

conducted using qualitative interview methods, (Depaepe et al., 2013; Schneider &


47

Plasman, 2011) with limited longitudinal research of individual pedagogical content

knowledge and development (Schneider & Plasman, 2011). For instance, Ball et al.

(2008) explored pedagogical content knowledge in science and mathematics education.

When learning from instruction on pedagogical content knowledge, they concluded that

the actual content knowledge was an important consideration. According to Krauss et al.

(2008), high levels of pedagogical content knowledge were displayed by biology and

chemistry teachers, even though they had limited content knowledge. Content knowledge

helped teachers address common concepts and misconceptions (Halim & Meerah, 2002).

Baumert et al. (2010) and Förtsch et al. (2016) found that teacher pedagogical content

knowledge positively affected the cognitive activation in instruction, which led to

improved student outcomes. Tröbst et al. (2018) conducted an experimental study with

preservice teachers participating in two days interventions of seven hours, learning to

teaching fractions and fractional arithmetic in elementary mathematics education to test

three hypotheses. Hypotheses of this study focused on using a combination of content and

pedagogical knowledge for teachers to construct pedagogical content knowledge.

Considering the challenges that preservice teachers encounter when they start

teaching, Adams and Krockover (1997) examined preservice mathematics and science

teachers’ perceptions about their readiness to teach. They found that teachers lacked

teaching preparation, time management, and classroom management. De Jang’s (2010)

study showed that preservice teachers were anxious to exclusively rely on their own

subject knowledge to prepare lessons on concepts for students. They lacked confidence

and expressed concerns regarding their pedagogical content knowledge. Halim and

Meerah (2002) studied 12 teachers’ utilization of PCK in teaching physics concepts.


48

They found that most of the pre-service teachers had misconceptions, much like those of

their students. Lederman, Gess-Newsome, and Latz (1994) reported that the act of

teaching the instruction of combining content and pedagogical content knowledge

promoted pre-service teachers to consider integrating pedagogy with subject matter to

make content relevant and easy to comprehend for students. Simmons et al. (1999)

carried out a longitudinal study of preservice teacher perceptions of their practices in nine

universities. They found that the teachers’ perceptions of their subject matter and

pedagogical knowledge were not consistent with their practice. Preservice teachers were

aware of the good teaching practices for math and science, but their practices did not

mimic those learned in their early years of teaching. Pre-service teachers needed to be

provided with opportunities to practice the concepts they had learned.

Connelly, Clandinin, and He (1997) studied how teacher personal knowledge is

expressed in practical knowledge. They asserted that the teachers’ personal and

professional knowledge and how they express their knowledge were significant to student

knowledge acquisition and teaching practices. The teachers’ knowledge was also

reflected in their work. Gee (1996) examined teachers’ science pedagogical content

knowledge and content knowledge to determine the effectiveness of new teacher

preparation programs. Findings from the study showed teachers encountered a challenge

in “translating theory into practice” (p. 15). Only a few pre-service teachers used

innovative approaches in their science lessons, such as cooperative learning, problem-

solving, and the learning cycle. The rest of the preservice teachers were in the process of

understanding suitable pedagogical content knowledge. Gee explained that the extent of

PCK used in the classroom was related to classroom management and content


49

knowledge. Additionally, the lack of available technology in the schools impeded the

delivery of the content.

In regard to pedagogical practices, observations of pre-service teachers were

telling. Kennedy, Ball, and MacDiarmid (1993) stated, “Observations of actual preservice

teachers’ practice reveal . . . how the teacher knowledge and beliefs come together in

making decisions and pedagogical moves” (p. 99). According to responses to the

Capstone Science Survey (Gee, 1996), nine preservice teachers were confident they were

prepared enough to teach science to elementary students even though they failed to show

sufficient pedagogical content knowledge in their teaching. Gee recommended a change

in how undergraduate science courses are taught and a change in the focus on teaching

pre-service teachers, a “conceptual change learning techniques . . . on continuing basis,”

to prevent them from teaching the way they were taught (Gee, 1996, p. 17). Hill,

Schilling, and Ball (2004) also developed a measure of teachers’ mathematics knowledge

for teaching, recommending that mathematical content knowledge be well-planned and

organized to deliver the lesson smoothly and provide clear explanations (Smith, 1985).

Schneider and Plasman (2011) pointed out the importance of teacher reflection for

rearranging ideas and developing their own PCK.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Information Technology

Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) incorporates technology

knowledge into Shulman’s framework (1986) of PCK to address the growing need to

integrate technology into teaching (Mishra & Koehler, 2007). Koehler and Mishra (2005)

defined TPACK as the connection between content knowledge (subject area teaching),

technological knowledge (TK; computer, Internet, digital video, interactive whiteboard),


50

and pedagogical knowledge (practices, strategies, methods of teaching and learning).

Teachers play a key role in implementing technology in teaching; thus, they should be

prepared to use technology (Lau, 2018). TPACK originated from the theoretical

framework of PCK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Shulman’s definition of pedagogical

content knowledge is that “it represents the blending of the content and pedagogy into

understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented,

and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction

(Shulman, 1987, p. 8).

PCK is concerned with the teachers’ knowledge of pedagogies, teaching practices,

and planning procedures for teaching a subject. TPACK consists of seven constructs:

content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, technological knowledge, PCK,

technological content knowledge, and technological pedagogical knowledge,

technological pedagogical content knowledge (Apau, 2016; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Recent studies have used the TPACK theoretical framework to review pre-service teacher

preparation through coursework, workshops, and experiences with technological, content,

and pedagogical integration to become effective teachers. The TPACK framework has

been used in various areas, such as the use of digital video in K–12 classrooms (Hofer &

Swan, 2008), online teaching and learning (Archambault, 2008; Archambault & Crippen,

2009; Doering, Scharber, Miller, & Veletsianos, 2009), newly established areas of usage

(Angeli & Valanides, 2009), and in higher education field (Lau, 2018; Liu, Zhang, &

Wang, 2015). For instance, Schmidt et al. (2009) created 47 Likert-type items based on

these seven components, reporting high levels of internal consistency and reliability for

each of these constructs, with Cronbach’s alpha between 0.75 and 0.92. According to


51

Schmidt et al. (2009), pre-service teacher perceptions of TPACK elements can be

measured by a survey of preservice teacher knowledge of teaching and technology.

Koehler and Mishra (2005) argued:

The concept of TPACK allows teachers, researchers, and teacher educators to move beyond oversimplified approaches that treat technology as an “add-on” instead to focus again, and in a more ecological way, upon the connections among technology, content, and pedagogy as they play out in classroom contexts. (p. 67) Teachers perform a critical role in integrating technology in teaching and learning

(Teo, 2015). In this information era, preservice teachers need to be equipped with the

knowledge, skills, and dispositions to “transform education” (Forkosh-Baruch, 2018).

Evidence from literature illustrates that teacher technological knowledge is a critical

factor that could contribute to teaching effectiveness (Angeli & Valanides, 2009;

Archambault & Barnett, 2010; Chai, Hwee Ling Koh, & Tsai, 2013; Chai, Koh, Tsai,

2010).

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Preservice Teachers

Teacher knowledge of incorporating content, pedagogy, and technology has

become significant in the 21st century. The integration of technology in the classroom

centers teaching and learning on student needs and allows teachers to focus on the

process of teaching (Garba & Alademerin, 2014). These skills are shown to be

particularly useful for preservice teachers. For instance, Amankwah, Oti-Agyen, and Sam

(2017) used a survey design study to explore pre-service teacher perceptions on campus

teaching practices in the teacher preparation program at the College of Technology

Education of University of Education, Winneba. Findings showed that the pre-service

teaching practice program was critical in assisting pre-service teachers in gaining


52

knowledge, skills, and experience. It also set the foundation for their careers and

supported their learning. Preservice teachers indicated they were satisfied with the

program despite the fact they lacked administrative support and faced challenges

resulting from inadequate planning by the administrative team and an absence of teaching

aids. Cruickshank (1996) referred to four components that helped in preparing quality

teachers, which the University of Education in Winneba used in preparing their teachers

to implement the intended curricula: (a) liberal and general studies; (b) content subject

studies; (c) professional and pedagogical studies; and (d) integrative studies.

Some pre-service teachers encounter challenges in applying TPACK for a variety

of reasons. Apau (2016) conducted a study to assess the TPACK of pre-service teachers

in the Department of Arts and Social Sciences Education at the University of Cape Coast

Ghanna. Apau found that pre-service teachers lacked TPACK and recommended that

lecturers continuously model the use of technology for pre-service teachers to observe

and learn how to integrate technology into their teaching. Liu et al. (2011) argued that

technological knowledge is included in the core standards for literacy for the 21st century.

Cuhader (2018) yielded similar results. Preservice teachers specified that their teacher

educators did not model the use of information and communication technologies, thus

they did not receive sufficient training in using these technologies. Koehler and Mishra

(2005) concluded that teachers have inadequate experience in using digital technologies

in education processes, as there is most often a lack of support of technology integration.

Similarly, Brun, and Hinostroza (2014) found pre-service teachers lacked education and

experience of information and communication technology (ICT) integration.


53

Educating preservice teachers in using TPACK is imperative in teacher

preparation programs. Deng, Chai, So, Qian, and Chen (2017) recommended that pre-

service teachers need to be introduced to the TPACK framework at the beginning of their

teacher education program. They explained that preservice teachers should be able to

create a holistic understanding and appreciation for courses that are centered on

technology, content, and pedagogy. Additionally, other authors have recommended that

teacher educators design their courses in a way that allows them to model a process of

drawing conclusions and making decisions based on TPACK (Voogt, Fisser, Roblin,

Tondeur, & van Braak, 2013). Harris, Grandgenett, and Hofer (2010) suggested using a

rubric and TPACK surveys to explore how ICT courses improve pre-service teacher

knowledge of TPACK. Harris et al. stated that dimensions of the rubric should include

technological pedagogical knowledge, technological content knowledge, and/or TPACK

elements.

Pre-service teachers engage with digital literacies as they incorporate technology

in the classroom (Burnett, 2011; Niess, 2015). They are expected to utilize ICT in their

teaching (Forkosh-Baruch, 2018). Using digital technologies requires pre-service teachers

to understand their professional identity within a new digital world and the impact of

their pedagogical perceptions and actions. Preservice teachers are required to have ICT

knowledge and skills, to prepare for integrating ICT and pedagogies, and to develop up-

to-date technology curriculum design skills (Deschaine & Sharma, 2015; Niess, 2015) to

assist their students in becoming digital citizens. However, most pre-service education

programs are not successful in preparing preservice teachers to be self-assured in using

ICT in their own classrooms.


54

A review of literature focused on the practice of teacher educators to establish a

framework for preservice teachers to use ICT in school settings (Forkosh-Baruch, 2018).

Recommendations for building education programs included building a vision of ICT in

education (Stürmer et al., 2015), a comprehensive curriculum that consists of practicum

and courses, professional development of teacher educators for modeling lessons, and a

technical ICT plan of devices, software, and infrastructure (Forkosh-Baruch, 2018).

Beyond this, the study showed that different factors have contributed to the lack of

success in ushering teacher education into the digital era (Forkosh-Baruch, 2018).

Factors included time limitations in the traditional schedule, teaching paradigms that

were not relevant to current conditions, faculty’s lack of technology skills, faculty’s

negative perceptions toward technology, and misunderstandings of ICT inclusion in

teaching.

PCK and Reading

A number of studies examined pedagogical content knowledge of literacy

strategies to train teachers in the dispositions, knowledge, and practices in different

settings, including their coursework and clinical internships (Cash, Cabell, Hamre,

DeCoster, & Pianta , 2015; Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, Grossman, Rust, &

Shulman , 2005; Kleickmann et al., 2013). Darling- Hammond (2006b) drew a strong

connection between the teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for using suitable and

adaptive strategies and their ability to produce positive student outcomes. In literacy, this

indicated that teachers need to have a deep knowledge in the following areas: literacy

content, literacy assessments, research-based pedagogies that develop student literacy


55

abilities, and when and how to monitor student literacy development (Darling-Hammond,

2006a). Having pedagogical content knowledge means possessing knowledge to make

instructional decisions that are in the best interest of the students (Magnusson et al.,

1999), to follow curriculum maps that include materials, and to adjust the pace of

instruction as needed (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006; Eisenbach, 2012; Gelfuso & Dennis,

2017).

Teacher preparation programs require at least one literacy course for preservice

teachers from all content areas such as English, science, arts, and agriculture (Romine,

McKenna, & Robinson, 1996). The focus of the literacy course has traditionally been

placed on general literacy strategies such as paraphrasing, note taking, concept mapping

(Romine et al., 1996). Beyond this, a literacy teacher’s knowledge has been identified as

their understanding of the role of language and literacy in disciplinary learning and

socialization. This knowledge is referred to as literacy pedagogical content knowledge

(LPCK). According to Love (2009), LPCK has three components:

Knowledge of how spoken and written language can be structured for effective

learning, recognition that subject areas have their own characteristic language

forms and hence entail distinctive literacy practices, and capacity to design

learning and teaching strategies that account for subject-specific literacies and

language practices. (p. 541)

LPCK is important for literacy preservice teachers since discipline-specific content in

secondary schools is presented using different modalities like technical, abstract,

metaphorical (Fang, Schleppegrell, & Moore, 2014). Helping preservice teachers to

develop literacy strategies will help them develop strategies to cope with the language


56

demands of reading and writing in the discipline and help them develop an understanding

of how language and other semiotic practices vary across disciplines (Fang & Pace,

2013).

In other contexts, Draper, Broomhead, Jensen, and Nokes (2012) studied how

literacy teacher educators prepare preservice teachers to support literacy of adults. The

literacy teacher educator in Draper et al.’s study met with the teacher candidates twice

per month. Literacy teacher candidates reviewed existing theories about texts, literacies,

and pedagogies. As a result of these meetings, these preservice teachers implemented

and supported literacy instruction in their courses. Draper et al. (2012) reported that

teacher candidates were more likely to embrace and use literacy instruction when content

teacher educators promoted similar strategies. Kukner and Orr (2015) determined how

preservice teachers were at different levels of PCK after interviewing teachers of math,

science, social studies, and specialties such as physical education, art, and music. Some

preservice teachers showed their willingness to use literacy instructional strategies, and

others shared their unwillingness or inabilities to engage in literacy strategies within their

disciplines in which they are planning to teach. Kukner and Orr concluded the context of

the preservice teachers’ field experience influenced their use of literacy practices. They

added that the preservice teachers’ stance towards using literacy practices is likely to

change within the first few years of their teaching.

Extending the ideas presented by Kukner and Orr (2015), Gelfuso (2017)

examined 26 preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of literacy and agentive

identities. Preservice teachers were required to complete three literacy courses. The study

highlighted how the intentional language, structure of the class, and opportunities created


57

for preservice teachers helped them use PCK and develop agentive identities.

Additionally, the study indicated the importance of creating “wiggle room” (Bartlett,

2012), in which the preservice teachers could demonstrate what they know about literacy

teaching and learning to the teacher educators. For this to be successful, preservice

teachers needed to believe that the teacher educator was not evaluating them but was

there to support them in using LPCK (Gelfuso, 2017). According to Gelfuso, the wiggle

room space is an “opportunity for preservice teachers to engage in guided, imaginative

thinking” (p. 45). It is also the space and time “devoted to preservice teachers rehearsing

professional language and constructing PCK, with guidance, as they notice and name

significant aspects of their field experiences” (Gelfuso, 2017, p. 45).

As shown, teacher education has focused extensively on PCK, primarily in regard

to science. These studies examined the preservice teachers, their pedagogical content

knowledge, and their literacy content knowledge. The predominance of literature on PCK

in reading reflects that a gap does exist in researcher on PCK of preservice teachers in

teaching their content within teacher preparation programs.

The Use of New Literacies in the Classroom

Literacy and the Internet are becoming integrated under the paradigm of New

Literacies. New literacies can motivate disadvantaged students in the K–12 classroom to

build their identities by expressing their voices and their points of view in multiple ways,

such as with written, visual, audio, spatial, or gestural meanings (Kalantzis & Cope,

2012). New literacies enable students to read a wide range of texts, including digital and

traditional texts (Moss & Lapp, 2010). The teacher’s role in authentic learning, therefore,

should be to facilitate meaning-making, based on the use of these texts, in the learning


58

environment. Student background knowledge is a key for their success. Students must

possess both the computational skills and literacy skills to critically examine a problem,

identify relevant and irrelevant information, and choose a problem-solving strategy

(Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). When new literacies are incorporated into classrooms,

students are provided with multiple ways and opportunities to engage in the lessons at

hand. Higher levels of engagement and participation then result in higher academic and

literacy achievements.

New literacies affect meaning making because it allows students to be responsible

in developing their own meanings regarding the information they are presented or tasked

with learning (Cope & Kalantiz, 2015). The similarities that exist across modes of

representation are the fact that these modes are open for anyone to use, which in turn

allows for a very diverse atmosphere of information and communication. Similarities

that exist among modes also allow for connections to be made that would never occur

without these modes. As a result of multimodal meaning making, we are presented with a

vast expanse of ideas that go far beyond that of a traditional textbook. Multimodal

meaning making allows students to cultivate a much more original stance on a topic

(New London Group, 1996).

New literacies mean many different things to many different people (Leu et al.,

2017). Teachers need to use electronic text to encourage their students to use critical

thinking skills that they will need to read, manage, organize, and evaluate text. Teachers

need to provide their students with texts with a wide range of complexity. It is important

for students to determine the author’s perspective by using new literacies pedagogies

such as critical literacy. Teachers are encouraged to use different new literacies


59

pedagogies mentioned above to support a range of technology tools that they could use in

classroom instruction such as VoiceThreads. However, students need to learn procedural

knowledge before they use a virtual tool such as Glogster. They need to examine the

images and videos and make sure they present a unified message. Concurrently, teachers

need to assess the students’ reading and writing and provide differentiated instruction

(Karchmer‐Klein & Shinas, 2012). Teachers can promote the use of visual aids by

displaying information and using graphs to organize information to detect patterns in the

data. Teachers facilitate student learning by providing them with different resources and

guiding student in gathering, comprehending, evaluating, and communicating

information to conduct research in order to solve problems (Leu et al., 2017). Students

can use social networking to voice their arguments, engaging in collaborative

environments to address different issues, and solve problems (Andriessen, Baker, &

Suthers, 2003; Beach & Doerr-Stevens, 2011; Zhang, Beach & Sheng, 2016).

Teachers need to expose their students to different genres to help them gain

knowledge and find their own interests in books. Learning must connect to the real world

(Anderson, 2004). Students are more motivated when learning is more relevant to them.

Using new literacies in online reading comprehension emphasizes using higher

order skills such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Coiro & Dobler, 2007). Acquiring

reading skills from different genres will help students apply those skills across the

curriculum of other areas. Teachers should provide a variety of materials to encourage

reading and promote investigation (Fisher & Frey, 2012). Adopting new literacies helps

students become critical thinkers, independent, and problem solvers.


60

The Significance of New Literacies to Preservice Teachers in Teacher Education

Using new literacies in the classroom helps all students with different individual

abilities, specifically students who come from diverse backgrounds. According to the

National Center for Education Statistics (n.d) in the United States, the percentage of

English learners grew in 2014–2015 to 9.4%, which is approximately 4.6 million

students. However, only one in eight teachers has been shown to be prepared to work

with culturally and linguistically diverse students (McCloskey, 2002), and the latest

findings suggest that some challenges exist in the integration of language and linguistic

diversity into teacher education, which stems from the following issues: limited policy

support, lack of faculty proficiency in English language learning, and program

constraints. Li (2017) proposed that teacher preparation programs focus on cultural

diversity to prepare teachers with “sociolinguistic complexities” in the classrooms.

Maxwell, Hilaski, and Whelan-Kim (2018) indicated that teachers need to be well-

equipped with knowledge pertaining to instructional strategies, learning differences, and

language and cultural impacts, and they recommended to extend field placements for

preservice teachers and use the professional development school model to improve the

teacher preparation programs. Despite the changes in the school demographic population,

deep content knowledge is the focus of teacher preparation (Ball et al., 2008; Darling-

Hammond, 2006b; Gess-Newsome et al., 2019). In 1913, Franklin Bobbit argued that

teacher knowledge acquisition needs to be continued throughout their entire service

(Howard & Aleman, 2008). Risko and Vogt (2016) proposed a professional learning

approach to address the needs of teachers and to respond to the changes in education.

The framework by Chicago educators, Gillette and Schultz (2008), also indicates that


61

preservice teachers need to attain a base of content knowledge in multicultural education.

Beyond this, teachers need to develop critical thinking skills to be able to help their

students be successful (Grant, 2008). There exists a spectrum of teacher capability that

has been identified: (a) knowledge—pedagogical content knowledge, curriculum

pedagogy, educational foundations context; (b) craft skills—planning, organizing,

conducting instruction, using instructional materials and technology, and monitoring and

evaluating; and (c) dispositions—beliefs, attitudes, and values (Howard & Aleman,

2008).

Darling-Hammond (2006a) asserted that teachers need to provide students with

“flexible” knowledge and opportunities to apply what they have learned and teach them

problem-solving skills. She advocated for a “strong, universal teacher education” (p. 5)

and for preparing teachers for a responsive practice. Some preservice teachers encounter

challenges due to their limited cultural knowledge and disconnection between theory and

practice (Borrero, Flores, & De La Cruz, 2016; Risko et al., 2008). Other challenges

include preservice teachers’ weak content knowledge and inconsistent supervision of

teachers in training (Darling-Hammond, 2006b).

The pedagogical literacy practices, beliefs, and knowledge in new literacies form

a framework for planning and conducting lessons on new literacies with preservice

teachers. Informing preservice teachers about the new literacies practices through the

pedagogical lens would set the foundation for preservice teachers to learn about new

literacies. What do preservice teachers need to know and what do they need to do with

new literacies? This is the guiding question that assisted me in forming a procedural plan

for planning the survey that would assess preservice teachers’ pedagogical content


62

knowledge of new literacies. First, I present the pedagogical holistic model of new

literacies based on the literature reviewed in this work.

Pedagogical Holistic Model of New Literacies

Indications in the literature regarding new literacies, critical pedagogy, content

knowledge pedagogy, and pedagogical content knowledge suggest that links exist

between theory and pedagogy. The pedagogical holistic model of new literacies presented

in Figure 3, developed based on these indications, is seen in the diagram to be

undergirded by social constructivism. This model suggests that teachers use different new

literacies approaches—didactic, authentic, critical and functional approaches—based on

critical, pedagogical, and content knowledge, which are themselves steeped in social

constructivism, to reach all learners with diverse abilities. This model appears to be

useful for understanding how teachers can be guided to use different modes of design

based on meaning making and representation within and across linguistic, visual, audio

spatial, and gestural designs. The model emphasizes how the modes of design encourage

teachers to pay attention to the classroom dynamics, resources, materials chosen, and

their own body language in a way that serves all students’ needs when planning and

delivering instruction. This model appears to serve as a bridge between theory and

practice for teachers of any discipline and particularly for teachers being prepared to

teach literacy. Specifically, this model, based on the literature, may be used in teacher

preparation programs to frame or to extend conceptions of assessment of preservice

teacher knowledge and practices as they undergo their student teaching, based on their

specialized content knowledge in their various fields.


63

Figure 3. Pedagogical holistic model of new literacies.

Surveys Used in the Field

A search for survey instruments for measuring preservice pedagogical knowledge

of New Literacies revealed no existing surveys. However, there are 59 surveys with the

following categories identified: new literacies/multiliteracies; preservice teachers’

knowledge of new literacies; digital literacies; and literacies. The surveys identified drew

from the following categories: (a) Shulman’s (1986) theory of teacher pedagogical

content knowledge, which consists of knowledge of content, teaching strategies,

classroom management techniques, education, and values; (b) New literacies concepts

that bridge traditional literacies with multiliteracies by which learning is focused around


64

social and cultural activities, and the text is delivered in different modes of representation

(linguistic, visual, audio, spatial, and synesthesia; Kalantzis & Cope, 2012); (c) literacy

pedagogy that acknowledges student languages, cultures, interests and priorities (Gee,

1996; New London Group, 1996); and (d) technological pedagogical content knowledge

that integrates content knowledge, technological knowledge (e.g., computer, internet,

digital video) and pedagogy knowledge (practices, procedures, and strategies of teaching

and learning; Koehler & Mishra , 2005).

Some of the instruments developed for preservice teachers that combined

pedagogy, literacy, and technology are: (a) Survey of Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of

Teaching and Technology; (b) A National Survey of Barriers to Integrating Information

and Communication Technologies into Literacy Instruction; (c) A Comparison of

Inservice and Preservice Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Self-

Confidence; (d) Teachers Beliefs Survey; (e) Engage Me: Using New literacies to Create

Third Space Classrooms that Engage Student Writers; and (f) Understanding New

Literacies for New Times: Pedagogy in Action (see Table 1).


65

Table 1

Surveys Used in Literacy, Pedagogy, and Technology

Domain Study Title Authors Instrument Findings

Literacy The Reading Habits and Literacy Attitudes of Inservice and Prospective Teachers

Steven Nathanson John Pruslow Roberta Levitt (2008)

The Literacy Habits Questionnaire

Findings suggest: • Reading literacy present but no

interest in reading for pleasure. • Graduate Students understood that

teachers should read for themselves, but they did not practice personal reading.

• The results of the study suggest more can be done to promote personal reading with literacy instructors.

Who Educates Teacher Educators About English Language Learners?

Zaline M. Roy-Campbell (2013)

This study presents the findings of a survey on the preparation of teacher educators in the literacy field for preparing general education.

• The survey gives insight on the level of preparation that literacy teachers receive prior to working with ELL students. According to the results, ELL students would benefit more if their teachers received more received more focused training. The findings of the survey validates the current literature on this field.

• The study findings suggested that the respondents had limited experience or exposure to ELLs. Only 12% said they earned TSEOL degrees or Bilingual Education certification programs, and only 18% completed ELL coursework. However, 61% or more than half of the respondents admitted that they were exposed to ELL issues at conferences or professional development workshops.


66

Table 1 Continued Domain Study Title Authors Instrument Findings

Literacy Helping English Language Learners: Preparing Teachers to Promote Critical Thinking and Language Acquisition

Myra Daniel, 2008

2005 Illinois Colleges Teacher Graduate Survey

• The percentage of first-year teachers who felt they were adequately prepared to work with English Language Learners was under 60%. Making literacy a priority and a biliteracy, the knowledge of second language acquisition, were two of the recommendations given by the study.

Literacy Curricula And Assessment: A Survey Of Early Childhood Educators In Two States

Karen L. Gischlar Joanne P. Vesay (2018)

Early Childhood Literacy Curricula and Assessment.

• The results of the study revealed that many teachers used general or literacy curriculum, even though those programs lack the research to prove how effective they really are.

• Considered to be unsound psychometrically. It can potentially show that they are not precise indicators of progress among students.

Teachers’ Use of Technology to Support Literacy in 2018

Irene Picton April 2019

Survey included many factors at play when using technology to support learning

• The survey revealed that a large number of teachers believed that technology was a productive teaching aid for promoting student access and amusement of both established and innovative tools of literacy.

• There were twenty-eight (28) parts

revealed to specific uses of technology. These included developing seamless learning from the classroom to the house. Nevertheless, some of the biggest challenges to those intending to use technology for literacy learning included hardware and software access, Wifi availability, and the obtainability of training.


67

Table 1 Continued

Domain Study Authors Instrument Findings

Literacy Surveying preschool Teachers’ Use Of Digital Tablets: General And Technology Education Related Findings

Anna Otterborn

Konrad Schönborn

Magnus Hultén (2018)

Teachers’ use, experiences and opinions concerning digital tablets (e.g. iPads) in preschools, with an added focus on technology education survey.

• The survey showed high engagement level with computer tablet use in pre-schools, specifically with skills that involved in a variety of subjects and skills. The technology subject areas for the tablet activities included problem-solving, invention, design, construction and creation, and programming.

New Literacies

Understanding New Literacies for New Times: Pedagogy in Action

Potts, Schlichting, Pridgen & Hatch (2010)

The use of Digital Media and Online Environments to meet the 21st Century Standards Survey

• The students interacted among themselves in a significant way when digital storytelling was integrated into the daily literacy plan.

Engage Me: Using New Literacies to Create Third Space Classrooms that Engage Student Writers

Dredger, Woods, Beach, Sagstetter, 2010

Motivation to Write Out of School (Not for school assignments) Survey

• The survey results revealed a gap existed between student motivation for writing in school and the reasons they write when not in school. Based on these results, it could be assumed that English teachers can create a “third space” were literacy techniques could be incorporated into the school curriculum.


68

Table 1 Continued


New Literacies

Reclaiming “Old” Literacies in the New Literacy Information Age: The Functional Literacies of the Mediated Workstation

Ryan Shepherd and Peter Goggin (2012)

Two informal surveys were conducted on writing instructors’ knowledge of computer peripherals and security.

• The surveys suggest that writing teachers might want to reevaluate functional literacies and its roles in the classroom. Functional technological literacy a necessity for today’s educators. This fact is supported by the continually changing technological infrastructure and the importance of teachers who are instrumental in the future of mediated education.

Composing with New Technology: Teacher Reflections on Learning Digital Video

David L. Bruce and Ming Chiu (2015)

Open-ended Survey on using Cechnologies in the classroom

• The results of the survey showed that there exists a great need for teachers to engage in hands on experiences with digital video (DV) and also schedule moments for content reflection and applications of pedagogy.

• Teachers who had previously finished projects said they felt more confident using technology and displayed more advanced practices than single user groups.


69

Table 1 Continued


New Literacies

The Use of E-Books In New Zealand Primary Schools

Katie Bainbridge* and Brenda Chawner (2012)

Using a survey, this study examined the extent to which e-books are being used in New Zealand primary schools, what influences teachers to use them, and what obstacles prevent their use in this context.

• While the study found that interest in using e-books was high among respondents, only 23 or 30.3% really used e-books. There were many obstacles identified as reasons for not using them which included: a lack of training on using e-books, the need for higher quality curriculum materials and lesson plans, and the low e-book awareness and a knowledge of how to acquire them.

• In the questionnaire, the technology section received positive feedback. The respondents had positive attitudes towards computers and technology because they see them as important teaching tools, stating that they can be modified to assist a variety of teaching methods. On the other hand, respondents had inconsistent results when trying to list specific benefits of computers and technology.


70

Table 1 Continued


New Literacies

New Technologies, Multiple Literacies and Teaching English as a Foreign Language

Silene Cardoso (2018)

Online questionnaire using new literacies in the classroom

• With these teachers, the use of new technologies appears to be part of their normal teaching methods, but it was undetermined if their use signified new, advanced teaching methods. It appears as if specific direction, appropriate training, and the creation of up-to-date materials must be applied if new technologies are to be integrated into the EFL classrooms.

• Through their answers, survey respondents suggested the technology could help their teaching and help improve the language skills of their students. When asked in the survey which skills (listening, writing, reading, speaking, cultural awareness, and critical thinking) they believed to be most developed by technology, teachers stated speaking or conversations. 40% of respondents felt that technology could help in vocabulary building, grammar consolidation, and learning.


71

Table 1 Continued


Technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK)

A comparison of in-service and pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge self-confidence

Fatih Saltan and Kürşat Arslan (2017)

A survey on teachers’ self-confidence scores on their technological pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge

• Both pre-service and in-service teachers displayed high self-confidence levels in the domain of technological content knowledge, according to the results. However, both groups had different areas strengths and weaknesses. Pre-service teachers scored lowest in TPACK, but in-service teachers scored lowest in technological knowledge. Also, pre-service math teachers had lower TPACK scores than pre-service science teachers, but the level of in-service ICT teachers’ TPACK level was higher than science, math, and classroom teacher’s levels when the TPACK, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and technology knowledge (TK) domain was considered.

Survey of Preservice Teachers' Knowledge of Teaching and Technology Examining Preservice Teachers' Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in an Introductory Instructional Technology Course

Denise A. Schmidt, Evrim Baran, and Ann D. Thompson Matthew J. Koehler, Punya Mishra, and Tae Shin (2009)


72

Table 1 Continued


Technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK)

Social network sites with learning purposes: Exploring new spaces for literacy and learning in the primary classroom

Patricia Thibaut (2015)

This paper seeks to understand how primary school teachers and students in Year 6 have been using a social network site with learning purposes called Edmodo in their everyday school practices, and whether or not its use supports learning and new literacies using a survey and interviews.

• The findings of the research indicated that using a social network platform can create opportunities in which teaching and learning can be expanded. This includes students interacting in digital practices of multimodal literacy and participating in self-directed learning and peer-teaching. These teaching methods yield benefits that are different than those gained in the traditional classroom space. By combining the physical and online classroom, the potential classroom benefits can be increased.

Relationships between Pre-service Teachers’ Social Media Usage in Informal Settings and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Education

Lau, W. W. (2018)

Technology knowledge survey and items assessed the seven knowledge components TK, CK, PK, PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK.

• The survey was based on a sample made up of Hong Kong pre-service teachers. The results found that the rate of media sharing was a major positive indicator of technology knowledge and technology teaching knowledge, but the sharing of Internet searches or video games was not an indicator of any TPAC areas.

Among these instruments, there was a focus on technology knowledge, content

knowledge (social studies, mathematics, science, and literacy), pedagogical knowledge,

pedagogical content knowledge, technological content knowledge, and technological

pedagogical content knowledge (Bainbridge & Chawner, 2012; Bruce & Chiu, 2015;

Cardoso, 2018; Lau, 2018; Saltan & Arslan, 2017; Schmidt et al., 2009; Shepherd &

Goggin, 2012; Thibaut, 2015). Most surveys used the Likert scale, and were focused on

improving students’ literacy skills by providing them with different tools, such as

technology, technological applications, peer collaboration, and differentiated instruction

(Lau, 2018; Schmidt et al., 2009). The survey results indicated a common


73

recommendation, which was providing teachers with more training to better prepare

them for teaching and improve their content knowledge. The results of the surveys

showed that teachers are open to using technologies in the classroom; however, many of

them lack the knowledge of how to use technologies effectively. Similarly, the surveys

focused on the pedagogy of teaching and supporting students’ interests and needs.

Differences were evident among the literacy, new literacies, and TPACK surveys.

The literacy surveys focused more on assessing teachers’ language skills and knowledge

(Gischlar &Vesay, 2018; Otterborn, Schönborn, & Hultén, 2018; Picton 2019). Most of

the studies in this area recommended providing different courses for preservice teachers

and professional development training for inservice teachers on strategies for teaching

reading and writing. The survey results recommended providing more content and

pedagogy courses for preservice teachers in the teacher preparation programs. However,

the new literacies surveys focused on the tools used to support the students’ knowledge

and learning, such as iPads and e-books (Otterborn et al., 2018). The results of these

surveys suggest that teachers need more training in planning and implementing lessons,

using different modes of new literacies. The TPACK surveys focused mostly on

assessing teachers’ experience and confidence in using different technologies in the

classroom (Lau, 2018; Saltan & Arslan, 2017). The results reflect that schools need to

provide more technical support for teachers in the area of technologies used to support

new literacies.

Summary

Chapter II provided a review of literature on constructivism, the paradigmatic

shifts that led to new literacies, the pedagogical content knowledge, the new literacies


74

pedagogies, the empirical studies on preservice teachers and new literacies in the field of

teacher education, the models of pedagogical content knowledge, and an overview of

surveys that have been developed and used to examine constructs similar to those

examined in this study. This chapter also highlighted the relationship between theory and

practice that undergirds an assessment of new literacies. Social constructivism and new

literacies were used in this chapter as a framework for this research study, and the

importance of preparing preservice teachers for using pedagogical content knowledge and

integrating new literacies in the K-12 classroom were outlined. Based on the literature,

the pedagogical holistic model of new literacies was proposed. Additionally, based on the

search for surveys among the literature, no surveys of preservice teachers’ pedagogical

content knowledge of new literacies appeared to exist. Notwithstanding, this literature

review as well as elements of pre-existing surveys provide a clear basis from which to

develop survey items that assess preservice teachers’ PCKNL in the current work.


75

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter addresses the purpose of the study, research questions, study design

(procedures, item selection, survey administration, sampling, etc.), quantitative and

qualitative data analyses, and the researcher’s positionality in this study.

Purpose and Objectives

This study was conducted to develop and analyze an instrument, titled the

Pedagogical Content Knowledge of New Literacies (PCKNL) survey, designed to

measure the extent to which preservice teachers in a teacher education program possess

knowledge of how to teach new literacies in their classrooms. The concepts of the target

constructs were identified through three sources: (a) literature on pedagogies, theory, and

new literacies; (b) existing surveys on pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in literacy

and technological content knowledge; and (c) previous empirical studies on new

literacies in the classroom. The PCKNL survey will enable instructors of preservice

teachers, nationally and internationally, to reliably measure and evaluate preservice

teachers’ PCK of new literacies. I sought to quantify and verify qualitatively preservice

teacher preparation, using different modes of new literacies, including linguistic, gestural,

visual, audio, spatial, synesthesia modes. The results of the survey will guide instructors

in prepare teachers to meet K-12 students’ needs in the 21st century. The specific

objectives of this study are:

1. Identify the constructs of pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies,

using different forms of meaning making in existing surveys and the

literature;


76

2. Draft and refine items for each construct, using the modes of new literacies;

3. Have an expert peer confirm that the constructs are clear and are measureable;

4. Establish the content validity of the survey through a review by experts in the

field of new literacies;

5. Determine the construct reliability of the survey through statistical analysis;

and

6. Answer the research questions.

Research Questions

To achieve the purpose of the study, the following research questions were

formulated:

1. Can preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies be

measured reliably?


service teachers?

Research Design

The research questions will be addressed by using survey methodology (Baumann

& Bason, 2011). The term survey “is used most often to describe a method of gathering

information from a sample of individuals” (Scheuren, 2004, p. 9). Survey research

involves collecting information, and it is “powerful in producing statistical

generalizations to large populations” (Groves et al., 2009, p. 406). I used a technology-

enhanced survey, which was disseminated to the targeted population through the Internet.

This required creating sample lists of the targeted population from different resources,

such as literacy professors who have the email addresses of their students, the targeted


77

popluation. Having access to the email addresses of those in the targeted population who

have access to the Internet is considered an effective approach to recruiting participants

(Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2016). The advantages of using an online survey are low

cost and speedy returns of responses.

To develop the items of the PCKNL, the pedagogies of new literacies were

identified, and the modes of meaning making were explored. A review of the literature on

new literacies, pedagogies, theories, and applications was conducted to write the second

chapter of this dissertation and informed the development of the items of the six domains

presented in the PCKNL. My teaching experience assisted in defining additional items of

the PCKNL survey.

The first step involved identifying the constructs of new literacies by conducting

database searches of PsycTest, ERIC, Google Scholar, Dissertation Proquest, PscyhInfo,

JSTOR, and Communication Source. A table was created for each of the databases to

record: search term, number of articles, limiters (peer reviewed), range date, and search

date. The combinations of terms used to search for surveys include survey/questionnaire

+ teacher education; survey/questionnaire + teacher's knowledge; survey/questionnaire +

teaching strategies; survey/questionnaire + teacher methodology; survey/questionnaire +

pedagogical content knowledge; survey/questionnaire + preservice teachers or student

teachers or pre-service teachers + knowledge; survey/questionnaire + preservice teachers

or student teachers or pre-service teachers + method; survey/questionnaire + preservice

teachers or student teachers or pre-service teachers + literacy; survey or questionnaire +

teaching strategies or teaching methods; survey or questionnaire + teaching strategies or

teaching methods + literacy; survey or questionnaire + new literacy studies + multimodal


78

+ survey or questionnaire + modes; spatial learning + survey or questionnaire + modes +

survey or questionnaire spatial + classroom + survey or questionnaire + space +

classroom environment; pck or pedagogical content knowledge + communication +

visual; pck or pedagogical content knowledge + communication + survey or

questionnaire; multimodal + survey or questionnaire + literacy; survey + preservice

teachers or student teachers or pre-service teachers + pck or pedagogical content

knowledge; survey + preservice teachers or student teachers or pre-service teachers +

knowledge survey scale + preservice teachers or student teachers or pre-service teachers

+ literacy; survey + pedagogy content knowledge; survey scale + pedagogy content

knowledge (see Figure 4). Figure 4 includes the keywords that were used to search for the

survey articles.

Figure 4. Word cloud of the keywords used in the searches.


79

Table 2

Example of the Documentation of the Search for Surveys in Different Database

Link Search Search Term

(Advanced Search) No of Articles Limiters Data Range Database Search Date

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lib-e2.lib.ttu.edu/ehost/resultsadvanced?vid=3&sid=bd40a797-7c12-46fb-890e061fabae0e31%40sessionmgr4007&bquery=(survey)+AND+(preservice+teachers+OR+student+teachers+OR+preservice+teachers)+AND+(pck+OR+pedagogical+content+knowledge)&bdata=JmRiPWV1ZSZ0eXBlPTEmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl

Survey+ preservice teachers or student teachers or pre-service teachers+ pck or pedagogical content knowledge

156 Peer Reviewed

1993–2018 Education Source

28-Jul-18

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lib-e2.lib.ttu.edu/ehost/resultsadvanced?vid=15&sid=bd40a797-7c12-46fb-890e-061fabae0e31%40sessionmgr4007&bquery=(survey)+AND+(preservice+teachers+OR+student+teachers+OR+preservice+teachers)+AND+(knowledge)&bdata=JmRiPWV1ZSZjbGkwPVJWJmNsdjA9WSZ0eXBlPTEmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl

Survey+ preservice teachers or student teachers or pre-service teachers+ knowledge

1,087 Peer Reviewed

1993–2019 Education Source

28-Jul-18


80

The constant comparative method was used to identify the new literacies domains

from the literature (Glaser, 1965; Strauss & Corbin, 1994). The standards of new

literacies pedagogies and modalities were scrutinized multiple times. In addition to

reviewing the literature of new literacies, preservice teachers’ surveys on the web were

monitored for eight months to make sure that I reviewed all the surveys. A group of

tables (see Table 3 for an example) was used to organize the new literacies literature and

surveys and the literature on PCK and technological and pedagogical content knowledge,

each of which facilitated the analysis. More than 90 studies were identified, and data

from those studies were organized into the following categories: theoretical background,

predictor, gap spotting, purpose of the study, participant information, setting,

methodology, findings, argument, and notes.

NVivo (Version 12), a qualitative data analysis software, was also used to analyze

the literature and create codes that helped in writing the first two chapters of this

dissertation. Some of the codes used to write the literature on new literacies used were:

pedagogy, new literacies definition, epistemological shifts, knowledge of teaching

reading, modes of meaning making, challenges, and new literacies as a social paradigm.


81

Table 3

Example of Article Analysis

Study Theoretical Background Predictor

Purpose of Study/Research

Questions Participant Information

Setting/ Country Methodology Key Findings References

Understanding New Literacies for New Times: Pedagogy in Action

N/A Two teachers reflect on their teaching and change their teaching pedagogy

To emphasize the complexities involved in the integration of technology within literacy instruction for a teacher, and to provide a context for our study, we pose the following questions: • How do teachers weave new literacies within their pedagogical practice? • What do teachers perceive to be the benefits of implementing new literacies in their pedagogical practices in relationship to literacy development?

Two teachers

USA Case study Incorporating digital storytelling into my student’s everyday literacy experiences allowed them to engage with each other in a more meaningful way. They learned how to work well with others as they learned new skills and new ways to utilize technology to enhance their literacy development. This project provided an avenue for children of all abilities to be involved, to have a role, and to be successful.

Potts, A., Schlichting, K., Pridgen, A., & Hatch, J. (2010). Understanding new literacies for new times: Pedagogy in action. International Journal of Learning, 17(8).


82

After the analysis of the reviews was completed, another table was constructed

(see Table 4) to define (a) the new literacies pedagogical approaches: authentic literacy

pedagogy, didactic literacy pedagogy, functional literacies pedagogy, critical literacy

pedagogy; and (b) modes of meaning making: linguistic, gestural, visual, audio, spatial

meaning, and synesthesia.


83

Table 4

Defining Pedagogical Approaches and Modes of Meaning-Making

New Literacies Pedagogical Approaches Modes of Meaning Making

The authentic literacy pedagogy is a student-centered approach. It focuses on

learning by doing, derived from student interests. Teachers facilitate the learning

process for the students, and they guide them through questioning. It promotes

natural growth of using the language starting with speaking the language.

Students take ownership of their learning and are considered social actors

(Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).

Synesthetic approach: is used for pedagogical support for learning to read and

write. Knowing how to represent and communicate things in multiple modes to

get a deeper understanding of things (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).

The didactic literacy pedagogy is a teacher centered learning. Teachers use

textbooks or syllabus transmit the rules of language to passive learners. Learners

just copy, repeat, memorize, follow and apply rules (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).

Gestural meanings are expressed in bodily appearances, movement, and

positioning. They are multi-layered, connected to behavior, feeling effect, and

gesture. It includes body spacing (posture), bodily movement (feelings of

motion), and gaze (gestural meets visual meaning) (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).

Functional literacies pedagogy is concerned with text and its social function. It

aims to establish structure and content in literacy teaching and emphasizes on

meaning making. Learners explain the ways texts deliver meaning to them, and

then they apply their knowledge of language and in social contexts. They are

exposed to different types of texts that would enable them to succeed in real

world (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).

Critical literacies pedagogy is one approach to teaching students “to challenge a

text” (Moss & Lapp, 2010, p. 287). It focuses on using or creating authentic

texts that address challenging issues, like discrimination that are of interests or

concerns to the learners. Learners are seen, as social actors where they are

encouraged to raise questions and identify problems. They learn about

differences in language, power, cultures, and new media. This pedagogy aims to

assist learners to understand how things are constructed by people’s actions,

cultures, and values (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).

Spatial meanings are proximity and movement that are shaped in the places we

live. Spaces have meaning based on the functions and meanings designed by

people, “spatial communication includes giving directions, making maps,

drawing plans, creating models, and diagramming flows” (Kalantzis & Cope,

2012, p. 283.)

Visual communication is creating the meaning from mental images such as

paintings, photographs, pages, advertisement, and colors (Cope & Kalantzis,

2012)

Written meaning has been considered more powerful than visual meaning

(Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).

Audio meaning refer to sound effect. Meaning making occurs when we put

signifiers together into a coherent system that more or less corresponds with the

sense of the world of our experienced meanings, or what signified” (Kalantzis &

Cope, 2012, p. 177).


84

Table 5

Linguistic Mode

Question Source Modified Survey Items Adapted by Researcher Notes

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D

Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A

Strongly Agree = SA

28. I can select effective teaching

approaches to guide student thinking and

learning in literacy.

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A.

D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T.

S. (2009). Technological pedagogical

content knowledge (TPACK) the

development and validation of an

assessment instrument for preservice

teachers. Journal of research on

Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-

149.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither

Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree =

To guide student thinking and learning in

literacy:

1. I can provide students with a list of prefixes

and suffixes, along with their respective

meanings, to guide them in decoding words.

(Functional approach)

2. I can give students examples using metaphors


3. I deliver information using multiple modalities

(visual, audio, linguistic) to focus on learning by

doing. (Authentic approach).

4. I can select effective teaching approaches to

engage students in analyzing multiple texts.

(Critical approach).

5. I can provide students with different texts

(procedural texts, newspapers, biographies).

(Didactic approach)

I used the Linguistic mode from the

New London Group (diagram provided

in the other document) and adapted to

Schmidt item survey construct. Please

note that I used ideas from the below

constructs and adapted it to New

Literacies

Spear-Swerling, L., & Cheesman, E.

(2012). Teachers’ knowledge base for

implementing response-to-intervention

models in reading. Reading and Writing,

25(7), 1691-1723.

To guide student thinking and learning in

literacy: 8. I can make the content relevant to the

local context. (Functional approach).

9. I can frame the content in a global context.

(Functional approach).

10. I can demonstrate for students how to

categorize information. (Didactic approach).

11. I can use effective strategies to help students

categorize information. (Functional approach)


help students locate information. (Authentic

approach).


help students evaluate and synthesize

information. (Critical approach).


help students communicate information learned.



85

Table 6

Gestural Mode

Question Source

Modified Survey Items Adapted by

Researcher Notes

I create a classroom

circumstance to promote

students’ interest for learning.

Jang, S. J., & Chang, Y. (2016).

Exploring the technological

pedagogical and content

knowledge (TPACK) of

Taiwanese university physics

instructors. Australasian Journal

of Educational Technology,

32(1).

1. I create a welcoming and safe

classroom environment (e.g., make eye

contact, call them by name, speak to them

in a gentle voice) to promote student

interest in learning. (Authentic approach).

I can provide leadership in

helping others to coordinate the

use of content, technologies,

and teaching approaches at my

school or district

Lau, W. W. (2018).

Relationships between Pre-

service Teachers’ Social Media

Usage in Informal Settings and

Technological Pedagogical

Content Knowledge. EURASIA

Journal of Mathematics,

Science and Technology

Education, 14, 12.

1. I can help my students understand the

content I am teaching by using intentional

gestures and body movements (Didactic

approach)

2. I can help my students comprehend the

content of my subject area by

demonstrating strategies and processes

using role-play or theater (Critical

approach).

3. I can help students apply what they

learn through theater or drama.


4. I can help students understand the

meaning of words using their five senses


5. I can help students analyze the

environment by asking them to observe

movements or change. (Critical

approach).


86

Table 7

Visual Mode

Question Source


Researcher Notes

I use demonstrations to help

explaining the main concept.

Jang, S. J., & Chang, Y. (2016).

Exploring the technological


knowledge (TPACK) of

Taiwanese university physics

instructors. Australasian Journal

of Educational Technology,

32(1).

1. I use graphs to organize information

relevant to students to promote student

thinking and learning (Authentic

approach).

3. I use visuals through explanation or

modeling to guide student thinking and

learning (Didactic approach)

4. I use different teaching approaches and

interactive texts (texts that include visuals

and interactive activities) to guide student

thinking and learning (Authentic

approach).

5. I use a variety of visual resources like

texts, message board, or blogs to represent

the content of my teaching subject

(Authentic approach).

6. I use visual texts, graphic novels, digital

stories, primary source documents, or

advertisements to help students construct

meaning. (Functional approach).

7. I use different technologies in teaching

to guide student thinking and learning in

teaching my subject. (Authentic approach).

8. I use visual aids in the form of graphs,

maps, charts, or tables to help students

synthesize the main concept to guide

student thinking and learning in my

teaching (Critical approach).

Using the terms from the New

London Group and based on

this construct I adapted new

constructs.


87

Table 8

Audio Mode

Question Source

Modified survey items adapted

by Tala Notes

I could support students use

ICT to demonstrate what they

have learned.

Finger, G., Jamieson-Proctor,

R., & Albion, P. (2010).

Beyond pedagogical content

knowledge: The importance of

TPACK for informing

preservice teacher education in

Australia. In Key competencies

in the knowledge society (pp.

114-125). Springer, Berlin,

Heidelberg.

1. I can guide student

understanding by asking them

to demonstrate what they

learned using theater and

music. (Authentic approach).

4. I can support students’ use of

computer technology and

different types of audio to

create appropriate products.



ICT to communicate locally

and globally.

Finger, G., Jamieson-Proctor,

R., & Albion, P. (2010).

Beyond pedagogical content

knowledge: The importance of

TPACK for informing

preservice teacher education in

Australia. In Key competencies

in the knowledge society (pp.

114-125). Springer, Berlin,

Heidelberg.

2. I can support students in

using different approaches like

sound effects to communicate

their knowledge locally (in the

classroom). (Functional

approach).

3. I can support students in

using different approaches like

sound effects to communicate

their knowledge globally using

social media. (Functional

approach).


ICT to communicate locally

and globally


88

Table 9

Spatial Mode

Question Source


Researcher Question

I can use appropriate technologies

(e.g., multimedia resources,

simulation) to represent the

content of science

Lin, T. C., Tsai, C. C., Chai, C.

S., & Lee, M. H. (2013).

Identifying science teachers’

perceptions of technological


knowledge (TPACK). Journal of

Science Education and

Technology, 22(3), 325-336.

1. I create a personalized space

(names, posters of student interests,

pictures) for each student to support

their learning. (Authentic approach).

2. I encourage students to read or

write on a place other than their desk

(beanbags, blanket, pillow) to support

their learning (Functional approach).

3. I encourage students to bring

artifacts from home that will cultivate

a sense of belonging or community to

support their learning. (Authentic

approach)

4. I ask students to describe the

classroom space in writing (Critical

approach).

5. I ask students to reflect on the

architectural design of the school

(Critical approach).

6. I take students on a field trip inside

the school or outside the school to

give them opportunities to support

their learning. (Functional approach)

7. I ask students to communicate the

importance of our country’s

geographic place in relation to the

world (Functional approach).

This is a new area that I wrote

questions based on using the

terms in the New London Group


89

Table 10

Synesthesia Mode

Question Source

Modified Survey Items

Adapted by Researcher Notes

20. I know how to assess

student performance in a

classroom.

21. I can adapt my teaching

based upon what students

currently understand or do

not understand.

22. I can adapt my teaching

style to different learners. 23.

I can assess student learning

in multiple ways.

24. I can use a wide range of

teaching approaches in a

classroom setting.

25. I am familiar with

common student

understandings and

misconceptions.

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E.,

Thompson, A. D., Mishra,

P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin,

T. S. (2009). Technological

pedagogical content

knowledge (TPACK) the

development and validation

of an assessment instrument

for preservice teachers.

Journal of research on

Technology in Education,

42(2), 123-149.

1. I can assess student

learning using combinations

of different texts (graphic

novels, digital stories,

primary source documents,

advertisement, or electronic

texts). (Authentic approach)


90

The two preceding steps were used as a guide to develop a table for each of the

modes of meaning making after all surveys that could possibly be used to develop the

PCKNL survey had been gathered. I examined each survey multiple times, and then

categorized each construct based on the modes of new literacies, using the definitions

created in Table 4. A table was created for each of the modes of new literacies (see

Tables 5–11) with which I classified each of the items proposed for the PCKNL survey.

In proposing each question to be included in the instrument under development, I

indicated the source of the original survey item, a list of potential revisions of the

question, and the mode of new literacies reflected. My goal was to use this initial plan to

adapt the questions. However, after multiple trials, it was clear that new constructs and

corresponding items needed to be created to reflect the pedagogical content knowledge of

new literacies that did not currently exist in the literature. Therefore, I created new

constructs, using only some of the scales reflected in certain existing surveys.


91

Table 11

Example of Survey Item Analysis Indicating the Source and Potential Survey Item Questions for New Literacies Linguistic Mode

Question Source

Modified Survey Items

Adapted by Researcher Notes

Pedagogical Content

Knowledge (PCK)

Strongly Disagree = SD

Disagree = D Neither

Agree/Disagree = N Agree =

A Strongly Agree = SA

28. I can select effective

teaching approaches to guide

student thinking and learning

in literacy.

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E.,

Thompson, A. D., Mishra,

P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin,

T. S. (2009). Technological

pedagogical content

knowledge (TPACK) the

development and validation

of an assessment instrument

for preservice teachers.

Journal of research on

Technology in Education,

42(2), 123-149.

Pedagogical Content

Knowledge

Strongly Disagree = SD

Disagree = D Neither

Agree/Disagree = N Agree =

A Strongly Agree = To

guide student thinking and

learning in literacy:

1. I can provide students

with a list of prefixes and

suffixes, along with their

respective meanings, to

guide them in decoding

words. (Functional

approach)

2. I can give students

examples using metaphors


I used the Linguistic mode

from the New London

Group (diagram provided in

the other document) and

adapted to Schmidt item

survey construct. Please note

that I used ideas from the

below constructs and

adapted it to New Literacies


92

After categorizing all the questions and developing all the questions for each

mode of new literacies, including the demographics, linguistic, gestural, visual, audio,

and synesthesia modes, I created a table and classified each question into its appropriate

pedagogical approach—functional, authentic, didactic, and critical approaches. I then

provided a justification for each of the proposed survey items developed based on the

literature (see Table 12). After multiple and iterative revisions, I updated the tables,

revised the questions, and presented them to the Dissertation Committee members for

feedback. Next, I developed six sections of the PCKNL, each of which corresponds to

one of the six modes of new literacies.


93

Table 12

Classifying Items in Relation to the Pedagogical Approaches (Functional, Authentic, Didactic, and Critical Approaches)

Pedagogical Content Knowledge of New Literacies Approach Justification

1. I can provide students with a list of prefixes and suffices,

along with their respective meanings, to guide them in

decoding words. (Linguistic Mode- Functional approach)

Students have to decode words and apply what they learned

- emphasize meaning making.

2. I can help my students understand the content I am

teaching by using intentional gestures and body movements

(Gestural Mode - Didactic approach)

Teachers use textbooks or syllabus transmit the rules of

language to passive learners.


94

I revised the questions and finalized the items for each of the modes of meaning

in developing the survey in Qualtrics (XM, May 2019). After iterative revisions of the

Qualtrics survey based on feedback from the Dissertation Committee Chair and the

Dissertation Committee Methodologist, I finalized the survey, and sent it to the external

reviewers for content validation. The three external reviewers were renowned scholars in

the field of new literacies. Two of the scholars, Drs. Allan Luke and William Cope, were

part of the New London Group (1996), a group of 10 researchers, educators, and

visionaries whose production has been considered a seminal research publication in the

field of New Literacies. The third is a literacy scholar, Dr. Jenifer Schneider, whose

scholarship focuses on multimodality and new literacies. After reviewing the

recommendations provided, corresponding with the scholars, and reading their suggested

publications, I made adjustments to the survey and returned it to the Dissertation

Committee Chair and Committee Methodologist for final approval.

Survey Instrument

The survey contained 19 multiple-choice questions and fill-in-the-blank questions

that collect basic demographic information, academic major, subject specialization,

student classification (e.g., freshman, sophomore, junior, senior), year in college, field

experience, and technology capabilities. The survey also contained six sections with a set

of questions for each of the modes of new literacies: linguistic, gestural, spatial, visual,

audio, and synesthesia. Each of these sections aimed to assess preservice teachers’

knowledge and experience in certain teaching practices in relation to the new literacies,

modes, and approaches. Based on the recommendation of one external reviewer, I

included one open-ended question about preservice teachers’ past practice or future


95

applications of using new literacies in planning a lesson of their choice. As indicated

earlier, this question provided an avenue for teachers to indicate, beyond predetermined

and predefined constructs in the survey, an opportunity to write their responses to assess

their pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies based on the ways in which they

envision their use of new literacies in K-12 classrooms. The Texas Tech University

Institutional Review Board approved the research protocol [IRB 2018-1096] on

December 11, 2018 (see Appendix A).

Item Selection

Survey items were refined and finalized after they had been circulated among the

development team, which included the Dissertation Committee members and the external

reviewers. Each member of the development team provided feedback on item clarity and

conceptual accuracy. Face-to-face meetings were held to expedite the process. The final

PCKNL instrument consists of 19 demographic questions, 22 multiple-choice questions,

and one open-ended question. A copy of the survey is provided in Appendix B.

Three Form Design

I used a missing data collection protocol (Enders, 2010) to increase the success of

survey completion, since the original survey was lengthy and would have taken more

than 20 minutes to complete. Specifically, a three-form design (A, B, C) was developed

such that each of the three forms included the demographic questions in two blocks—one

at the beginning and one at the end of the survey, one third of the items for the six new

literacies modes, and the open-ended question. Each item for these modes was randomly

assigned to one of the three forms. With the three-form design, it took approximately 5–8

minutes for participants to complete the survey. I randomly assigned one of the three


96

forms to preservice teacher participants. This method ensured that an equal number of

representations would be recorded for each construct. After the data were collected, all

three forms were merged together. Missing values from the structurally missing items

were imputed before analysis (Enders, 2010; Graham, Taylor, Olchowski, & Cumsille,

2006).

Survey Dissemination and Administration

I used different strategies to distribute the survey:

1. Step 1: Employed the snowball sampling method;

2. Step 2: Targeted universities; and

3. Step 3: Reached out to site coordinators.

In Step 1, the snowball sampling method (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981), the Dissertation

Committee members sent the survey to their former colleagues at different institutions.

When I did not receive sufficient responses from the first step, I moved on to Step 2—

targeted universities with reputable teacher education programs in the United States and

Canada—and emailed at least two professors in the Departments of Teacher Education

and Curriculum and Instruction in more than 50 universities. To increase the possibility

that I would receive a sufficient number of responses, I also reached out to site

coordinators in the Teacher Education Program at the university in which I was enrolled,

and met with certain coordinators within the teacher preparation program at this site to

ask them to distribute the survey to preservice teachers. There was a waiting period of 10

days to gather the data. Figure 5 reflects the process of developing the PCKNL survey.


97

Figure 5. PCKNL survey process development.


98

Sampling

Some of the participants were chosen based on convenience and accessibility

(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I also approached some professors identified by members

of my Dissertation Committee with a request to send out the letter of recruitment and the

link to the survey. Additionally, I used purposeful sampling (Creswell & Creswell, 2018)

to select a large number of participants who are in a teacher preparation program at over

50 universities that have a reputable teacher education program. An overview of these

universities is provided in Table 13. No identifiable information was collected to ensure

participant privacy.


99

Table 13

Overview of Universities to Which Survey was Disseminated

Date sent State University Program Survey Design

4/24/19 Texas Texas Tech University Teacher Education Survey Design A

4/25/19 Texas Lamar University Teacher Education Survey Design B

4/25/19 Texas Sam Houston Teacher Education Survey Design C

4/25/19 Texas Sam Houston Teacher Education Survey Design C

4/24/19 Texas Texas A & M Teaching, Learning and culture Survey Design C

4/24/19 Texas Lubbock Christian University Education placement Survey Design A

4/24/19 Texas South Plains Teacher Education Survey Design A

4/24/19 Texas Baylor Teacher Education Survey Design B

4/25/19 Texas University of North Texas Teacher Education Survey Design C

4/25/19 Texas Stephan F Austin State University Department of Elementary Education

Survey Design A

4/25/19 Texas University St. Thomas Teacher Education Survey Design C

4/25/19 Texas University Texas at Arlington Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Survey Design C

4/25/19 Texas Trinity University Teacher Education Survey Design B

4/25/19 Texas The University of Texas at Austin Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Survey Design B

4/25/19 Texas Southern Methodist University Education / Reading Comprehension

Survey Design B

4/25/19 Texas Howard College Education/ Advising and Recruitment

Survey Design B

4/25/19 Florida University of South Florida Teacher Education Survey Design C

4/25/19 Arizona Arizona State University Teacher Education Survey Design B

4/25/19 Kansas University of Kansas Teacher Education Program Survey Design A

4/25/19 New York Cornell University Teacher education Survey Design B

4/25/19 New York University of Albany Department of Education Theory and Education

Survey Design C

4/26/19 New York Columbia University Teacher Education Survey Design C

4/25/19 Michigan Michigan State University Department of Teacher Education

Survey Design B

4/25/19 Michigan Oakland University Reading and Language Arts Survey Design A

4/26/19 Michigan University of Michigan Teacher Education Survey Design C

4/26/19 Michigan Western Michigan State Teacher Education Survey Design C

4/25/19 Chicago University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

College of Education Survey Design B


100

Table 13 Continued

Date sent State University Program Survey Design

4/26/19 Ohio The Ohio State University Department of Teaching and Learning

Survey Design C

4/26/19 Alabama. Auburn University Dean/ College of Education

Survey Design B

4/26/19 Louisiana Grambling State University College of Education

Survey Design B

4/26/19 Maryland Johns Hopkins School of Education Coordinator for Elementary Education

Survey Design B

4/26/19 Hawaii University of Hawaii at Manoa College of Education Survey Design A

4/26/19 Hawaii University of Hawaii Pacific Teacher Education/ Elementary Education

Survey Design B

4/26/19 Hawaii Chaminade University Professor/ Elementary Education K-8, B.A.

Survey Design B

4/26/19 Hawaii University of Hawaii - West O‘ahu Master of Arts in Teaching Survey Design B

4/26/19 Alaska University of Alaska Southwest Art and Art Education Survey Design A

4/26/19 New York Columbia University Teacher Education Survey Design C

4/26/19 California Stanford University Teacher Education Survey Design C

4/26/19 Wisconsin University of Wisconsin–Madison Teacher Education Survey Design C

4/26/19 Georgia University of Georgia Teacher Education Survey Design C

4/26/19 Georgia University of Virginia Teacher Education Survey Design C

4/26/19 Utah Brigham Young University Teacher Education Survey Design A

4/26/19 Maryland University of Maryland Teacher Education Survey Design B

4/26/19 Florida University of Central Florida Teacher Education Survey Design B 4/26/19 Florida University of South Florida Teacher Education Survey Design B

4/26/19 Indiana Purdue University Teacher Education Survey Design C

4/26/19 Indiana Indiana University-Bloomington Teacher Education Survey Design C

4/26/19 North Carolina Appalachian State University Teacher Education Survey Design C

4/27/19 Colorado University of Colorado Teacher Education Survey Design C

Analysis

In order to address the structurally missing data, multiple imputation, was

conducted using the multivariate imputation by chained equations (Van Burren &

Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011) package in R. This method produced 100 imputed datasets,

using predictive mean-matching, to generate adequate placeholder values that retain the

distributions in the observed data. These imputed datasets were then exported to Mplus

for statistical analysis.


101

Statistical Analyses

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine the student responses.

CFA is a statistical method often used to test a hypothesized factor structure (model) that

describes the relationships of observed variables (items) with latent variables (factors), as

well as the associations among the factors. In CFA, the factor structure is a priori,

determined through a review of literature and/or theory (Kline, 2005). Since I had already

determined the target constructs to be measured and the candidate items (indicators) of

each construct based on the literature, I decided to use CFA. The modes of the new

literacies (e.g., visual, audio, spatial) are the latent constructs (factors), and the items

under each mode are the indicators of the constructs (observed variables). The CFA

model measured the fit of the hypothesized factor structure of PCKNL to the data. The

CFA model was modified to assess: (a) the items’ loading onto the respective factors

(i.e., item reliability); (b) the alignment of the hypothesized model with the data (e.g.,

factor loadings, goodness-of-fit, factor correlations); and (c) the discriminant validity of

the new literacies factors.

CFA in relation to PCKNL. The main goal of CFA is to validate the

psychometric properties of the items in the survey. To do so, I followed the following

steps after collecting the data.

1. I ran the CFA;

2. I estimated the factor loadings of the items to see how reliably they measure

the construct (new literacies mode);

3. I selected the items based on their factor loadings in CFA (i.e., deleting items

for which the standardized factor loading was less than 0.5, as this was an


102

indication of a problematic item, and running a CFA on the revised model

without those flagged items). Ideally, four or more items of the instrument

should be identified as representing each construct;

4. I used the model that contains “good” items only, estimating the correlations

among the factors in CFA. The correlations should not be too strong or too

weak: they should be between 0.3 and 0.8;

5. I estimated the model fit, using different model fit measures;

6. I reported the constructs confirmed by the CFA and the validity of the survey.

Data Analysis for Quantitative Data

The analysis proceeded as follows. While a 5-point Likert scale was used for the

close-ended items for knowledge of new literacies, it was assumed that categorical

(ordinal) responses to the items are in fact a realization of continuous, multivariate, and

normally distributed responses, which allowed me to take advantage of maximum

likelihood estimation (Kline, 2016). This method of model estimation was used as the

default method by Mplus 7.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2010). The fixed-factor scaling

method (McArdle & McDonald, 1984) was employed in that the factor variances were

fixed to 1 and the factor means to 0. Although different but statistically equivalent

scaling methods provide identical modeling results, the fixed-factor method allowed me

to estimate the associations among the factors in the correlational metric that are readily

interpreted to gauge the strength of the associations (Little, Slegers, & Card, 2006). The

factor loadings were inspected as a test for item reliability. An item that did not achieve a

reasonably large loading (i.e., estimated significance of the item loading < .05) was cut


103

from the model. Once these items were pruned from the model, the parameters were re-

estimated using the selected items, and model fit was re-evaluated (Kline, 2005).

Second, the model-data fit was evaluated with regard to both incremental and

absolute model fit, using multiple statistics, including the relative/normed model chi-

square (Wheaton, Muthén, Alwin, & Summers, 1977), comparative fit index (CFI;

Bentler, 1990), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973), root mean square error

of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980), and standardized root mean square

residual (SRMR; Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2010). The chi-square statistic (Jöreskog,

1971) was the conventional measure of overall model fit used to “assess the magnitude of

discrepancy between the sample and fitted covariance matrices” (Hu & Bentler,

1999). However, because of its well-known sensitivity to non-normalcy and sample size

(see Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1989), the relative/normed chi-square

statistic (χ2/df) was reported in this study. An acceptable χ2/df value ranges from 5

(Wheaton et al., 1977) to 2 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The CFI and TLI statistics

quantified how well a hypothesized model fits the data compared to a null model of

uncorrelated variables. A CFI or TLI value greater than .95 was the standard for a well-

fitting model (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The RMSEA and SRMR statistics provideed

information on the difference between the sample and fitted covariance matrices, as well

as model parsimony. In general, an RMSEA value less than .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) or

.07 (Steiger, 2007) indicated a good model fit (< .08 = fair fit, < .10 = mediocre fit;

MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). The SRMR was a measure of absolute mean

residual correlation and represented the overall difference between the observed

correlations and the correlations predicted by the model (Kline, 2016). A SRMR value


104

less than .05 was considered as acceptable (Geiser, 2012), with an adequate-fit threshold

of .08 (Little, 2013).

Lastly, the associations (correlations) among the new literacies constructs were

examined. According to Kline (2005), correlations less than .85 supported discriminant

validity for the set of factors. An empirical test for discriminant validity could also be

performed by comparing the hypothesized model with alternative models for which the

correlation between each pair of factors was fixed to 1 (paired constructs test; Anderson

& Gerbing, 1988). A significant likelihood-ratio test indicated that the hypothesized

model was favored over the alternative model, from which discriminant validity could be

inferred.

Validation. Validity was the ability of an instrument to measure latent structures

it is supposed to measure (Kline, 2005). Three external reviewers and two university

faculty members with knowledge about new literacies and pedagogical content

knowledge provided feedback on the content validity of the survey items of PCKNL. A

Likert-type scale was used to evaluate the extent to which (a) pre-service teacher

pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies was measured reliably, and (b) the

understanding of pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies was reflected by pre-

service teachers.

Reliability. Reliability was the extent to which the measurement model measured

the intended latent construct (Kline, 2016). The assessment for reliability of the

measurement model was conducted using the following criteria:


105

1. The composite reliability (CR) indicated the reliability and internal

consistency of a latent construct as measured by the manifest indicators. This

was accomplished when CR > 0.6 for every construct (Kline, 2005).

2. External content reliability was met when three expert scholars in content

knowledge of new literacies confirmed the content reliability for all the survey

constructs.

Data Analysis for Qualitative Data

I used an interpretivist approach (Schwandt,1998) to analyze the qualitative data,

gathered from the responses to the open-ended question, so I could capture the preservice

teachers’ knowledge of new literacies. This approach relies on the idea that knowledge is

created by the assumptions and ideas of both the respondents and the researcher. I used

open coding and constant comparative method to compare what they hypothesized with

what the survey participants were seeing as compared to existing theoretical assumption

(Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Through inductive and interpretive analysis (Charmaz, 2006),

the study captured the preservice teachers’ perspectives about new literacies, which were

incorporated into the domain of “pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies. Such

an avenue allowed for the theory of new literacies to be extended and redefined based on

preservice teachers’ perspectives.

After gathering all the data in an Excel spreadsheet, I first performed open coding

by reading through the data line by line several times and started creating tentative labels,

using inductive analysis (Charmaz, 2006). I used color-coding to help me in labeling

codes and sub-codes. After three rounds of open coding, I began aligning the excerpts

with the corresponding categories and kept going back and forth, examining the labels


106

and adding new labels. Second, I analyzed the textual data and identified relationships

among the open codes. I designated 48 codes related to the preservice teachers’

knowledge of new literacies. Some of the codes where “incorporating cultures,” “text

choice,” “audio,” “digital applications,” and “classroom diversity.” After I continued the

process in the same manner, I consolidated the 48 codes into two categories and 11

subcategories. I identified these categories in Table 14. Third, I engaged in the process of

axial coding. After reading all the documents thoroughly, I established relationships

between categories and subcategories and unified these categories, using selective

coding, and created broader categories. One of these broader categories reflected

alignment with modes of new literacies (i.e., linguistic, spatial, gestural, gestural, audio,

and visual) and the other reflected notions emerging beyond the modes of new literacies

(Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Fourth, I reviewed the aforementioned categories and the

subcategories, identifying three overarching themes:

• Preservice Teachers’ Partial Knowledge of New Literacies that Align with

Preestablished Modes

• Preservice Teachers Misconception of Technologies and New Literacies

• Preservice Teachers’ Need for Exposure to New Literacies Standards

• Pedagogical Content Knowledge Practices as Cultural Relevant Teaching


107

Table 14

Qualitative Data Analysis of the Pedagogical Content Knowledge of New Literacies

Research Question 2: What is the pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies reflected by pre-service teachers? Analytical Process and Findings: Inductively identified codes, categories, and themes based on techniques used in the PCK.

Inductive Codes (Frequencies) Examples of Corresponding Excerpts Categories and Sub-Categories Based

on Similarities Across Codes Corresponding

Themes 1. Incorporating culture (80) 2. Audio (15) 3. Text choice (66) 4. Acceptance (2) 5. Student support (2) 6. Making connections (21) 7. Increase student engagement (8) 8. Classroom diversity (2) 9. Vocabulary (17) 10. Learning style (2) 11. State standards (7) 12. Culturally responsive (7) 13. Graphic organizer (3) 14. Grade reading level (6) 15. Mentor text (8) 16. Interactive lesson (2) 17. Group work (9) 18. Home language (2) 19. Student needs (7) 20. Peer support (3) 21. Planning lessons (1) 22. Using rubrics (3) 23. Collaborative learning (4) 24. Differentiated instruction (6) 25. Research (1) 26. Individual guidance (1) 27. Field trips (2) 28. Gestural (2) 29. Think aloud (1) 30. Modeling (2) 31. Peer feedback (3) 32. Create a safe environment (1) 33. Cultural tolerance (2) 34. Visuals (40) 35. Scaffolding (5)

1. “Depending on the book/text, I would modify it to meet the needs of all students. Some students comprehend better when they have the book read to them, opposed to reading it themselves, and so providing students at a lower level of reading would be given technology that is able to read aloud the text to the student, while students who are at a higher reading level would read the text via the hardcopy. As for different cultures, I would be responsible in finding a text that applies to the students' culture, while also possibly be able to provide those who are not familiar with a culture, to access the text online where there is a possibility that unfamiliar words will be bolded and provide the context of the definition.”

2. “Find articles or stories online that are culturally relevant to students. Use it as an opportunity to learn more about the culture. Use multiple means of representation--students pick their strengths to demonstrate content knowledge. Ex. Native Hawaiians use storytelling as a way of teaching and passing down traditions, the student may choose to use storytelling as their assessment form.”

3. “I would be sure to incorporate vocabulary support, images, and opportunities to read, write, speak, and listen.”

4. “I will be able to distinguish what are the areas of strength and weakness in my students. The lesson plans can include differentiated instruction to support all students. “

5. “I would use the internet and find websites to help with the cultures as well as videos to demonstrate more information.”

6. “Having students create videos explaining what they have learned is an effective and engaging way to students to show mastery. Students really enjoy this activity when you introduce it as 'creating their own YouTube channel'.”

7. “I plan to use all different forms of literacy during our daily five rotation. There will be a listening station, reading station, writing station, and computer station.”

8. “I would use new literacy to reach the students of different cultures. I would chose things that they know and understand so that I could bridge the gap of information that they do not know.”

9. “I would incorporate a lesson with a read aloud, group work and individual work. I would encourage peers to work together on reviewing each other’s work by encouraging them.”

Similar codes Part 1: Themes aligned Pre-established Modes of New Literacies (Linguistic, spatial, gestural, audio, visual) for instruction 1. Linguistic Mode (mentor text,

choice of text, guided reading, reading fluency, read aloud, vocabulary) (115)

2. Spatial Mode (field trips, work stations, classroom diversity, cultural tolerance in the classroom, making connections) (32)

3. Gestural Mode (create a safe environment, use body language, story-telling, think aloud, modeling) (9)

4. Audio Mode (audio tools, applications, and read aloud) (39)

5. Visual Mode (visual graphs, charts, texts, and visual aids, digital applications, graphic organizers) (67)

Similar Codes Part 2: Themes emerged beyond the New Literacies Modes for teachers’ readiness for instruction 1. Technology (63) 2. Cultural integration (89) 3. State standards (7) 4. Collaborative learning (4) 5. Research (1) 6. Feedback (group, peer, and

individual support) (16)

• Preservice Teachers’ Partial Knowledge of New Literacies that Align with Preestablished Modes

• Preservice Teachers Misconception of Technologies and New Literacies.

• Preservice Teachers’ Need for Exposure to New Literacies standards

• Pedagogical Content Knowledge Practices as Cultural Relevant Teaching.


108

Table 14 Continued


Inductive Codes (Frequencies) Examples of Corresponding Excerpts

Categories and Sub-Categories Based on

Similarities Across Codes Corresponding

Themes 36. Student interests (4) 37. Setting expectations (1) 38. Technology (24) 39. Digital applications (15

audio 24 visual) (39) 40. Work stations (5) 41. Read aloud (9) 42. Story telling (3) 43. Figurative language (2) 44. Guided reading (3) 45. Meaningful teaching (1) 46. Variety of resources (6) 47. Writing opportunities (2) 48. Reading fluency (3)

10. I would use different “definitions and articles that would be suitable for the students in my class.” 11. “I would be sure to incorporate vocabulary support, images, and opportunities to read, write,

speak, and listen.” 12. “I would find ways to find a lesson that would help my students be able to relate to each other

and understand each other in a new way. I would do stations and split the children up based on their reading level that way I can give each child the attention they need.”

13. “I will plan with student interest in mind. I know that by involving them or including their culture and interest I will be able to create a lesson that keeps them engaged and motivated.”

14. “I would use the internet and find websites to help with the cultures as well as videos to demonstrate more information.”

15. “I would use students interests and experiences to differentiate and plan a lesson.” 16. I would do research on culturally appropriate books for the class. I would then cater lesson

around a specific book and introduce concepts and ideas through each students’ funds of knowledge, careful not to choose

17. “I realize that it is important that students are able to learn as well as express themselves through different avenues such as music, diagrams, physical gestures, technologies, etc. I would incorporate all of the new literacies I have learned within my lessons to captivate and engage my students.”

18. “They can help in ELAR. It's important to introduce a wide variety of books within the classroom.”

19. “Use a wide variety of genres” 20. “I would choose a text that most students can have a connection to so everyone feels

included. This would be an interactive read aloud where the students would participate and speak about the text.”

21. “If I had complete choice on what I would read to students and teach them in a lesson I would read a picture book called Dear Primo: A Letter to My Cousin by Duncan Tonatiuh. In this book there are two boys who write letters to each other from their perspective about

22. “I would first select the appropriate TEKS and breakdown what the student needs to know for mastery and develop a content objective. Next, I would find a book that is culturally inclusive of the students represented in my classroom. Finally, I would develop a lesson that is appropriate and engaging for my students.”

23. “I use mentor texts to show students how to correctly use things such as adjectives, adverbs, and other things I feel they would benefit from hearing done correctly.”

24. “I would use an application called story-jumper on their iPads to engage students in writing. We would do research on inventors in science and tell stories about their lives to present to the class.”


109

Table 14 Continued


Inductive Codes (Frequencies) Examples of Corresponding Excerpts

Categories and Sub-Categories Based on

Similarities Across Codes Corresponding

Themes 25. “I plan to use visual and audio cues such as hook videos, assessment tools such as Quizziz and

Quizlet, and ideally tools like Padlet to create interaction between students and with the teachers in a managed social classroom environment where students can share input either through a blog space or in a standard classroom question/answer format.”

26. “Based on the different cultures I would plan my instruction that would fit all differentiated needs for my students. I would allow students to bring objects that tie into the lesson from their background as well as give a specific amount of time throughout where students are able to incorporate their own ideas and experiences.” “I would prefer to work in an ELAR classroom for grades 2nd-4th. I would like to use a variety of text including online articles because I want to teach in a way that will be relevant to the students and the literature they will experience in everyday life.” “Based on my past practice I would use new literacies to plan a lesson by having student rotate centers while as a teacher have a small group as well.” book that is so ambiguous but can gain perspective from multiple lenses. “where they live. I feel as if I would be able to teach a variety of skills using this book; comparing and contrasting, letter writing, or fact and opinion. The students could translate the letters in the book into text messages, or they could take the position of a character and record themselves "vlogging" about where they live sharing facts and opinions. When it comes to New Literacies in the classroom the options are endless, so it can be hard to choose just one idea.”

“Providing lesson materials in various formats such as visual or audio methods so they can get the material at their own level. Providing videos of demonstrations with various coded subtitles and hands on lessons provides students with a way to visualize what is being taught even if they have not fully developed the English language. There are several students who struggle with reading, so presenting them with recorded instructions or reading the instructions aloud for a lesson as you perform actions or move through allows them to follow along if they cannot follow along on their own without disrupting the rest of the class.”

27. “I'd use music as the basis for bringing up the subject and getting the students' attention. This would allow an easy way to bring in different cultures and then branch off that.”

28. “I would assess what interests the students and choose an appropriate new literacy such as a voice over app like Chatterpix. The student can then listen to their recording and make adjustments.”

29. “I would give students a project with a Rubric that they would have to present to the class.” 30. “I would use the strategies we learned in our class, such as reading salads, different modes of

meaning, and providing rubrics.” 31. “I would plan a lesson with universal ideas that allows for students to respond in a variety of

ways according to their skill.” 32. “I would implement stories of the world to activate the interest of my students. This way all of

my multicultural students could share their cultures to the people who were born in the states.”


110

Positionality

Preservice teacher education and preparation affects student academic success and

student motivation towards learning. We live in the new literacies era where new

literacies are recommended to be incorporated into classrooms. Students are provided

with multiple ways and opportunities to engage in lessons. Teaching is customized to the

students’ needs, and it is inclusive (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004; Leu, Kinzer,

Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2017). The role of teacher education programs is crucial in

preparing teachers to meet students’ needs by providing preservice teachers with training

courses to enhance their skills (Risko et al., 2008). Assessing teacher pedagogical content

knowledge of new literacies is important in helping students be successful in the

classroom, since teacher practices and knowledge reflect on the students’ learning. It is

deemed important to have teachers think thoroughly about their instruction and their

ways of reaching all students. Here, I describe my drive for conducting this research and

my own positionality.

Positionality is used to describe how people identify themselves that is "not in

terms of fixed identities, but by their location within shifting networks of relationships,

which can be analyzed and changed" (Maher & Tetreault, 1994, p. 164). Maher and

Tetreault (1994) also defined positionality as the "knower's specific position in any

context as defined by race, gender, class, and other socially significant dimensions" (p.

22). Regarding my positionality, I am Palestinian American, bilingual, as well as an

educator and a researcher who believes that teachers should find numerous resources to

support all their students’ needs and allow them to be creative. I realize that these are not


111

the only attributes that define me. My learning experiences with my triplet brother and

sister, my family’s value for education, my spiritual beliefs, and the political contexts in

which I was reared contribute to my positionality. I believe that all learners should have

equal access to books and resources and that each individual is a special learner. It is our

responsibility as educators to find the ways and means to increase student engagement

and interests in learning.

I served previously as an English second language teacher and librarian at an

elementary school. Through my teaching experiences and my long conversations with my

mother, an educator of 43 years, I learned that focusing on the teaching rather than only

on delivering the content makes teaching effective and learning enjoyable. By putting

more thought into planning lessons, incorporating different strategies to introduce the

lesson, selecting the visuals, texts, resources, and how to differentiate instruction,

teachers can make a positive difference in the learner’s engagement and learning

experiences. Growing up with my triplet brother and sister, I discovered that we each

learned differently, and my mother always told us, “You are unique in your own way.” I

was a visual learner, my brother was an auditory learner, and my sister was a

combination of visual, auditory, and social learner.

When I became a teacher, I kept this in mind, and I used different modes of

literacies, which were visual, audio, linguistic, gestural, and spatial. I had great success

with my students. All of them progressed and enjoyed learning. I thought many teachers

did not use these modes at my school because they were focused on traditional teaching.

However, when I came to the United States I worked as a research assistant, and I

observed mentor teachers and in-service teachers’ classes for over three years. I was


112

surprised when I found teaching and learning was didactic and was very similar to the

teaching back in my home country. Students had difficulty following along with the

lessons, and the material used was often not interactive; it was also not appropriate to the

student level. Ultimately, I noticed a disconnect between theory and practice. Teacher

practices often differ from those under which they learned, and from those practices, they

say they want to use. For instance, many learned that they need to diversify instruction,

yet they sometimes still use the same method, which was choosing one type of text,

asking students to write long essays without modeling for them, and not using different

tools of teaching to help their students, and knowing that they need to do that to meet

their students’ needs. A number of the teachers that I observed focused on teaching

students to pass the standardized, state-required exams, so they did not put much effort in

choosing texts that would interest students, embrace their cultures, or their intellectual

needs. It seemed to me they inadvertently used the one-size-fits-all method, despite

wanting to provide their students with success.

Fortunately, I had the opportunity to co-teach a six-grade science class in one

classroom in the United States, and I assisted the English language arts and reading

instruction of preservice teachers. I introduced both six graders and preservice teachers to

new literacies. I further learned that using different modes of new literacies was

universal and an approach that was effective with English as a second language students.

These experiences inspired me to think of a common way to make a change in the field of

education worldwide, which turned out to be the creation of a survey that preservice

teachers can take at the beginning and at the end of the semester to inform instructors of

their new literacies skills, as well as allow teachers to identify their areas of strengths and


113

weaknesses. Additionally, this survey can be used as a self-assessment tool that could

provide insight to the teacher who took the survey. The survey items were created based

on the theoretical framework and literature of new literacies and my experiences and

insights as an educator. Three external reviewers validated the content of the survey, and

I relied on the participant responses to determine the results and avoid bias.

To further inform credibility and trustworthiness during my analyses of

qualitative data, given my positionality in the study, I triangulated the responses of the

preservice teachers to the open-ended question and the multiple-choice question (Lincoln

& Guba, 1985). The data included direct quotes from the participants. I established an

audit trail from the beginning of the data collection and documented the process

regularly.

Limitations

This study does possess certain limitations. First, the planned missing data

method used in survey construction and data generation did lead to a lack of coverage in

the planned missing variables that could have led to a lack of information used to inform

the imputation algorithm. The planned missing data design used in this study had a set of

common variables shared by the three forms: (a) demographic questions and teacher

training questions; (b) the section of questions measuring the participant’s capabilities in

using technologies, such as using computer for instruction, using Social media such as

Twitter, Facebook, using printing scanners, digital cameras, projectors, and smart boards

for instruction; and (c) learning a management system as a teacher, and learning

management system as a student.


114

The item relating to the other five constructs were divided into three groups and

each survey was comprised of one third of the total item. The resulting missingness in the

data could be considered missing completely at random since its missingness was

controlled by me, which was the ideal situation for modern imputation methods (Little,

2013). However, the information in the shared block of questions might not have been

sufficiently informative to the imputation process, as evidenced by the poor reliability of

questions from Survey Form B and Survey Sorm C compared to those from Survey Form

A. The notably poor performance of these items appeared to not be present when the

Survey Forms B and C were analyzed independently, leading me to conclude that the

available shared information was not sufficient to inform the imputation of these items in

the combined data set. Other methods of planned missing data designs could be adopted

in future studies, notably the design put forth by Little (2013) in which each of the survey

forms were given two of the blocks of questions instead of one, reducing the structural

missingness from 2/3 to 1/3 in each of these blocks of questions, while also allowing for

overlap of the questions presented to participants. This would have ensured more

coverage of information in the data and provided more information for imputation of

these missing data.


115

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

This chapter presents the results gathered from 510 participants enrolled in

teacher preparation programs at 10 universities in the United States. First, I restate the

purpose of this study and the research questions. Then, I will describe the sample, the

findings, and the summary of the research will follow.

Purpose of the Study

Previous research has shown that there is a disconnect between theory and

practice and that preservice teachers feel unprepared to start teaching after they graduate

(Holmes Group, 1995; Levine, 2005, 2006; Maclver, Vaughn, & Katz, 2005; Maxwell,

Hilaski, & Whelan-Kim, 2018; Rust, 2010; Walsh, 2001). The literature also indicates

that pedagogical content knowledge can serve as a bridge for the gap between theory and

practice (Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Guerriero, 2017). In the area of literacy, which

has been redefined based on the multiliterate contexts in which K-12 learners function in

the 21st century (Au, 1998; Spires, Paul, & Kerkhoff, 2019), it is clear that a mechanism

is needed to determine how well preservice teachers are prepared to address the

requirements of new literacies in classrooms. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to

develop an instrument that reliably measures the preservice teachers’ pedagogical content

knowledge of new literacies, which can serve as a mechanism for ensuring that teachers

are prepared to teach K-12 students in multiliterate environments. This research further

attempted to learn about preservice teachers’ knowledge of new literacies by having them

answer an open-ended question as part of the PCKNL survey.


116

Review of Research Questions

Two research questions were examined:


measured reliably?


service teachers?

Description of the Sample

A total of 630 individuals participated in the study (see Table 15). Among those,

312 (49.5%) were female, 141 (22.4%) were male, and 173 (27.4%) elected not to

identify their gender. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 63 years, with the average age

of 24.9 (SD = 6.6). The majority of the participants identified themselves as American (n

= 309, 49%), followed by Mexican (n = 101, 16%), Latin American (n = 22, 3.5%), and

others (n = 26, 4.1%). Of those who participated in this survey, 401 (63.7%) of

participants identified English as their first language. Participants for this study represent

several geographic regions of the United States, with 7 (1.1%) residing in the Northeast,

35 (5.6%) residing in the Midwest, 373 (59.2%) residing in the South, and 31 (4.9%)

residing in the West; 176 (28.4%) did not report a region of residency.

Of the individuals who participated in this study, 510 (81.0%) identified

themselves as preservice teachers and 117 (18.6%) as non-preservice teachers. Regarding

their academic status, 27 (4.3%) identified as first-year students, 36 (5.7%) identified as

second-year students, 100 (15.9%) identified as third-year students, and 324 (51.4%)

identified as fourth-year students. Of those surveyed, 429 (68.1%) were currently

enrolled or had already completed their practicum experience in a PreK-12 classroom,


117

with 447 (71.0%) having taken at least one literacy course, 369 (58.6%) reporting to have

field experience working with a cooperating teacher on literacy, and 347 (55.1%)

reporting to have enrolled in a literacy course during their student teaching.

Participants were also asked about their future teaching aspirations; 387 (61.4%)

had planned to teach in primary schools, 36 (5.7%) had planned to teach in middle

schools, 20 (3.2%) had planned to teach in secondary schools, 23 (3.7%) had planned to

teach in high schools, and 21 (3.3%) had not yet decided as of the time of this survey.

Participants were also asked about their education majors; most students identified

TESOL/ESL/Bilingual Education (n = 163, 25.9%) as their specialization, followed by

Special Education (n = 123, 19.5%). The least selected specializations were School

Administration (n = 1, 0.2%) and Instructional Technology (n = 0). These categories were

not mutually exclusive, allowing participants to select multiple areas of specialization.


118

Table 15

Participant Demographics

Min Max M SD Age 18 63 24.87 6.55

n %

Gender Female 312 49.52 Male 141 22.38

English as a first language

Yes 401 63.65 No 57 9.05

Country of Origin

Australia 3 0.48 Columbia 1 0.16 Germany 3 0.48 Ghana 1 0.16 Guatemala 2 0.32 Israel 1 0.16 Mexico 23 3.65 United States 422 66.98

Cultural Background

American 309 49.05 Asian 7 1.11 Arab 3 0.48 Caribbean 2 0.32 European 14 2.22 Mexican 101 16.03 Latin American 22 3.49

U.S. Region of Residence

Northwest 7 1.11 Midwest 35 5.56 South 373 59.21 West 31 4.92


119

Table 15 Continued n % Participant University

Angelo State University 2 0.32 Grambling State University 2 0.32 Hannibal-LaGrange University 7 1.11 Howard Community College 18 2.86 Ohio State University 4 0.63 Texas Tech University 393 62.38 University of Hawaii at Manoa 4 0.63 University of North Texas 6 0.95 University of Texas at San Antonio 12 1.9 Western Michigan University 9 1.43

Preservice Teachers Yes 510 80.95 No 117 18.57

Participant Major

Early Childhood Education 129 20.06 Elementary Education 281 43.7 Secondary Education 41 6.38 Adult Education 2 0.31 Other 35 5.44


120

Table 15 Continued

n % Area of Teaching Specialization

Art Education 6 0.95 Business Education 3 0.48 English Education 50 7.94 Foreign Language Education 11 1.75 Gifted and Talented Education 8 1.27 Health and Physical Education 3 0.48 History Education 30 4.76 Instructional Technology 0 0 Math Education 72 11.43 Music Education 6 0.95 School Administration 1 0.16 School Counseling 3 0.48 Special Education 123 19.52 TESOL/ESL/Bilingual 163 25.87 Vocational Education 4 0.63 Literacy 37 5.87 Reading 46 7.3 Writing 38 6.03 Other 84 13.33

Year in College

Freshman 27 4.29 Sophomore 36 5.71 Junior 100 15.87 Senior 324 51.43

Practicum experience in classroom.

Yes 429 68.1 No 58 9.21

Completed at least one literacy course.

Yes 447 70.95 No 21 3.33

Worked in a classroom with a cooperating teacher on literacy.

Yes 369 58.57 No 69 10.95


121

Table 15 Continued

n % Participated in literacy course practicing student teaching.

Yes 347 55.08 No 87 13.81

Grades participants are planning to teach

Primary 387 61.43 Middle 36 5.71 Secondary 20 3.17 High School 23 3.65 Don't know/Undecided 21 3.33

Taught in the United States

Yes 120 19.05 No 340 53.97

Educational Computing Minor

Yes 268 42.54 No 174 27.62

Quantitative Results

Missing Data

An analysis of 630 observations, after merging the three forms used to collect

data, revealed that my data were 44.9% complete. Multiple imputation generated 100

imputed data sets, using 10 iterations each, with predictive mean-matching. The multiple

imputation with the chained equation (MICE; Van Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn,

2011) method was used to calculate the probable values of missing data based on the

observed values. The goal of this process was to impute the missing values of the data, so

that the missing values do not bias the model estimates.


122

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

I used CFA to answer the first research question, “Can pre-service teacher

pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies be measured reliably?” and part of the

second question. By examining the model parameters (i.e., factor loading, composite

reliability, residual variance), I was able to determine the reliability of the PCKNL

instrument.

The initial model loaded all items onto their respective latent constructs. Overall

model fit indices were excellent, RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00 and TLI = 1.00, and SRMR

= 0.081. This shows that the overall model fit was good, with SRMR being the only fit

statistic outside of an “acceptable” range. Therefore, I concluded that the overall model

was of good fit. From here, I moved on to examine the item loadings, latent factor

correlations, and composite reliability to evaluate how well the items related to their

latent factors to answer the first research question.

Twenty-two questions loaded onto the Linguistic Mode factor, with item Ling_5a

having the highest estimated loading of 0.699 with p < 0.001 and R2 = 0.501, and item

Ling_1c having the lowest estimated loading of 0.040 with p = 0.801 and R2 = 0.025.

Seven of the initial 22 items were deemed to have significant factor loadings. Eight

questions loaded onto the Gestural Mode factor, with item Gest_1a having the highest

estimated loading of 0.548 with p = 0.071 and R2 = 0.389, and item Gest_2c having the

lowest estimated loading of 0.022 with p = 0.916 and R2 = 0.041. None of the items that

loaded onto this factor initially demonstrated significance. Eight questions loaded onto

the Visual Mode factor, with item Vis_2a having the highest estimated loading of 0.531

with p = 0.088 and R2 = 0.353, and Vis_2c having the lowest estimated loading of – 0.016


123

with p = 0.932 and R2 = 0.033. None of the items loading onto this factor initially

demonstrated significance. Six questions loaded onto the Audio Mode factor, with item

Audi_2a having the highest estimated loading of 0.537 with p = 0.039 and R2 = 0.344,

and item Audi_2c having the lowest estimated loading of 0.015 with p = 0.949 and R2 =

0.050. Only item Audi_2a had a significant factor loading (p = 0.039). Seven questions

loaded onto the Spatial Mode factor, with item Spat_2a having the highest estimated

loading of 0.704 with p < 0.001 and R2 = 0.513, and item Spat_2c having the lowest

estimated loading of 0.051 with p = 0.785 and R2 = 0.036. Three of the seven items had

significant factor loadings. Eleven questions loaded onto the Synesthesia Mode factor,

item Syn_3a having the highest estimated loading of 0.605 with p = 0.009 and R2 =

0.418, and item Syn_3c having the lowest estimated loading of – 0.025 with p = 0.918

and R2 = 0.056. Four of 11 items demonstrated significant factor loadings. Seven

questions loaded onto the Technology factor, with item Tech_7 having the highest

estimated loading of 0.777 with p < 0.001 and R2 = 0.627, and item Tech_3 having the

lowest estimated loading of 0.487 with p < 0.001 and R2 = 0.249. All seven items had

significant factor loadings. Therefore, I concluded that many of the initial item loadings

were poorly related to the latent construct and, therefore, insignificant.

Table 16 depicts the factor loadings for all items used in the initial model, their

estimated p value, and the estimated R2 value. The loadings are standardized, between 0

and 1, with a higher loading indicating a stronger relationship between the construct and

the item measuring it. The R2 value indicates the percent of variance explained by the

model. Table 16 depicts that the initial model, with all items included, shows weak

loadings with poor significance, which effects the reliability of the model overall.


124

Table 16

Item Loadings – Initial Model

Construct Item Loading p R2

Linguistic Mode Ling_1a 0.500 <.001 .269 Ling_1b 0.086 .631 .037 Ling_1c 0.040 .801 .025 Ling_2a 0.659 <.001 .444 Ling_2b 0.119 .521 .046 Ling_2c 0.055 .768 .035 Ling_3a 0.440 <.001 .204 Ling_3b 0.131 .402 .040 Ling_3c 0.099 .519 .031 Ling_4a 0.615 <.001 .391 Ling_4b 0.069 .690 .032 Ling_4c 0.076 .634 .029 Ling_5a 0.699 <.001 .501 Ling_5b 0.067 .724 .038 Ling_5c 0.060 .721 .029 Ling_6a 0.624 <.001 .403 Ling_6b 0.047 .786 .029 Ling_6c 0.113 .462 .034 Ling_7a 0.695 <.001 .490 Ling_7b 0.093 .589 .036 Ling_7c 0.075 .672 .034 Ling_8a 0.670 <.001 .462

Gestural Mode Gest_1a 0.548 .071 .389 Gest_1b 0.054 .807 .049 Gest_1c 0.049 .823 .049 Gest_2a 0.447 .103 .272 Gest_2b 0.089 .727 .069 Gest_2c 0.022 .916 .041 Gest_3a 0.460 .086 .280 Gest_3b 0.070 .745 .048


125

Table 16 Continued

Construct Item Loading p R2 Visual Mode Vis_1a 0.458 .065 .269

Vis_1b 0.262 .377 .118 Vis_1c 0.022 .896 .026 Vis_2a 0.531 .088 .353 Vis_2b 0.227 .374 .113 Vis_2c 0.016 .932 .033 Vis_3a 0.449 .072 .261 Vis_3b 0.252 .311 .122

Auditory Mode Audi_1a 0.345 .161 .176 Audi_1b 0.156 .430 .061 Audi_1c 0.071 .739 .048 Audi_2a 0.537 .039 .344 Audi_2b 0.032 .879 .042 Audi_2c 0.015 .949 .050

Spatial Mode Spat_1a 0.519 .002 .297 Spat_1b 0.069 .693 .033 Spat_1c 0.043 .820 .036 Spat_2a 0.704 <.001 .513 Spat_2b 0.028 .894 .043 Spat_2c 0.051 .785 .036 Spat_3a 0.672 <.001 .477

Synesthesia Mode Syn_1a 0.498 .016 .289 Syn_1b 0.152 .456 .062 Syn_1c 0.060 .767 .042 Syn_2a 0.480 .010 .262 Syn_2b 0.074 .754 .058 Syn_2c 0.027 .912 .058 Syn_3a 0.605 .009 .418 Syn_3b 0.097 .675 .060 Syn_3c 0.025 .918 .056 Syn_4a 0.534 .005 .319 Syn_4b 0.055 .790 .043


126

Table 16 Continued

Construct Item Loading p R2 Technology Mode Tech_1 0.674 <.001 .475

Tech_2 0.711 <.001 .524 Tech_3 0.487 <.001 .249 Tech_4 0.536 <.001 .290 Tech_5 0.729 <.001 .533 Tech_6 0.767 <.001 .613 Tech_7 0.777 <.001 .627

Note. This depicts the factor loadings for all items used in the current model, their estimated p-value, and the estimated R2 value. All provided estimates are standardized.

All factors in the model were positively correlated with each other, with the

highest correlation between the Spatial Mode and Auditory Mode (r = 0.723) and the

weakest correlation between the Technology Mode and Gestural Mode (r = 0.020). The

only significant correlations were between Linguistic Mode and Spatial Mode (r = 0.356,

p = 0.031), Linguistic Mode and Synesthesia Mode (r = 0. 548, p = 0.009), and Spatial

Mode and Synesthesia Mode (r = 0. 534, p = 0.021). Correlations among latent factors

described how they change in relation to one another; related constructs were expected to

vary together in some way, and unrelated constructs were expected not to vary together

significantly. A high correlation (e.g., >.9) would indicate that two constructs may not be

separate constructs at all, and those constructs may need to be combined into one. This

was not the case in the data, and all correlations among factors are depicted in Table 17

and represent the hypothesized relationship among the latent factors. This helped answer

the first research question by showing that the latent factors, or modes, are positively

correlated with each other.


127

Table 17

Factor Correlations – Initial Model

Factor Correlated Factor R p

Gestural Mode Linguistic Mode 0.626 .069 Visual Mode Linguistic Mode .421 .078

Gestural Mode .468 .122

Auditory Mode Linguistic Mode .505 .235


Visual Mode .607 .224

Spatial Mode Linguistic Mode .356 .031



Auditory Mode .723 .147

Synesthesia Mode Linguistic Mode .548 .009




Spatial Mode .534 .021

Technology Linguistic Mode .229 .064



Auditory Mode .230 .512 Spatial Mode .099 .516 Synesthesia Mode .148 .436

Note. This model was estimated using the fixed-factor method, which fixes the variance of all latent factors to 1. This standardizes the factor covariances to be equivalent factor correlations. P-value significance judged with p < .05, r = correlation.


128

Composite reliability (CR), calculated for each factor to evaluate the ratio of

explained variance in relation to total variance to determine how reliably indicators

measure a single factor, is depicted in Table 18. The following equation depicts how this

reliability coefficient is calculated: the product of the squared sum of the factor loadings

and the latent variance (fixed to 1 in the model) is divided by the sum of the residual item

variance and the product the squared sum of the factor loadings and the latent variance

(Kline, 2016).

Technology Mode reported the highest reliability with CR = 0.84, and Auditory

Mode reported the lowest reliability with CR = 0.22. Composite reliability is generally a

better alternative to Cronbach’s alpha, which does not directly measure the relationship

between the items and their latent construct in ways that composite reliability does

(Kline, 2016). The composite reliability estimated for this initial model shows poor

reliability, with all but two constructs below the preferred threshold of 0.6 (Kline, 2005).

This, combined with the insignificant loadings and correlations, indicated that the model

had poor local fit (e.g., item loadings) despite the overall model fit indicators. Therefore,

the model was pruned of items that had highly insignificant loadings and reevaluated.

( )( )

2

2

ˆ ˆ

ˆ ˆ ˆi

i ii

CRl f

l f q=

+

åå å


129

Table 18

Composite Reliability – Initial Model

Construct CR

Linguistic Mode .69 Gestural Mode .33 Visual Mode .40 Auditory Mode .23 Spatial Mode .43 Synesthesia Mode .42 Technology Mode .84 Note. A threshold of .60 is typically used to denote good composite reliability (Kline, 2005).

After pruning the model of all items with highly nonsignificant loadings, the final

model had good indicators and overall model fit: RMSEA = 0.000, CFI = 1.000 and TLI

= 1.080, and SRMR = 0.064. The improved TLI and SRMR demonstrated that this model

not only has excellent indicators of fit, but also improved indicators of fit compared to

those of the previous model. Therefore, I concluded that the model still has good overall

model fit. From here, I once again moved on to examine the item loadings, latent factor

correlations, and composite reliability to evaluate how well the reduced number of items

related to their latent factors to answer the first research question.

Eight questions were selected from the original model to load onto the Linguistic

Mode factor, with item Ling_5a having the highest estimated loading of 0.719, with p <

.001 and R2 = .521, and item Ling_3a having the lowest estimated loading of 0.436, with

p < .001 and R2 = .198. Three questions were selected from the original model to load

onto the Gestural Mode factor, with item Gest_1a having the highest estimated loading of

.685, with p < .001 and R2 = .479, and item Gest_2a having the lowest estimated loading


130

of .506, with p < .001 and R2 = .268. Three questions were selected from the original

model to load onto the Visual Mode factor, with item Vis_2a having the highest estimated

loading of .680, with p < .001 and R2 = .474, and item Vis_1a having the lowest

estimated loading of .575, with p < .001 and R2 = .342. Two questions were selected from

the original model to load onto the Audio Mode factor, with item Audi_2a having the

highest estimated loading of 0.568, with p < .001 and R2 = .334, and item Audi_1a having

the lowest estimated loading of .444, with p < .001 and R2 = .204. Three questions were

selected from the original model to load onto the Spatial Mode factor, with both items

Spat_2a and Spat_3a having the highest estimated loadings of 0.719, with p < .001, and

item Spat_1a having the lowest estimated loading of .522, with p < .001 and R2 = .292.

Four questions were selected from the original model to load onto the Synesthesia Mode

factor, with item Syn_3a having the highest estimated loading of 0.691, with p < .001 and

R2 = .488, and item Syn_1a having the lowest estimated loading of .537, with p < .001

and R2 = .303. The original seven questions loaded onto the Technology factor, with item

Tech_7 having the highest estimated loading of .782, with p < .001 and R2 = .636, and

Tech_3 having the lowest estimated loading of .479, with p < .001 and R2 = .242. All

factor loadings were significant in this model, with p < .001 in all cases. This shows that

reducing the weak indicators increases the reliability of the instrument’s ability to

measure latent constructs. Table 19 depicts the factor loadings for all items used in the

revised model, their estimated p values, and the estimated R2 values. The loadings are

again standardized to be between 0 and 1, with a higher loading indicating a stronger

relationship between the construct and the item measuring it. The R2 value indicates the

percent of variance explained by the model. Table 19 depicts that the revised model with


131

selected items included shows improved loadings, all of which are significant, further

demonstrating the improved reliability of the instrument to measure pedagogical content

knowledge of new literacies.


132

Table 19

Item Loading – Revised Model

Construct Item Loading p R2

Linguistic Mode Ling_1a .509 <.001 .267

Ling_2a .673 <.001 .458

Ling_3a .436 <.001 .198

Ling_4a .641 <.001 .417

Ling_5a .719 <.001 .521

Ling_6a .640 <.001 .417

Ling_7a .714 <.001 .514

Ling_8a .698 <.001 .493 Gestural Mode Gest_1a .685 <.001 .479

Gest_2a .506 <.001 .268

Gest_3a .558 <.001 .324 Visual Mode Vis_1a .575 <.001 .342

Vis_2a .680 <.001 .474

Vis_3a .580 <.001 .352 Auditory Mode Audi_1a .444 <.001 .204

Audi_2a .568 <.001 .334 Spatial Mode Spat_1a .522 <.001 .292

Spat_2a .719 <.001 .524

Spat_3a .719 <.001 .528 Synesthesia Mode Syn_1a .537 <.001 .303

Syn_2a .544 <.001 .308

Syn_3a .691 <.001 .488

Syn_4a .599 <.001 .370 Technology Mode Tech_1 .667 <.001 .466

Tech_2 .705 <.001 .517

Tech_3 .479 <.001 .242

Tech_4 .532 <.001 .285

Tech_5 .724 <.001 .527

Tech_6 .771 <.001 .620

Tech_7 .782 <.001 .636 Note. This depicts the factor loadings for all items used in the current model, their estimated p-value, and the estimated R2 value. All provided estimates are standardized.


133

All but one pair of factors in the model were positively correlated with each other,

with the highest correlation between Spatial Mode and Auditory Mode (r = 0. 860), and

the weakest correlation was between Technology and Gestural Mode (r = – 0. 003). All

correlations among the New Literacies modes were significant, with the exception of the

correlation between Spatial Mode and Gestural Mode (r = 0.320, p = 0.055). The only

correlation that was significant among these modes and Technology items was that with

the Linguistic Mode (r = 0.210, p = 0.044). All correlations among factors are depicted in

Table 20. This further supports the construct validity of the measure, with all modes

positively correlated with each other.

Composite reliability was again calculated using Equation 1 for each factor to

evaluate the ratio of explained variance to total variance to determine how well indicators

measure a single factor, and these composite reliability scores are depicted in Table 21.

Linguistic Mode and Technology reported the highest reliability with CR = 0.84 each, and

Auditory Mode reported the lowest reliability with CR = 0.40. This indicated that all

modes, with the exception of Auditory Mode, demonstrated adequate composite

reliability when judged by the 0.6 threshold. Reducing the number of parameters,

estimated by the model from the original number of indicators, improved model fit, item

loading, composite reliability, and correlations among latent factors, while explaining a

similar amount of variance compared with that of the initial model. This further answered

the first research question by demonstrating that pedogeological content knowledge of

new literacies can be reliably measured using the instrument designed in this study. Using

this instrument, we can measure teachers’ knowledge of pedogeological content

knowledge of new literacies.


134

Table 20

Factor Correlations – Revised Model

Factor Correlated Factor R p

Gestural Mode Linguistic Mode .699 <.001 Visual Mode Linguistic Mode .449 <.001


Auditory Mode Linguistic Mode .582 .008



Spatial Mode Linguistic Mode .345 .006




Synesthesia Mode Linguistic Mode .542 <.001

Gestural Mode .537 <.001

Visual Mode .691 <.001


Spatial Mode .523 .001

Technology Mode Linguistic Mode .210 .044



Auditory Mode .257 .235 Spatial Mode .105 .459 Synesthesia Mode .124 .350

Note. This model was estimated using the fixed-factor method, which fixes the variance of all latent factors to 1. This standardizes the factor covariances to be equivalent factor correlations. P-value significance judged with p < .05, r = correlation.


135

Table 21

Composite Reliability – Revised Model

Construct CR

Linguistic Mode .84 Gestural Mode .60 Visual Mode .64 Auditory Mode .40 Spatial Mode .71 Synesthesia Mode .69 Technology Mode .84 Note. A threshold of .60 is typically used to denote good composite reliability (Kline, 2005).


136

Figure 6. Full model of PCKNL.


137

Table 22

Participant Average Scale Score

Average Subscale Score Linguistic Gestural Visual Auditory Spatial Synesthesia Technology Gender

Female (N = 312) 4.33 4.38 4.41 4.28 4.10 4.36 6.13 Male (N = 141) 4.23 4.18 4.35 4.09 4.20 4.26 6.57

Year in Program Freshman (N = 27) 4.16 4.36 4.12 4.41 3.94 4.33 6.07 Sophomore (N = 36) 4.16 4.15 4.15 4.10 3.79 4.14 6.25 Junior (N = 100) 4.17 4.13 4.17 4.03 4.04 4.14 6.12 Senior (N = 324) 4.34 4.35 4.47 4.24 4.17 4.39 6.31

Specialization Art Education (N = 6) 3.68 3.78 3.61 3.50 3.53 3.75 6.07 Business Education (N = 3) 3.69 3.50 4.00 3.75 4.00 3.88 5.57 English Education (N = 50) 4.17 4.26 4.23 4.09 3.93 4.31 6.22 Foreign Language Education (N = 11) 4.17 4.33 4.12 4.18 4.12 4.23 6.13 Gifted and Talented Education (N = 8) 4.26 4.23 4.25 4.19 4.08 4.19 6.57 Health and Physical Education (N = 3) 3.05 3.33 3.22 3.33 2.56 4.12 6.14 History Education (N = 30) 3.97 4.07 4.17 3.93 3.77 4.09 6.08 Math Education (N = 72) 4.13 4.09 4.19 4.01 3.92 4.15 6.32 Music Education (N = 6) 3.18 3.94 3.17 3.67 2.89 4.00 5.57 School Administration (N = 1) 4.86 4.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.86 School Counseling (N = 3) 4.76 4.67 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.48 Special Education (N = 123) 4.35 4.32 4.37 4.28 4.10 4.34 6.32 TESOL/ESL/Bilingual (N = 163) 4.36 4.36 4.53 4.26 4.25 4.42 6.41 Vocational Education (N = 4) 4.17 3.75 4.17 3.62 3.38 3.81 6.29 Literacy (N = 37) 4.15 4.19 4.16 4.17 4.05 4.40 6.24 Reading (N = 46) 4.11 4.22 4.26 4.16 4.00 4.30 6.55 Writing (N = 38) 4.05 4.12 4.20 4.09 4.00 4.25 6.49 Other (N = 84) 4.31 4.30 4.41 4.17 4.13 4.33 6.22


138

Table 22 Continued

Average Subscale Score Linguistic Gestural Visual Auditory Spatial Synesthesia Technology College

Angelo State University (N = 2) 4.29 4.00 3.83 4.00 3.75 4.00 6.93 Grambling State University (N = 2) 4.64 4.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.67 7.00 Hannibal-LaGrange University (N = 7) 4.00 4.00 4.14 3.86 4.43 4.19 6.53 Howard Community College (N = 18) 4.33 4.37 4.37 4.39 3.97 4.36 5.94 Ohio State University (N = 4) 4.25 4.08 4.58 4.50 3.88 4.06 5.68 Texas Tech University (N = 393) 4.32 4.32 4.41 4.22 4.14 4.35 6.29 University of Hawaii at Manoa (N = 4) 4.46 4.25 3.58 4.25 3.50 3.75 5.82 University of North Texas (N = 6) 4.55 4.33 4.58 4.33 4.58 4.40 6.76 University of Texas at San Antonio (N = 12) 3.98 4.00 4.08 3.79 3.78 3.83 6.00 Western Michigan University (N = 9) 3.74 4.41 3.85 3.89 3.63 4.08 5.35

Classroom Practicum Experience Yes (N = 429) 4.29 4.28 4.37 4.20 4.12 4.33 6.26 No (N = 58) 4.24 4.37 4.37 4.23 3.96 4.27 6.27

Completed at least one literacy course Yes (N = 447) 4.29 4.29 4.37 4.21 4.11 4.33 6.29 No (N = 21) 4.19 4.43 4.33 4.11 3.86 4.23 5.61

Field experience with a cooperating teacher Yes (N = 369) 4.32 4.31 4.42 4.22 4.16 4.38 6.32 No (N = 69) 4.12 4.20 4.16 4.11 3.88 4.09 5.93

Note. Linguistic, Gestural, Visual, Auditory, Spatial, and Synesthesia modes are measured on a 1-5 scale. Technology mode is measured on a 1-7 scale.


139

Figure 7. Revised model.


140

Findings From the Qualitative Data

This study was also designed to capture the pedagogical content knowledge of

new literacies reflected by pre-service teachers in teacher preparation programs based on

an open-ended survey question, which asked:

You are asked to teach a reading/literacy/English arts class for the grade level you

teach that include students from different cultural and variety reading experiences.

Based on your practice or future application: How would you use New Literacies

to choose a topic of your choice?

Below, I begin by explaining the four themes that emerged from the analysis by

providing examples of responses, using the subcategories. I complete the findings by

describing each of the themes that reflect preservice teachers’ understanding of new

literacies.

The themes identified from the data are: (a) Preservice teachers’ partial

knowledge of new literacies that align with preestablished modes; (b) Preservice

teachers’ misconception of technologies and new literacies; (c) Preservice teachers’ need

for exposure to new literacies standards; and (d) Pedagogical content knowledge

practices as cultural relevant teaching.

Preservice Teachers’ Partial Knowledge of New Literacies That Align With

Preestablished Modes

Some preservice teachers demonstrated partial knowledge of new literacies that

align with the modes of literacies.

Visuals. The visual mode involves creating the meaning from mental images

through colors and photographs (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). Pertaining to the visual mode,

67 (19%) preservice teachers described their use of visual graphs, charts, visual aids,


141

digital applications, and graphic organizers (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). Participant 61

explained, “I would plan a read aloud/video demonstrating the lesson's main idea and

create an anchor chart that would include pictures and words that we could hang up for

future reference.” Participant 170 reported, “I would use them to create an interesting and

engaging lesson that involves a graphic organizer.” Participant 49 said,

[I would] include books that are culturally responsive and relevant to the students’

lives. I would create a visual or graphic organizer to list important points in the

text. I would elicit a variety of thinking, have students turn and talk and include

the student’s response into the graphic organizer.

Several preservice teachers shared that they would use visuals to embrace student

cultures. For instance, Participant 10 said, “I would use as much visuals as I can. Videos,

audio, and pictures to words can help students from all different cultures.” Participant 91

explained, “I would make sure to incorporate visuals and text from the students’ home

language.” Participant 194 added, “I would provide visuals and multi-media, anchor

charts, labels, and sentence stems to support all learners. Have a read aloud and look at

the pictures with the students I would make sure the text is relevant to them and that it

meets all students.” Participant 111 expressed,

[I would] build a culturally competent lesson that allows students to bring in their

background knowledge of their culture and provides scaffolding/background info

for anything that might be new to any student in the class. I can also provide a

variety of texts (traditional, audio, visual, etc) to ensure the lesson is accessible.

Participant 136 stated,


142

I would collaborate with the school librarian on what books I can implement to

my lessons that connect to the state standards we are learning but also including

different cultures for students can make connections and relate to the book. I

would decorate my room to promote classroom diversity.

Some teachers agreed they would use visuals to help students who have language

barriers. Participant 45 shared, “Anywhere when I can use pictures in the classroom to

assist my students, I would happily do this so that the language barrier is eased.”

Participant 81 concurred, “I would be sure to incorporate vocabulary support, images,

and opportunities to read, write, speak, and listen.” Participant 187 asserted,

I would make sure to incorporate visuals and text from the students; home

language. I would use news articles to plan a lesson over text features. If possible,

I would try and use articles that are familiar to the students from other countries. I

would have articles that have a lot of pictures, in case the students are ELL's.


Providing lesson materials in various formats such as visual or audio methods so they can get the material at their own level. Providing videos of demonstrations with various coded subtitles and hands on lessons provides students with a way to visualize what is being taught even if they have not fully developed the English language. There are several students who struggle with reading, so presenting them with recorded instructions or reading the instructions aloud for a lesson as you perform actions or move through allows them to follow along if they cannot follow along on their own without disrupting the rest of the class.

Participant 214 reported,

I would make an anchor chart of thinking steps that include pictures and the

thinking steps the students should ask themselves. I would plan "Think Aloud"


143

during the time that I model. I would also demonstrate my modeling and

incorporate visuals.

Spatial. Responses of 32 (9%) preservice teachers showed their ability to use the

spatial mode of new literacies. The spatial mode is the ability of preservice teachers to

use the teaching space for educational purposes, and in this context, it included (field

trips, setting work stations, cultural diversity, cultural tolerance in the classroom, and

making connections; Kalantzis, Cope, Chan, & Dalley-Trim, 2016). For instance,

Participant 65 reported, “I would create a lesson with stations that include drawing, and

iPad applications to differentiate evaluation of need.” Additionally, Participant 23 said,

“Since I am wanting to teach first grade, I would have all students sit on the carpet and

have the book displayed on the projector for all of us to read/listen together.” Participant

191 wrote,

I would use technology such as videos, pictures, and virtual field trips to provide

my students with background knowledge on a variety of cultures. This will

activate their schema and provide more context as I introduce multicultural texts

to the classroom.

Participant 159 wrote,

I would incorporate different cultures in multiple types of texts to make sure my

students are getting information that is relevant to them while also teaching about

others. This type of teaching will allow students to be more tolerant and

understanding of their peers and surrounding communities.

Participant 25 reported, “I would absolutely use learning stations and a variety of

strategies such as the zoom in and thoughts hots strategies to enhance student writing.”


144

Participant 141 added, “We would work in stations and make sure that the material is

culturally relevant to my students.” Participant 296 shared, “Use stations and hands on

activities so the students have a memorable learning experience.” Participant 301 said,

“I would incorporate different stations that contain group work, individual work,

technology, and others. Students would be able to pick from different genres and

materials to complete their work.” Similarly, Participant 331 documented, “I would

create groups to rotate in stations in order to meet all students needs while also being able

to work one-on-one with each of my students.”


I would find ways to find a lesson that would help my students be able to relate to

each other and understand each other in a new way. I would do stations and split

the children up based on their reading level that way I can give each child the

attention they need.

Gestural. Nine (0.02%) preservice teachers provided examples of their ability to

use the gestural mode in the classroom. This mode focuses on preservice teachers using

bodily appearances, movement, and positioning (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). They are

multilayered, connected to behavior, feeling effect, and gesture (Kalantzis & Cope,

2012). For the purpose of this research, the gestural mode included providing a safe

environment; using body language, storytelling, and think aloud; and modeling.

Participant 214 said, “I would plan ‘Think Aloud’ during the time that I model. I

would also demonstrate my modeling and incorporate visuals.” Participant 154 described

her plan, “Native Hawaiians use storytelling as a way of teaching and passing down

traditions, the student may choose to use storytelling as their assessment form.”


145

Participant 17 thought that the use of gestures helps struggling students. They shared, “I

will have many visuals and hand gestures to accommodate struggling students.”

Participant 177 asserted, “I would use technology in the classroom to help develop

literacy skills among students. Using things like audio read aloud apps and having

students design their own comics or record their own pieces.” Participant 135 shared,

“Making sure that I model all of my expectations and interactions and the thinking that I

want them to develop during the lesson.”


I realize that it is important that students are able to learn as well as express

themselves through different avenues such as music, diagrams, physical gestures,

technologies, etc. I would incorporate all of the new literacies I have learned

within my lessons to captivate and engage my students.

Likewise, Participant 74 said, “I would use new literacies to plan a lesson of my choice

by incorporating visuals and using physical gestures to reinforce student learning.”

Participant 32 asserted,

In order to teach and reach those of the different cultural backgrounds I would be

very dramatic and emphasize my body movements as I am communicating. I

would try to gear read aloud to fit in as much as possible that include lots of

pictures. I would also create multiple opportunities for student interaction.

Audio. Thirty-nine (0.02%) preservice teachers’ answers indicated their ability to

use the audio mode. The audio mode involves the use of elements that teachers deploy to

signify sound effect (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). Within this research, the audio mode

included (audio tools, applications, and read aloud). For instance, Participant 93 said, “I


146

would present a lesson with many visual and auditory supports.” Participant 234

elaborated, “I would use music as the basis for bringing up the subject and getting the

students' attention. This would allow an easy way to bring in different cultures and then

branch off that.” Participant 334 explained, “I would assess what interests the students

and choose an appropriate new literacy such as a voice over app like Chatterpix. The

student[s] can then listen to their recording and make adjustments.” Participant 165

indicated, “I would make sure that my lesson is full of differentiation! Station work

would have word sorts for vocabulary and interactive read aloud would have big pictures

to help students connect to the words and understanding.” Participant 123 said,

“Providing lesson materials in various formats such as visual or audio methods so they

can get the material at their own level.”

Participant 207 testified,

In my past experiences I have learned that young children are very active. They

need to constantly be moving around, with that being said I would incorporate my

lessons into dances and songs. We would use hands on activities to help them

maintain the information well.


I would have the students listen to the audio book and give them an activity that

supports the book and at another group I would have the physical book where the

students would also be completing a different activity related to the activity. They

would be able to use the physical book as a reference.



147

Due to my background in music education I would use songs and their lyrics to

teach a literacy lesson. I would find out what cultures some of the students are

from and pick songs that are traditional folk songs of that culture. It would be a

lesson in history as well literacy. I would play the songs and students could follow

along with the lyrics. Hearing the words first will help some students be able to

read them by making associations between the sounds and the letters. After

listening to the songs there would be time for students to take turns reading the

lyrics and a bit of analysis on what the lyrics mean. Students would have time to

collaborate with a group and come up with a creative way to tell the class what

the song is about. I would be guiding the students in their discussions and make

sure they are on the right track. This would be an activity that 5th-12th graders

could complete depending on the difficulty of the song lyrics.

Participant 227 said,

I would read a book with my class. And then have a test or vocab quizzes about the book. I could also use videos to help with the process of showing students introductions and audio parts they can accomplish on their own. Students can find creditable sources and use them to do an autobiography research on the author of the book. .


Using visuals and audio is very important to my students in my classroom. I love the idea of incorporating music into a lesson also. Providing multiple resources like technology to teach is a great way to reach students who might need more help in understanding or explaining their learning. Planning a lesson which incorporates many learning tools to support the content would be ideal for me.

Linguistic. The responses of 115 (32.7%) preservice teachers reflected the

preservice teachers’ ability to use the linguistic mode, which is text-based meanings that

traditionally dominate the field, including spelling, vocabulary, and grammar (Kalantzis

& Cope, 2012). The linguistic mode in this research included (mentor text, choice of text,

guided reading, reading fluency, vocabulary, and read aloud). Preservice teachers

described how they would use these modes. For instance, Participant 247 said, “I would

bring in mentor texts that featured different cultures at different reading levels.”

Participant 267 explained, “[I would] use mentor texts to show students how to correctly


148

use things such as adjectives, adverbs, and other things I feel they would benefit from

hearing done correctly.” Participant 172 shared, “[ I would use] guided reading lessons or

writer's workshop.” Participant 257 indicated, “In reading I would use IRA, SR and

guided reading with phonics activities to help a student read with fluency and learn

vocabulary.”

Participant 249 described,

I might also consider doing a reader’s theater, and I would try to choose a book

that would interest all of the students. I could also group students heterogeneously

according to their reading level, so students with a low reading level would

benefit from being in a group with higher-level readers.

Participant 81 asserted, “I would be sure to incorporate vocabulary support, images, and

opportunities to read, write, speak, and listen.” Participant 113 stated, “It is important to

use new literacies to help the student with all the subjects. This way students learn

through reading and also increase their reading fluency.” Participant 276, “I will use a

variety of techniques, mentor texts, and hands-on learning in order to meet the needs of

all students.”

Preservice Teachers Misconception of Technologies and New Literacies

Preservice teachers had misconceptions between technologies and new literacies.

They were able to make a connection at the surface level of connecting new literacies to

the use of technologies. However, the responses indicated a lack of depth of using

technologies to connect to the use of modes of new literacies (Swenson, Young, McGrail,

Rozema, & Whitin, 2006). These misconceptions were seen in a number of instances.

For instance, “I would use it [new literacies] to incorporate technology into the classroom


149

to gain student interest and to improve learning,” said Participant 327. Participant 330

pondered, “I would use technology to help them understand and show examples in their

home language. I would incorporate all cultures in my class throughout lessons and

literacy.” Likewise, Participant 80 shared, “I would use New Literacies that include a lot

of current technology and media, like blogging/‘vlogging’, podcasting, and video making

to encourage learning and show the variety in cultures in the classroom.” Participant 95

shared, “I would include technology to promote literacy in my classroom.” Participant

327 inferred, “I would use it to incorporate technology into the classroom to gain student

interest and to improve learning.” Participant 88 explained in detail:

I will use new literacies to plan a lesson by using different forms of technology to

assist students from different cultures with a variety of reading experiences. For

example, I would create a hyper document to provide students with an assignment

where they can control their learning. They can be free to explore with the

resources provided. The text can be read aloud to assist students with help

emerging reading levels. They can also connect with professionals or people from

their same culture to connect and learn.

Some preservice teachers thought the use of technology would spark their

students’ interests and increase their classroom engagement. Participant 138 indicated

“using different modes of technology to preview the lesson for students before direct

instruction of the content.” Participant 230 stated, “I would definitely incorporate some

sort of technology into the lesson. Through Smart Board use or iPads I believe it would

help to engage the students more either it be playing games or activities or using digital

texts for the lesson.” Participant 70 confirmed, “I plan on using a lot of technology to

incorporate other cultures that I may not have access to in my local library.” Participant

70 mentioned, “Read aloud videos on YouTube give us access to books that we don't

normally have access to. I love to incorporate technology in the classroom, and it makes


150

the children participate more.” Participant 181 shared, “I would use New Literacies by

incorporating technology in my classroom. With technology, you are about to establish

different needs for your students, such as having a variety of reading experiences,

cultures, and backgrounds.” Participant 177 said, “I would use technology in the

classroom to help develop literacy skills among students. Using things like audio read

aloud apps and having students design their own comics or record their own pieces.”

Some participants did not know about new literacies but made a direct connection

with technology. Participant 14 said,

I am not sure what is meant by New Literacies. It seems like when literacy is

mixed with technology. If that is the case, then we currently use technology in my

placement now. Students are able to listen to their text on their tablets. There are

also different apps they can use for reading and tracking their reading.

Similarly, Participant 128 answered, “I am not sure what new literacies are, but if it

means integrating technology into the classroom then, yes, I would do that.”

Preservice Teachers Need More Exposure to the New Literacies Standards

Based on the preservice teachers’ responses, a number of participants said they

would use new literacies, if the standards require them to, not knowing that there are

standards that refer to using new literacies that teachers are expected to use in the

classroom (Taffe & Bauer, 2013).

Participant 108 said,

I am currently not teaching students this semester. If I were to teach new

literacies and have a plan, I would follow the state standards and practice what the


151

students already knows and work with improving the skills that they need to work

on and master before moving on to the next standard.

Participant 103 said, “I would make sure that it aligns with the Texas Education

(TEKS).” Participant 23 indicated, “I would look at my TEKS calendar to see what genre

the students need to be reading that week, then I would search online for a book that

would be read to the students with the words also on the book.” Similarly, Participant 211

shared, “I would first select the appropriate TEKS and breakdown what the student needs

to know for mastery and develop a content objective. Next, I would find a book that is

culturally inclusive of the students represented in my classroom.”

Participant 24 explained,

I always read the assigned test that we will be using for the week. After reading it,

I examine the TEK that we will be using and plan the lesson accordingly. After

planning the lesson, I review to ensure that it includes the accommodations for

those who need it. I always make sure the questions I ask, the activities I plan and

the way I present it will meet the TEK.

Participant 25 said, “I would use them to know and understand how to challenge students

as well as bring them to the meets and masters levels of the TEKS standards.” Participant

27 said,

I learned through my college courses to first identify the TEK that I want to teach.

Then I need to break down the TEK and understand the outcome. After that, I

need to develop my objectives including a Language Objective. During my

lesson, I need to begin my checking on prior knowledge. In this case, I need to

incorporate Literacy - Since I work in a Dual Language Classroom, we use

phonological.

Participant 136 shared,

I would collaborate with the school librarian on what books I can implement to

my lessons that connect to the state standards we are learning but also including

different cultures for students can make connections and relate to the book. I

would decorate my room to promote classroom diversity. I would provide visuals

and multi-media, anchor charts, labels, and sentence stems to support all learners.


152

Pedagogical Content Knowledge Practices as Cultural Relevant Teaching

Eighty-nine (2.25%) preservice teachers who completed the survey inferred that

pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies are understood to include integrating

student cultures into the curriculum and teachers being culturally sensitive and aware. For

example, Participant 8 shared,

I would incorporate books that reflect the culture of my students. Making content

relative to students will help them to understand the content through background

knowledge. It will further create an environment of acceptance of all students and

support their participation.

Similarly, Participant 9 said, “I would ensure that I include their different culture

backgrounds and interests in my lesson to connect the lesson to period learning and

cultural background.” Additionally, Participant 111 shared that they would:

build a culturally competent lesson that allows students to bring in their

background knowledge of their culture and provides scaffolding/background info

for anything that might be new to any student in the class. I can also provide a

variety of texts (traditional, audio, visual, etc.) to ensure the lesson is accessible.

Many preservice teachers indicated in their responses that integrating the student’s

culture in the curriculum represented new literacies. For instance, Participant 139 said, “I

would incorporate literacy that is relatable to my students’ culture by using technology,

media, and texts that expose students to different cultural aspects.” Participant 188

affirmed,


153

I would choose a book that has a different culture than we have that way I can

introduce a new culture than show videos and plan activities so the students can

experience different cultures rather than just hear about it.

Participant 190 asserted, “I would try to incorporate different ways of learning a

culture such as using visuals and movements along with some reading.” In the same way,

Participant 229 shared, “I would use the text to relate to individual cultures within my

class. When presented with a new culture I would open discussion so others can learn the

culture through their peers.” Similarly, Participant 344 indicated, “I would pick literature

that is diverse with every race and culture represented. I would not be able to do this in

one text every time, but I would pick a different cultural text each day.” Participant 100

said, “I would implement and introduce a variety of literacy for my students to ensure

that I include/accept each student's culture in my classroom.” Participant 197 specified,

“[I would] include Literature from different cultures and allow a group to pick. Then

present the book and compare and contrast the culture to their own.”

Participant 64 specified,

This reminds me of the part of the year where we discuss traditions and

incorporate different cultures. Selecting rich mentor texts about different cultures

to teach reading skills would be so fun and I would incorporate a fun "around the

world" project to go along with it. We would visit one country and read a text

aloud and learn all about the culture and stamp out passports. Each week we

would visit a new country and create different hands on projects.

Summary

To answer the first research question, the quantitative data indicated that the items

in Survey A had the most significant factor loadings. The modes of new literacies in this

survey were all reliable, except for the audio mode, since only two items had highly

significance factor loadings. The reliability and validity of the instrument were


154

determined by using composite reliability, factor loading, and factor correlation. Three

external reviewers confirmed the content validity of the instrument. The findings of the

survey showed that there was low correlation between preservice teachers’ technological

skills and their use of the modes of new literacies. This means that teachers do not need

to have technological skills to be able to use new literacies in the classroom.

The qualitative results showed that preservice teachers appeared to possess a

knowledge of new literacies that did not always align with the elements of the constructs

presented by New Literacies/new literacies. Rarely did any of the participants use more

than one mode in their responses to reflect synesthesia (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). Also,

some of the preservice teachers’ responses indicated a misconception of new literacies in

that this tended to be construed as the use of technology. More intriguing was the

indication that preservice teachers associated the notion of using new literacies to student

cultures, highlighting one of the key reasons for which new literacies was designed: to

broaden access to underserved and often invisible populations (Kellner, 2000). Some of

the preservice teachers referred to the knowledge that teachers should have to adopt new

literacies in the classroom but did not mention the skills, which involve using the

different modes of new literacies. These indications seemed to suggest a disconnect

between knowledge (theory) and practice, as previously highlighted in the literature

(Borrero, Flores, & De La Cruz, 2016; Risko, 2017; Risko et al., 2008).


155

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of this chapter is to present explanations and interpretations of the

survey results and the qualitative data for Research Questions 1 and 2. This research

examined the reliability of the survey to measure the preservice teachers’ pedagogical

content knowledge of new literacies and the pedagogical content knowledge of new

literacies reflected by preservice teachers. I will discuss the connection of the themes in

relation to the literature. Chapter V includes: (a) interpretation of the results; (b)

conclusion; (c) limitations of the study; (d) implications of the research; and (e) final

thoughts.

Interpretation of the Results

Quantitative Results

Confirmatory factor analysis measures the fit of a set of variables (items in my

questionnaire created to measure a component of pedagogical content knowledge of

literacies [PCKNL]) to the construct (components of PCKNL). In this study, factor

constructs were determined through a review of literature and the new literacies theory.

Factor analysis helped select the items that best represent the constructs (Kline 2016).

The participants in this study came from different parts of the United States:

seven (1.1%) resided in the Northeast, 35 (5.6%) resided in the Midwest, 373 (59.2%)

resided in the South, and 31 (4.9%) resided in the West, with 176 (28.4%) not reporting a

region of residency. They indicated that they teach different levels: primary, secondary,

and high school. The intent of using new literacies is for teachers to individualize


156

instruction, motivate students to learn, and guide their learning. Teachers at any level can

use the PCKNL questionnaire. From my personal experience, I learned that instructors

experience challenges in planning lessons that cater to all their students’ needs, and that

inspired me to design this survey. The goal of the PCKNL was to help instructors identify

students’ needs and fulfill them. Participants from different parts of the United States at

different public and private universities completed the survey.

The Revised Model provides reasonable evidence of construct validity and

reliability for the six modes of the PCKNL. The model-data fit was evaluated with regard

to both incremental and absolute model fit, using multiple statistics, including the

comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis,

1973), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980), and

standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2010).

A CFI or TLI value greater than .95 is the standard for a well-fitting model (Hu &

Bentler, 1999). An RMSEA value less than .06 or (Hu & Bentler, 1999) or .08 (Little,

2013) indicates good model fit (< .08 = fair fit, < .10 = mediocre fit; MacCallum,

Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). A SRMR value less than .05 was considered acceptable

(Geiser, 2012) with an adequate-fit threshold of .08 (Little, 2013).

The initial model loaded all items onto their respective latent constructs. Overall

model fit indices were excellent, with RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00 and TLI = 1.00, and

SRMR = 0.081. The standardized loadings showed that items from Survey A loaded

much stronger than items from Surveys B and C, and items from Survey A were shown

to have the most significant factor loadings as well. This reflects that despite good

indicators of overall model fit, some items themselves did not reliably load onto the


157

factors. Based on these indications, overall, the model presented in the findings reflected

a good fit. However, when I evaluated the model at the item level, questions from

Surveys B and C were not as reliable as questions from Survey A. This was determined

by examining the loadings, which indicated how reliable a question is at measuring the

underlying latent construct. Based on these indications, questions from Surveys B and C

were shown not to be reliable indicators of the underlying constructs they were designed

to measure.

Correlations among latent factors describe how they change in relation to one

another (Kline, 2005). I expected related constructs to vary together in some way and

unrelated constructs not to vary together significantly. A high correlation (e.g., < .9)

would indicate that two constructs could not be independent of each other and that they

would need to be combined into one. This was not the case with the data presented for the

model developed. All of the correlations between the modes appeared to be moderate,

with weaker correlations reflected between the Technology Mode and the other six

modes. I expected the correlations among the factors measured by the PCKNL to be

positive and moderate, which was demonstrated to be the case in the results of the

PCKNL model. There were no cross-loadings, which would have indicated that an item

belonged to a construct other than the one for which it was created, further demonstrating

construct validity between the items and the underlying latent constructs.

Composite reliability (CR) was also calculated, using Equation 1 in the Results

section for each factor, to evaluate the ratio of explained variance in relation to total

variance and to determine how well indicators measured a single factor with CR between

0.84 and 0.22. The CR was obtained when CR>0.6. Composite reliability is generally a


158

better alternative to Cronbach’s alpha, which does not directly measure the relationship

between the items and their corresponding latent construct in ways that composite

reliability does (Kline, 2016). The composite reliability estimated for the initial model

showed poor reliability, with all but two constructs below the preferred threshold of 0.6

(Kline, 2005). This, combined with the insignificant loadings and correlations, indicated

that the model had poor fit despite the overall model fit indicators. The model was

therefore pruned of items that had highly insignificant loadings and reevaluated.

After pruning the model of all items with highly nonsignificant loadings, the

indices for the final model were RMSEA = 0.000, CFI = 1.000 and TLI = 1.080, and

SRMR = 0.064. These fit indices are evidence of excellent overall model fit and the

improved values for TLI and SRMR are indications that the simplified model fit is better

than that of the previous version.

The Linguistic Mode was intended to measure the preservice teachers’ use of

language strategies to guide students in decoding words, locating information, engaging

in analyzing multiple texts, and assessing students’ comprehension skills. The loadings

for the remaining items were between 0.719 and 0.436, which is within the range of good

loading estimates (> 0.4), and all were significant, with p values less than .001. The

composite reliability of this factor was calculated to be 0.84, indicating that these items

are highly reliable indicators of the latent factor. The use of the new literacies approach

for each of these items was found to be justified. All four of the new literacies approaches

in this mode were met: the critical, the functional, the authentic, and the didactic. The

items for the linguistic mode measured the confidence that preservice teachers had using


159

the linguistic mode in their past or future practices, and the results of the analysis showed

how this method reflected teachers’ knowledge of using the linguistic mode strategies.

The Gestural Mode refers to the preservice teachers’ ability and readiness to use

bodily appearances, movement, and positioning. Preservice teachers were asked about

their ability to help students understand the content by using gestures and body

movements, their ability to help students apply what they learned through theater and

drama activities, and their ability to create a welcoming and safe environment to promote

student interest in learning. These items measured the didactic, functional, and authentic

approaches. Results showed high factor loadings of significance and reliability. Three

questions were selected from the original model to load onto the Gestural Mode factor,

with factor loadings between 0.685 and 0.506, all of which were significant with p values

less than 0.001, and the composite reliability of these items was 0.60, the threshold for

good composite reliability. This section measured the confidence in preservice teachers’

use of teacher-centered and student-centered approaches and whether they could establish

structure in literacy learning using the gestural mode through social function. Results

showed that this section was reliably measured by the instrument.

The Visual Mode refers to creating meaning from images such as paintings,

colors, and advertisements. Preservice teachers were asked about their ability to use

graphics to organize information relevant to their students to promote thinking and

learning, their ability to use different teaching approaches and interactive texts to guide

student thinking and learning, and their ability to use different technologies in teaching to

guide student thinking and learning in teaching their subject. Three questions were

selected from the initial model to load onto the Visual Mode factor with loadings between


160

0.680 and 0.506, all of which were significant with p values less than 0.001 and

composite reliability of 0.64, indicating that these items are reliable. These items

reflected using the authentic approach of new literacies, which measures the ability of

preservice teachers to use this mode that was derived from student interests, which my

model’s results support this survey’s ability to reliably measure this mode. The Audio

Mode refers to the effects of sound. Preservice teachers were asked about their ability to

guide student understanding by using music and any kind of sound effect and their ability

to use different approaches, such as read-aloud exercises, to increase reading

comprehension or to assess student understanding. Two questions were selected from the

initial model to load onto the Audio Mode factor with loadings of 0.444 and 0.568, with p

values less than 0.001 and composite reliability of 0.40, indicating that these two items

did not meet the minimum threshold for good reliability and only 40% of the total item

variance for these items was accounted for by the common factor. Since only two items

showed significance and because there should be at least three items to evaluate a latent

construct without having to impose model constraints, more indicators should be used to

evaluate this construct in the future. However, the item loadings greater than 0.4 do

indicate that these items did measure the underlying construct.

The Spatial Mode refers to the proximity and movement that are shaped by the

areas and places in which we live. Preservice teachers were asked about their ability to

support students’ learning by creating a personalized space for each student, asking

student to describe the classroom space in writing, and communicating the importance of

the country’s geographic location in relation to the world. Three questions were selected

from the initial model to load onto the Spatial Mode factor, with loadings between 0.719


161

and 0.522 of which all were significant with p values less than 0.001. The composite

reliability of this latent construct was 0.71, indicating that this latent construct is reliable,

accounting for the variance in these items. This tells us that this is a reliable measure of

confidence in preservice teachers’ use of this approach. These items measure the

authentic, critical, and functional approaches. This mode demonstrates the ability to

measure preservice teachers’ capability to personalize the students’ learning environment.

The Synesthesia Mode refers to using more than one mode at a time. Preservice

teachers were asked about their ability to assess student learning using combinations of

different texts, their ability to help students make connections between words and images,

using visual and audio tools, their ability to use a combination of visual and sound effects

to demonstrate concepts learned in groups, and their ability to help students use different

discourses to formulate arguments to build alliances. These items used the authentic,

functional, and critical approaches. Four questions were selected from the initial model to

load onto the Synesthesia Mode factor, with loadings between 0.691 and 0.537 and p

values less than 0.001. The composite reliability of this latent construct was 0.69,

indicating that it is a reliable construct to measure preservice teachers’ ability to represent

and communicate concepts using multiple modes.

The CFA revised model showed different correlations among the modes of new

literacies. High correlation between the linguistic mode and the gestural mode shows that

the teachers’ use of gestures (body appearances and movement) when explaining text-

based meanings help learners analyze different texts, guide students’ comprehension

skills, and assist them in decoding words. The high correlation between the visual and

audio modes explained by the teachers’ choice of web applications required them to use


162

both the visual and the audio modes. According to the preservice teachers’ answers,

many of them indicated using both the visual and audio modes together to support their

students’ learning. The PCKNL model showed a high correlation between the audio and

spatial modes. In using any audio tool, teachers need to consider the classroom space and

make sure that it is used effectively and appropriately to support student learning.

Synesthesia is mostly correlated with the audio mode, which means that preservice

teachers feel that they need to use different modes when using the audio mode. The rest

of the modes were equally correlated with synesthesia, which means that using more than

one mode at a time to support student learning is a common method of implementing

pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies. The relationship among the modes was

revised and reflected in the PCKNL model, using the CFA revised model results.

Additionally, the results indicated that technology skills were only significantly

correlated with the linguistic mode and this correlation, though significant, was weak (r =

0.210). This means that teachers did not perceive the need for technology skills to be

able use the modes of new literacies effectively. The highest correlations between the

technology and modes of new literacies were found with the linguistic mode and the

audio mode. According to preservice teachers’ written responses, they relied on using

different web applications to support students’ comprehension skills. The audio mode

showed a higher correlation with technology than did the other modes since the nature of

using the audio mode is somehow dependent on the use of technology like the computer

and web applications.

All factors in the model were positively correlated with each other, with the

highest correlation between the Spatial Mode and Auditory Mode (r = 0.723), and the


163

weakest correlation was between the Spatial Mode and Gestural Mode (r = 0.320 and p =

.055). The weak and insignificant correlations with these items to the other modes tell us

that technology is not strongly related to teachers’ ability to utilize new literacies.

There are different factors that influence the model fit (Little, 2013). First, the

interpretation of model fit, using different statistical exams determine the reliability of the

constructs (Little, 2013). For instance, the RMSEA value showed an acceptable model fit

at around an average of 0.8. A CFI or TLI value greater than .95 is the standard for a

well-fitting model (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Second, the quality of the indicators determines

model fit (Little, 2013). The indicators used in the PCKNL were explicit and complex.

The indicators asked preservice teachers about their use of a variety of new literacies

pedagogical knowledge, such as interactive texts (mentor texts, digital texts, visual

resources) and modes (visual, audio, linguistic) with students to identify, synthesize,

analyze, and apply information. All the indicators in the latent construct were correlated

with one another, which indicated validity. Additionally, CR (CR > 0.6) was calculated

for each factor to determine how well indicators measure a single factor. The results

showed that all the modes were reliable except for the audio mode, which reflected low

reliability. Third, a good model design should be logical and consistent (Little, 2013).

The indicators reflected the constructs they were measuring and the current statistical

conditions. For example, all the indicators under each latent construct reflected logic and

consistency. They were based on theory and the literature on new literacies across the

latent construct. All questions reflected the mode they presented and the different new

literacies approaches.


164

Qualitative Results

Qualitative data were also collected based on one open-ended question in the

survey to investigate preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of new

literacies. The findings revealed that preservice teachers lacked pedagogical content

knowledge of new literacies in the classroom. The answers were analyzed using inductive

and interpretive qualitative analysis (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011). Preservice

teachers reported using some elements of new literacies in their respective practices.

However, they needed more depth of understanding in identifying literacy approaches

and applying new literacies by connecting to it to modalities and conceptual approaches.

This extends the findings of Metz (2018), who concluded that it is difficult to scaffold

pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) development and assess it.

Ideological Model Versus the Autonomous Model

Preservice teachers’ knowledge and practices reflected the ideological model as

opposed to the autonomous model of literacy that Street (1984) developed the ideological

model placed a strong emphasis on literacy being a condition of society, and he stressed

the importance of cultural sensitivity in literacy. Using this model, the instructors

developed learning environments that were relatable to their students and offered

opportunities for students to apply their knowledge. The ideological model indicated that

literacy is a social practice where students are engaged in the design and redesign of

meaning. Within new literacies using this model that was suggested by Street (1997),

teachers use different pedagogies of new literacies (authentic, functional, didactic, and

critical) to increase student engagement. For instance, Participant 82 shared, “I would try


165

to read aloud to fit in as much as possible that include lots of pictures.” Participant 10

said, “I would use as much visuals as I can. Videos, audio, and pictures to words can help

students from all different cultures.” Participant 81 stated, “I would be sure to incorporate

vocabulary support, images, and opportunities to read, write, speak, and listen. I would

also create multiple opportunities for student interaction.” Preservice teachers reflected

some of the constructivist epistemological beliefs, which embraces “semiotic mediation”

that Vygotsky recommended for facilitating student understanding using artifacts (Bussi

& Mariotti, 2008). The preservice teachers’ responses lacked evidence of using students’

critical skills, such as providing students with opportunities to communicate, exchange,

negotiate, and apply what they have learned into meaningful literacy experiences

(Lankshear & Knobel, 2011).

Pedagogies of New Literacies

Preservice teachers shared that they plan on using various forms of text and

different resources to obtain information, including text messages, blog posts, social

networking websites, information from electronic devices (Moss & Lapp, 2010).

Preservice teachers also stated that they were most likely to use the authentic and didactic

literacy pedagogies. They implied that they would be using the authentic literacy

pedagogy, which is a student-centered approach. Authentic literacy focuses on learning

by doing and is derived from the students’ interests by which the preservice teachers

promote natural growth of using the language, and students take ownership of their own

learning (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). For example, preservice teachers mentioned using

mentor texts, recorded materials, and different web applications. A majority of the

preservice teachers pointed out that they were planning to use the didactic approach,


166

which is a teacher-centered learning approach. Teachers used textbooks, and learners

would follow and apply rules. Their answers indicated that they would be providing the

materials for the students to read and there would be no participation from the students to

select or research their own reading materials. Few preservice teachers reported using the

functional literacies pedagogy, by which learners explain the ways texts deliver meaning

to them, present different viewpoints, examine sociopolitical topics, address inequalities,

and provide students with opportunities to apply their knowledge in social context

(Hendrix-Soto & Mosley Wetzel, 2019). None of the preservice teachers’ responses

indicated that they used the critical literacies pedagogy, by which students are asked to

challenge a text, raise questions, and identify problems. Preservice teachers in this study

exhibited a lack of knowledge of using the critical and functional literacies pedagogies,

which involve higher order thinking skills, such as questioning, investigating, problem-

solving, and applying knowledge (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). Hendrix-Soto and Mosley

Wetzel (2019) emphasized the importance of empowering teachers to use critical

literacies by providing them with opportunities to interact with theory and model and

practice critical literacies and providing them with a teacher education community to

support them in using critical literacies. Utilizing critical literacies within instruction

embraces the use of multiliteracies (New London Group, 1996). It is a powerful

approach to make the curriculum relevant to the students’ lives and use literacies to

empower students. This supports the idea of modifying the curriculum in teacher

education programs to focus on teaching pedagogies within the context of multiliteracies.


167

Preservice Teachers and Constructivism

Preservice teachers exhibited some of the social constructivist principles. They

explained that they would be planning lessons based on their students’ interests and

needs, specifically choosing materials from the students’ cultures and using social

artifacts to introduce texts to engage them (Schwandt, 1998). Meaning, to preservice

teachers, was constructed and facilitated by social interaction within the school culture

(Oldfather & Dahl, 1994), which is what Goodman (1986) referred to as a “dialectical

interplay of more than one mind” (p. 87). Preservice teachers said they were planning on

using interactive activities in a group form and discussion board. They indicated that they

would integrate technology, a practice more likely adopted by constructivists. Some

preservice teachers had planned on providing students with activities to engage with the

content, more specifically social activities like drama, storytelling, and demonstrations.

Few preservice teachers said they would facilitate their students’ understanding. As we

live in the 21st century, preservice teachers should somehow adopt the social

constructivist approach in their teaching and have strong content knowledge and

pedagogical content knowledge. This research revealed that preservice teachers

recognized that students construct meaning through their environment, individualities,

and realities. Literacy pedagogy was understood by the participants in the study through

social and cultural practices (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006), but it lacks the big picture

viewpoint—the theory of new literacies that involves the modalities of new literacies

(lower case theory) and the trends of new literacies (upper case theory; Leu, Kinzer,

Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2017).


168

The Ontology and Axiology of Constructivism and Pedagogy

Preservice teachers indicated in their responses that they would construct the

reality for the students based on the students’ environment and surroundings. Teachers

recognized student identities by planning and individualizing instruction, using the

cultural resources to acknowledge student identities (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006).

Preservice teachers said that they would use the different modes (audio, visual, and

spatial) of learning, which is a reflection of their beliefs that each student is unique and

has unique needs. In doing so, teachers displayed their axiology, which is their intent in

teaching. These experiences assist students in exploring a wide range of topics and

applying what they have learned (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). However, from the teachers’

responses, it was not evident what teaching methods they were planning to use or the

extent of the student involvement in planning their lessons. Preservice teachers need to

connect pedagogical content knowledge with content knowledge, which is the ability to

teach the content using the strategies most effective for the students’ level of

understanding and capability (Baumert et al., 2010; Förtsch, Werner, von Kotzebue, &

Neuhaus, 2016; Mahler, Großschedl, & Harms, 2017; Sadler, Sonnert, Coyle, Cook-

Smith, & Miller, 2013; Trobst et al., 2018). Preservice teachers’ intention shows their

willingness to use social constructivism practices and some elements of new literacies,

but it does not provide evidence of what their practices would be. This showcases the

disconnect between knowledge (theory) and practice (Borrero, Flores & De La Cruz,

2016; Risko et al., 2008; Risko & Vogt, 2016).


169

Preservice teachers’ partial knowledge of new literacies. Preservice teachers

expressed their ability to use different modes of new literacies. Some participants said

they like to use visuals, audio, or spatial tools. For example, Participant 104 expressed,

If I had complete choice on what I would read to students and teach them in a

lesson, I would read a picture book called Dear Primo: A Letter to My Cousin by Duncan Tonatiuh. In this book, there are two boys who write letters to each other

from their perspective about where they live. I feel as if I would be able to teach a

variety of skills using this book; comparing and contrasting, letter writing, or fact

and opinion. The students could translate the letters in the book into text

messages, or they could take the position of a character and record themselves

"vlogging" about where they live sharing facts and opinions. When it comes to

New Literacies in the classroom, the options are endless, so it can be hard to

choose just one idea.

The participants’ responses implied that they practiced principles of social

constructivism (Vygotsky, 2005) and incorporated some elements of new literacies in

their classrooms (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004; Leu et al., 2017). Participant

104’s response was one of the few responses in which a preservice teacher explained the

use of new literacies in the classroom. The question here is: How we can get all

preservice teachers to think and plan at the level where they integrate PCK using new

literacies to meet all their students’ needs? Perhaps, one way could be by considering the

models of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers’ preparation should include the

understanding of different subjects, subject specific PCK, area specific strategies, and

PCK strategies (Veal & MaKinster, 1999). Teachers need to feel confident using PCK

(Jang, 2011), and they need to overcome the challenge in applying what they have

learned (Gee, 1996). The main goal of the holistic PCKNL model is to facilitate the

performance of novice teachers to the level of that of experienced teachers who

demonstrate confidence and teach effectively. The PCKNL model is a model that

recognizes students’ individualities and needs. It integrates the modes of new literacies


170

(visual, audio, spatial, linguistic, and synesthesia) while using a variety of new literacies

approaches (didactic, authentic, functional and critical) that builds on the students’

schema. When teachers use PCKNL, they are able to assess and reflect on the mode and

approach they are using. This is a major step that may build the confidence of preservice

teachers when they start teaching. As research has documented, novice teachers

encounter challenges when they start teaching (Rust, 2010; Walsh, 2001). So far, there is

no evidence that suggests that models of PCK or TPACK identified in the literature so far

have addressed the approaches that teachers have needed to incorporate in the classroom.

The PCKNL answers the following questions: “So what? How can teachers take the

students to the level they need to be by making sure they are engaged and perform to

their best of their abilities?” This model intends to serve as a bridge between theory and

practice for teachers of any discipline, especially teachers being prepared to teach

literacy, and specifically, new literacies.

Preservice Teachers Have Misconceptions Between Technologies and New

Literacies

In this study, some preservice teachers (12.5%) mistakenly referred to

technologies as new literacies when they were asked how they would use new literacies

in their classroom. For example, Participant 337 said, “I would use the technological

resources to research new lessons. I can also use all of the avid techniques to make

students ready to learn.” Participant 246 stated, “I would have children each create a blog

post about the story that we read, and they would each need to comment on each other’s

appropriately.” Participant 242 reflected, “I would use new literacies by typing out a


171

lesson plan on Microsoft Word and if need some help with my ideas, I can post to

Facebook for additional ideas.” And Participant 244 explained,

I would definitely incorporate some sort of technology into the lesson. Through

SMART Board use or iPads, I believe it would help to engage the students more,

either it be playing games or activities or using digital texts for the lesson.”

Participant 242 also shared, “Students could Google slides to create a presentation. They

could create Fakebook pages for characters of a story.”

Some of the preservice teacher participants felt equipped to use technology in the

classroom, and they expressed their ability to use iPad apps, the Internet, and Microsoft

Office for instruction. This suggests that preservice teachers have the skills to support the

students, considering the technological demands for the 21st century. This teacher

centered-approach demands that preservice teachers be able to use a constructivist

approach in teaching. The social constructivist model requires students to be involved in

learning, using traditional and innovative resources (Vygotsky, 2005). However, new

technologies are part of new literacies, but they do not define new literacies. Teachers

using new literacies are expected to use various forms of text, such as electronic texts,

visual texts, and graphic literature books, and resources that may include the use of

technology. Within using new literacies, students are expected to search texts, read,

evaluate, synthesize, and communicate information (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack,

2004). Additionally, teachers are required to connect their use of materials and instruction

to modes of representation and meaning-making, which include visual, audio, spatial, and

linguistic elements, when using new literacies (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). New

technologies act as education support tools and systems of information delivery that


172

influence cultural representation and meaning making (O’Brien, Salinas, Reinhart &

Paratore, 2018). New technologies also occur through new literacies, and they are

continuously developing.

Preservice Teachers Need More Exposure to Applying the New Literacies Standards

Preservice teachers in this research study stated 18 times that they would use new

literacies if it were part of the standards. However, the term “new literacies” is nowhere

to be found in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (1997) and Common Core State

Standards. For instance, few of the standards mandated by the state of Texas require

using new literacies:

(2) Reading/Beginning Reading/Strategies. Students comprehend a variety of

texts drawing on useful strategies as needed.

3. (A) use print or digital resources to determine meaning, syllabication, and

pronunciation;

12 (B) identify techniques used in media (e.g., sound, movement)

15 (B) locate and use specific information in graphic features of text.

16 (A) compare various written conventions used for digital media (e.g., language

in an informal e-mail vs. language in a web- based news article).

16 (B) explain how various design techniques used in media influence the

message (e.g., shape, color, sound). (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, 1997)

Teachers might be more encouraged to use new literacies if they were explicitly

identified as such in the standards. Participant 136 said, “I can implement to my lessons

that connect to the state standards we are learning but also including different cultures for

students can make connections and relate to the book.” Participant 108 clarified, “I


173

would follow the state standards and practice what the students already know and work

with improving the skills that they need to work on and master before moving on to the

next standard.” Participant 25 said, “I would use them to know and understand how to

challenge students as well as bring them to the meets and masters levels of the TEKS

standards.” Participant 23 explained, “I would look at my TEKS calendar to see what

genre the students need to be reading that week, then I would search online for a book

that would be read to the students with the words also on the book.”

The teachers’ responses indicated that, perhaps, there should be a class that is

designated to help preservice teachers identify the state standards for the subject that they

plan to teach and assist teachers in identifying resources and planning lessons. This

research provides evidence of a gap in the knowledge of the standards that also reflects

the disconnect between theory and practice. It is important for teachers to learn and

practice the standards while they are in the teacher preparation programs. Draper,

Broomhead, Jensen, and Nokes (2012) reported that preservice teachers are likely to

embrace literacy instruction when their content teacher educators model similar

strategies. Kukner and Orr (2015) found that preservice teachers were at different levels

of understanding PCK in his study. In addition to embracing new literacies in PCK and

state standards, it is essential that all teacher educators have background in the literacy

pedagogical content knowledge (Love, 2009). Love (2009) noted the importance for

teachers to have LPCK. LPCK helps teachers develop literacy strategies, meet the

demands of disciplinary reading and writing, and develop understanding of how language

and other semiotic practices vary across disciplines (Fang & Pace, 2013). Literacy is the

foundation for all learning. However, the LPCK was not used as the basis for developing


174

the PCKNL because it has yet to been embraced in empirical research. Using the PCKNL

model proposed in this study based on new literacies theory in conjunction with PCK,

allows for a more inclusive model that all teachers can use regardless of subject area.

The Understanding That Integrating Student Cultural Knowledge is New Literacies

Some preservice teachers indicated in their responses that integrating new

literacies in their teaching practice means incorporating their students’ culture in the

curriculum. This was a misunderstanding that some preservice teachers disclosed.

However, there is a relationship between multicultural education and multiliteracies in

that both are based on social change (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015). The pedagogy of

multiliteracies theory is derived from the multimodal design that encourages student

interaction with text and fosters social justice by customizing instruction to all students.

The different modes of literacies (audio, visual, spatial, linguistic) and the choice of text

are used to support students’ reading and writing practices in online classes (O’Bryne &

Smith, 2015). Hendrix-Soto and Wetzel (2019) identified critical literacies approaches

that include text-based and non-text-based approaches for preservice teachers, and they

concluded that it is a powerful strategy to create curriculum based on the students’ lives.

O’Bryne and Smith (2015) encouraged incorporating multicultural education into literacy

teaching. Both multiliteracies and multicultural education aim to promote literacies by

customizing instruction, empowering student culture, emphasizing equity pedagogy, and

focusing on teachers’ dispositions (Banks, 2008). Using multimodal design and

multiliteracies design, helps struggling readers and writers (Henry, Castek, O’Byrne, &

Zawilinski, 2012). Ladson-Billings (1992) used literacies to correct stereotypes students


175

face and by using multiliteracies influenced by constructs of multimodal design that help

students to think critically (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015). As shared by Participant 22,

I will use their cultural background to select and introduce literature pieces that

will hook my students. In the future, I will be strategic to implement reading in all

content areas to give students the background knowledge they need for learning.

Participant 41 stated, “I will do my best to incorporate literature that represents all the

students in my class and their background. I would also give opportunities to make

connections between cultures.” Participant 28 expressed, “I would use literacies that

include different cultures including the cultures of my students.” Participant 47 also

conveyed,

I would search libraries for culturally relevant texts to share with my scholars that

would create direct connections to their lives. I would ensure to work in various

cultures and have students turn and talk about what they notice about the culture -

what is the same, what is different? I would look at my TEKS, find what I am

trying to teach, and locate culturally responsive texts that correlate to the TEKS.

Preservice teachers reported how they would plan curriculum that would be related to the

students’ cultures. However, it was not clear how they were going to implement it in their

classrooms. Their answers reflected the ontology and axiology of constructivism in their

teaching but did not identify the pedagogy of teaching. Using new literacies is a

significant step that will prepare teachers with “sociolinguistic complexities” in the

classrooms. Maxwell, Hilaski, and Whelan-Kim (2018) emphasized the importance of

equipping teachers with instructional strategies, learning, and knowledge of cultural

differences. Using students’ cultures in planning curriculum serves as motivation to

engage students in learning. However, new literacies is focused on assisting students in

using higher order skills, such as analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating, and communicating


176

(Leu et al., 2017), for the students to be critical thinkers and independent learners. In

using new literacies, teachers are expected to purposefully select the new literacies

activities to teach the specific content in consideration of the students they are teaching.

Conclusion

To date, it is evident that there is no clear model that preservice teachers and

inservice teachers can follow to determine their use of modes of new literacies and new

literacies approaches. The pedagogical holistic model of new literacies (PCKNL)

proposed in this research will help teachers be mindful of the modes they are using and

will help them justify the approach they are using. This will assist them in diversifying

their instruction to meet students’ needs. Using this model will help teachers reflect on

their own teaching and offer them opportunities to develop and use new strategies. Future

studies that extend this work will need to include observations of preservice teachers’

practices in conjunction with their self-reporting or they may ask preservice teachers to

provide evidence for their answers, which could be used as a guide in planning

curriculum. The results from the study could guide curriculum creation in new literacies

for preservice teachers. There is a need for reading standards established by national and

international organizations to focus on what preservice teachers need to do with new

literacies. National and international measures, like the Teaching and Learning

International Survey, can include survey items to assess how teachers use new literacies.

Scholars who practice culturally relevant theory and those who study new literacies can

begin to find a common ground that informs the practice of new literacies based on the

findings from this study.


177

Limitations

This study reflects certain limitations. First, the planned missing data method used

in survey construction and data generation did lead to a lack of coverage in the planned

missing variables, which could have led to a lack of information used to inform the

imputation algorithm. The planned missing data design used in this study had a set of

common variables shared by the three forms:

• They were demographic.

• They were teacher training questions.

• They measured the participants’ ability to use new technologies.

The questions relating to the other five constructs were divided into three groups, and

each survey was comprised of one third of the total items. The resulting missingness in

the data could be considered missing completely at random (MCAR) since its

missingness was controlled by the researcher, which is the ideal situation for modern

imputation methods (Little, 2013). However, the information in the shared block of

questions might not have been sufficiently informative to the imputation process, as

evidenced by the weaker performance of questions from Survey B and Survey C

compared to that of the questions from Survey A. The notably poor performance of these

items appears not to be present when the Survey B and Survey C are analyzed

independently. This led to the conclusion that the available shared information was not

sufficient to inform the imputation of these items in the combined data set. Other

methods of planned missing data designs may be adopted in future studies, notably the

design put forth by Little (2013), in which each of the survey forms are given two of the

blocks of questions instead of one, reducing the structural missingness from two thirds to


178

one third in each of these blocks of questions, while also allowing for overlapping of the

questions presented to participants. This would ensure more coverage of information in

the data and provide more information for imputation of these missing data.

Second, the self-reporting of teachers is a limitation. During self-reporting,

participants do not always report what they do; therefore, it is likely that their responses

may not always mirror their reality in the classroom. Future studies could determine if the

results of this study apply to a wider selection of colleges and universities, or whether

participants from other universities have different outcomes measured by the instrument

proposed in the present study. The limited sample in the current study based on data from

select colleges limits our ability to evaluate these questions.

Implications for Research

This study has revealed that there is room for preservice teachers to significantly

enhance their pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies. On the basis of the results

from this study, I recommend that education programs introduce two courses that focus

on: (a) new literacies; and (b) the pedagogies of teaching using new literacies. To bridge

this information gap, policy makers must invest in teacher preparation programs by

providing curriculum and experiences that would focus on teaching and learning new

literacies and pedagogies to enrich preservice teachers’ teaching preparation.

The PCKNL survey created can serve as an assessment for preservice teachers’

pedagogical content knowledge of new literacies. I recommend that future studies ask

preservice teachers to provide anecdotal evidence for their responses, which could be

used as a guide in planning curriculum.


179

Preservice teachers are expected to have strong content knowledge and PCK

(Shulman, 1987) to support their instructional practices decisions (Organization for

Economic Co-operation and Development, 2018). Teachers possessing content

knowledge means that they have deep understanding of the curriculum content goals

(standards), like using multimodal texts; theories of teaching; and an understanding of

child and adolescent development to know what content is suitable to present to the

students (Risko & Ried, 2019). Additionally, literacy K-12 teachers need to have

knowledge of “multiple literacies and the processes and phases of literacy and language

development” (Risko & Ried, 2019, p. 424). PCK is needed in designing and

implementing learning activities. It requires high analytical skills (Ball, Thames, &

Phelps, 2008) that teachers need to consider in evaluating their students’ needs, interests,

and the teaching environment in general before presenting any content.

We know that the teacher education programs are expected to prepare preservice

teachers. However, there is still a gap between theory and practice that requires some

changes to be made to the teacher education programs. There is evidence of a direct

relationship between teachers’ preparation, teacher learning, and teacher practice

(International Literacy Association & National Council of Teacher Education, 2017;

Risko et al., 2008). In addition to focusing on the content and pedagogical knowledge,

addressed by high quality teacher education programs, there is also a need to prepare

preservice teachers to teach the students they are going to meet in their classroom by

providing them with coursework that emphasizes language, culture, and equality (Boyd,

Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2009).

Risko and Reid (2019) reminded us,


180

As educators, we hold firm beliefs about teaching and teacher preparation. These

beliefs often expressed quite directly, as when we claim that high-quality literacy

teachers beget – high-quality literacy instruction and, by associations, the quality

of teachers depends on the quality of their preparation.

Final Thoughts

This research intends to provide insights into how to improve teacher preparation

programs that ultimately impact our student knowledge and outcomes. Both the survey

and the holistic PCK model are tools that can assist preservice teachers in consistently

assessing their knowledge and use of the PCKNL.


181

REFERENCES

Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405–1416.

Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (2006). (In)Fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76(1), 30–63.

Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1997). Beginning science teacher cognition and its origins in the preservice secondary science teacher program. The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 633–653.

Allen, J., Michalove, B., & Shockley, B. (1993). Engaging children: Community and chaos in the lives of young literacy learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Allington, R. L. (2002). You can't learn much from books you can't read. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 16–19.

Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher, 36(6), 556–561.

Alvermann, D. E. (1990). Reading teacher education. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, (pp. 687–704). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Amankwah, F., Oti-Agyen, P., & Sam, F. K. (2017). Perception of pre-service teachers' towards the teaching practice programme in college of technology education, university of education. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(4), 13–20.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A

review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–

423.

Anderson, T. (2004). Towards a theory of online learning. Theory and Practice of Online Learning, 2, 109–119.

Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to learn. Computer-supported collaborative learning (Vol. 1). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168.


182

Apau, S. K. (2016). Technological pedagogical content knowledge preparedness of student-teachers of the Department of Arts and Social Sciences Education (DASSE) of University of Cape Coast (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cape Coast).

Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656–1662.

Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). K–12 distance educators at work: Who’s teaching online across the United States. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 363–391.

Archambault, L. (2008). Using TPACK as framework for understanding effective online teaching. In K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 5190-5195). Las Vegas, NV: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 297–319.

Aydogdu, Ö., & Çelebi, N. (2017). Teacher candidates' assessment for pedagogy education: Karabuk University/Turkey sample. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(n12A), 41–47.

Ayoubi, Z. R., El Takach, S., & Rawas, M. (2017). Improving the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) among cycle 3 in-service chemistry teachers attending the training program at the faculty of education, Lebanese University. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 3(2), 196–212.

Bainbridge, K., & Chawner, B. (2012). The use of e-books in New Zealand primary schools. International Journal of Learning Technology, 7(1), 41–57.

Balajthy, E. (2007). Technology and current reading/literacy assessment strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(3), 240–247.

Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematics, (pp. 83-104). West Port, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Ball, D, L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). The subject matter preparation of teachers. East Lansing, Michigan: National Center for Research on Teacher Education.

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.


183

Ball, S. (2009). Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising

educational research: Network governance and the “competition state.” Journal of Educational Policy, 24(1), 83–99.

Banks, F., Leach, J., & Moon, B. (2005). Extract from new understandings of teachers' pedagogic knowledge. Curriculum Journal, 16(3), 331–340.

Banks, J. A. (2008). An introduction to multicultural education (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

Bartlett, T. (2012). Hybrid voices and collaborative change: Contextualising positive discourse analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.

Baumann, F. J., & Bason, J. J., (2011). Survey research. In N. K. Duke, & M. K. Mallette (Eds.). Literacy research methodologies (2nd ed., pp. 404–426). Spring Street, NY: Guilford Press.

Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., . . . & Tsai, Y. M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.

Beach, R., & Doerr-Stevens, C. (2011). Using social networking for online role-plays to develop students' argumentative strategies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(2), 165–181.

Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review Of Educational Research, 71(2), 171–217.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. C. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

Betts, E. A. (1934). A physiological approach to the analysis of reading disabilities. Educational Research Bulletin, 13(6), 135–140.

Beyer, L. E. (2001). The value of critical perspectives in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 151–163.

Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141–163.

Bloome, D. (1986). Reading as a social process in a middle school classroom. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 123–149). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.


184

Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 473–498.

Borrero, N. E., Flores, E., & De La Cruz, G. (2016). Developing and enacting culturally relevant pedagogy: Voices of new teachers of color. Equity & Excellence in Education, 49(1), 27–40.

Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440.

Boydston, J. A. (2008). The middle works, 1899–1924: John Dewey (Vol. 9) 1916 Democracy and education. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Bruce, D. L., & Chiu, M. M. (2015). Composing with new technology: Teacher reflections on learning digital video. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(3), 272–287.

Brun, M., & Hinostroza, J. E. (2014). Learning to become a teacher in the 21st century: ICT integration in Initial Teacher Education in Chile. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 222–238.

Bucat, R. (2005). Implications of chemistry education research for teaching practice: Pedagogical content knowledge as a way forward. Chemistry Education International, 6(1), 1–2.

Burnett, B. (2011). ICT for blended learning Queensland University of Technology, Australia. In ICT for higher education case studies from Asia and the Pacific (pp. 78–102). Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO.

Bussi, M. B., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 746–783), New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cardoso, S. (2018). New technologies, multiple literacies and teaching english as a foreign language. e-TEALS, 8(1), 1–26.

Carter, R. T. (1990). The relationship between racism and racial identity among white Americans: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69(1), 46–50.

Cash, A. H., Cabell, S. Q., Hamre, B. K., DeCoster, J., & Pianta, R. C. (2015). Relating prekindergarten teacher beliefs and knowledge to children's language and literacy development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48, 97–105.


185

Cervetti, G., Damico, J., & Pearson, P. D. (2006). Multiple literacies, new literacies, and teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 45(4), 378–386.

Chai, C. S., Hwee Ling Koh, J., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2).

Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers' development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63–73.

Cochran, K. F., King R. A. & De Ruiter, J. A. (1993) Pedagogical content knowledge: An Integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263–272.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2003a). Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 5–28.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2003b). The multiple meanings of multicultural teacher education: A conceptual framework. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(2), 7–26.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Surveys, longitudinal, cross-sectional and trend studies. Research Methods in Education (7th ed., pp. 261–264). New York, NY: Routledge.

Coiro, J. (2003). Exploring literacy on the internet: Reading comprehension on the internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 458–464.

Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257.

Connelly, F. M., Clandinin, D. J., & He, M. F. (1997). Teachers' personal practical knowledge on the professional knowledge landscape. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(7), 665–674.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164–195.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). The things you do to know: An introduction to the pedagogy of multiliteracies. In B. Cope, & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design (pp. 1–36). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.


186

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA. SAGE.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: SAGE.

Cruickshank, D. R. (1996). Preparing America’s teachers. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Educational Foundation.

Cuhadar, C. (2018). Investigation of pre-service teachers' levels of readiness to

technology integration in education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 9(1),

61–75.

Daniel, M. C. (2008). Helping English language learners: Preparing teachers to promote critical thinking and language acquisition. In M. M. Foote, F. Falk-Ross, S. Szabo, & M. B. Sampson (Eds.), Navigating the literacy waters: Research, praxis, and advocacy. The twenty-ninth yearbook (pp. 123–132). Logan UT: The College Reading Association.

Daniels, H. (2016). Vygotsky and pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. Orr. MT, & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs, 27.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2007). Preparing teachers for a

changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. John Wiley & Sons.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006a). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of

Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006b). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L., Burns, D., Campbell, C., Goodwin, A. L., & Low, E. L. (2018). International lessons in teacher education. In M. Akiba, & G. K. LeTendre (Eds.), International handbook of teacher quality and policy, (pp. 336–349). New York, NY: Routledge.

Davies, B. (1994). On the neglect of pedagogy in educational studies and its consequences. Journal of In-Service Education, 20(1), 17–34.

De Jong, J., & Rizvi, G. (Eds.). (2009). The state of access: Success and failure of democracies to create equal opportunities. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.


187

De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design:

Some food for thought. Instructional science, 38(2), 105–134.

Deng, F., Chai, C. S., So, H. J., Qian, Y., & Chen, L. (2017). Examining the validity of the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework for preservice chemistry teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 1–14.

Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 12–25.

Derry, S. J. (1999). A fish called peer learning: Searching for common themes. Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning, 9(1), 197–211.

Deschaine, M. E., & Sharma, S. A. (2015). The five Cs of digital curation: Supporting twenty-first century teaching and learning. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 10, 19–24.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2016). Internet, phone, mail and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed., pp. 161–176). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Doering, A., Scharber, C., Miller, C., & Veletsianos, G. (2009). GeoThentic: Designing and assessing with technological pedagogical content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 316–336.

Dolch, E. W. (1936). A basic sight of vocabulary. The Elementary School Journal, 36(6), 456–460.

Draper, R. J., Broomhead, P., Jensen, A. P., & Nokes, J. D. (2012). (Re)imagining literacy and teacher preparation through collaboration. Reading Psychology, 33, 367–398.

Dredger, K., Woods, D., Beach, C., & Sagstetter, V. (2010). Engage me: Using new literacies to create third space classrooms that engage student writers. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 2(2), 85–101.

Dreher, M. J., & Singer, H. (1981). The validity of the instantiation hypothesis. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13(3), 223–235.

Duffy, G. G. (1983). First in a series-factors related to reading performance from turn taking to sense making broadening the concept of reading teacher effectiveness. The Journal of Educational Research, 76(3), 134–139.


188

Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension Instruction? Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481–533.

Eisenbach, B. B. (2012). Teacher belief and practice in a scripted curriculum. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 85(4),

153–156.

Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford press.

Fang, Z., & Pace, B. G. (2013). Teaching with challenging texts in the disciplines: Text complexity and close reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(2), 104–108.

Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M. J., & Moore, J. (2014). The linguistic challenges of learning across academic disciplines. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & G. P. Wallace (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (2nd ed., pp. 302–322). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Fernández, C. (2014). Knowledge base for teaching and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Some useful models and implications for teachers' training. Problems of Education in the 21st Century (Vol. 60). Retrieved from http://oaji.net/articles/2015/457-1421876658.pdf

Fernández-Balboa, J. M., & Stiehl, J. (1995). The generic nature of pedagogical content knowledge among college professors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 293–306.

Finger, G. Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Albion, P. (2010). Beyond pedagogical content knowledge: The importance of TPACK for informing preservice teacher education in Australia. In IFIP International Conference on Key Competencies in the Knowledge Society (Vol. 324, pp. 114–125). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). Motivating boys to read: Inquiry, modeling, and choice matter. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(7), 587–596.

Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2018). Preparing preservice teachers in transform education with information and communication technologies. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & L. Kwok-Wing (Eds.), Second handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Förtsch, C., Werner, S., von Kotzebue, L., & Neuhaus, B. J. (2016). Effects of biology teachers’ professional knowledge and cognitive activation on students’ achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 38(17), 2642–2666.


189

Garba, S. A., & Alademerin, C. A. (2014). Exploring the readiness of Nigerian Colleges of Education toward pre-service teacher preparation for technology integration. International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education, 3(2), 335–343.

Gee, C. J. (1996). Preservice elementary teachers: Their science content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

Geiser, C. (2012). Data analysis with Mplus. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Gelfuso, A. (2017). Facilitating the development of preservice teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of literacy and agentic identities: Examining a teacher educator's intentional language choices during video-mediated reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 33–46.

Gelfuso, A., & Dennis, D. V. (2017). Reproducing figured worlds of literacy teaching and learning: Examining the “language-in-use” of an inservice and preservice teacher as they enact the practice of literacy planning. Action in Teacher Education, 39(1), 67–84.

Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1993). Preservice biology teachers' knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education: A year-long assessment. Science Education, 77(1), 25–45.

Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. (2019). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 41(7), 944–963.

Gillette, M. D., & Schultz, B. D. (2008). Do you see what I see? Teacher capacity as vision for education in a democracy. In M. Cothran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education. Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 231–237). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Gischlar, K. L., & Vesay, J. P. (2018). Literacy curricula and assessment: A survey of early childhood educators in two states. Reading Improvement, 55(3), 106–117.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theorethical sensitivity. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12, 436–445.


190

Goodman, N. (1986). Mathematics as an objective science. In T. Tymoczko (Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of mathematics: An anthology (Rev. and expanded ed., pp. 79–94). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Graham, J. W., Taylor, B. J., Olchowski, A. E., & Cumsille, P. E. (2006). Planned missing data designs in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 11(4), 323–343.

Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58.

Gray, L., Tale, S., & O’Rear, I. (2015). Public school teacher attrition and mobility in the first five years: Results from the first through fifth waves of the 2007-08 beginning teacher longitudinal study (Report No. 2015-337). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205.

Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Jr., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2011). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Guerriero, S. (2017). Teachers' pedagogical knowledge: What it is and how it functions. In S. Guerriero (Ed.), Pedagogical knowledge and the changing nature of the teaching profession (pp. 99–118). Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Publishing.

Haid, L. K. (2006). A preliminary look at the effect of a change in pre-service literacy

curricula on the pedagogical content knowledge of literacy and theoretical

orientation to reading of teacher candidates. In P. E. Linder, M. B. Sampson, J. R.

Dugan, & B. Brancato (Eds.), Building bridges to literacy. The twenty-seventh yearbook. A peer reviewed publication of The College Reading Association (pp.

115–134). Bryan, TX: The College Reading Association.

Hart, S. L. (1971). Axiology--theory of values. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 32(1), 29–41.

Halim, L., & Meerah, S. M. M. (2002). Science trainee teachers' pedagogical content knowledge and its influence on physics teaching. Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(2), 215–225.


191

Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390–441). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment rubric. In C. D. Maddux, D. Gibson, & B. Dodge (Eds.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2010 (pp. 323–331). Chesapeake, VA: Society for

Hendrix-Soto, A., & Mosley Wetzel, M. (2019). A review of critical literacies in preservice teacher education: Pedagogies, shifts, and barriers. Teaching Education, 30(2), 200–216.

Henry, L. A., Castek, J., O'Byrne, W. I., & Zawilinski, L. (2012). Using peer

collaboration to support online reading, writing, and communication: An empowerment model for struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28(3), 279–306.

Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content

knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers' topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.

Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.

Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11–30.

Hofer, M., & Swan, K. O. (2008). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in action: A case study of a middle school digital documentary project. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 179–200.

Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools of education (Report No. 399 220). East

Lansing, MI: Rockefeller Foundation.

Howard, T. C., & Aleman, G. R. (2008). Teacher capacity for diverse learners: What do teachers need to know. Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: Enduring Questions in Changing Contexts, 3, 157–174.

Hruby, G. G. (2001). Sociological, postmodern, and new realism perspectives in social constructionism: Implications for literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 48–62.


192

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. London: The Macmillan Company.

Jang, S. J. (2011). Assessing college students’ perceptions of a case teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge using a newly developed instrument. Higher Education, 61(6), 663–678.

Jang, S. J., & Chang, Y. (2016). Exploring the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) of Taiwanese university physics instructors. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 107–122.

Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409–426.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. SPSS.

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2008). Language education and multiliteracies. In S. May, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 1; 195–211). New York, NY: Springer.

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). New learning: Elements of a science of education.

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., Chan, E., & Dalley-Trim, L. (2016). Literacies. Port Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.

Karchmer-Klein, R., & Shinas, V. H. (2012). Guiding principles for supporting new literacies in your classroom. The Reading Teacher, 65(5), 288–293.

Kellner, D. (2000). New technologies/new literacies: Reconstructing education for the new millennium. Teaching Education, 11(3), 245–265.

Kennedy, M. M., Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1993). A study package for examining and tracking changes in teachers' knowledge. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education, Michigan State University.

Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and

potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204.

Kleickmann, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., Elsner, J., Besser, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2013). Teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: The


193

role of structural differences in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 90–106.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).

New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Koballa, T. R., Jr., Gräber, W., Coleman, D., & Kemp, A. C. (1999). Prospective teachers' conceptions of the knowledge base for teaching chemistry at the German gymnasium. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(4), 269-286.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.

Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, M., & Jordan, A. (2008). Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 716–725.

Kukner, J., & Orr, A. (2015). Inquiring into pre-service content area teachers’ development of literacy practices and pedagogical content knowledge. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 41–60.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into practice, 34(3), 159–165.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). Blogging as participation: The active sociality of a

new literacy. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social Learning (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lau, W. W. (2018). Relationships between pre-service teachers’ social media usage in informal settings and technological pedagogical content knowledge. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(12). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/21a9/755f0506746cdba883f9d72dccd94ec135ad.pdf


194

Lederman, N. G., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz, M. S. (1994). The nature and development of preservice science teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 129–146.

Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 5(1), 1570–1613.

Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2017). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Education, 197(2), 1–18.

Leu, D. J., & Zawilinski, L. (2007). The new literacies of online reading comprehension. New England Reading Association Journal, 43(1), 1–7.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Education Schools

Project.

Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Schools

Project.

Li, G. (2017). From absence to affordances: Integrating old and new literacies in school-based instruction for English learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61(3), 241–246.

Lin, T. C., Tsai, C. C., Chai, C. S., & Lee, M. H. (2013). Identifying science teachers’ Perceptions of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), 325–336.

Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Little, T. D., Slegers, D. W., & Card, N. A. (2006). A non-arbitrary method of identifying

and scaling latent variables in SEM and MACS models. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(1), 59–72.

Liu, Q., Zhang, S., & Wang, Q. (2015). Surveying Chinese in-service K12 teachers’ technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(1), 55–74.

Loos, E., Ivan, L., & Leu, D. (2018). “Save the Pacific Northwest tree octopus”: A hoax revisited. Or: How vulnerable are school children to fake news? Information and Learning Science, 119(9/10), 514–528.


195

Love, K. (2009). Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in secondary teacher education: Reflecting on oral language and learning across the disciplines. Language and Education, 23(6), 541–560.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.

Maher, F. A., & Tetreault, M.K.T. (1994). The feminist classroom. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Mahler, D., Großschedl, J., & Harms, U. (2017). Using doubly latent multilevel analysis to elucidate relationships between science teachers’ professional knowledge and students’ performance. International Journal of Science Education, 39(2), 213–237.

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of

pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.

G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer

Academic.

MacIver, M. A., Vaughn, E. S., & Katz, G. (2005). A teacher for every classroom: New

teachers in Baltimore County Public Schools, 1999–2004. Baltimore, MD: The

Abell Foundation.

Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3–11.

Matthews, D. B. (1994). An investigation of students' learning styles in various disciplines in colleges and universities. The Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 33(2), 65–74.

Maxwell, N., Hilaski, D., & Whelan-Kim, K. (2018). Enhancing teacher education through field-based literacy laboratories. The Reading Professor, 41(1), 23–29.

McArdle, J. J., & McDonald, R. P. (1984). Some algebraic properties of the reticular action model for moment structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37(2), 234–251.

McCloskey, M. L. (2002). No Child Left Behind. TESOL Matters, 12(4), 1–2.

Mckenna, M.C., & Robinson, R.D. (1990). Content literacy: a definition and implications. Journal of Reading, 34, 184-186.

McMahon, M. (1997, December). Social constructivism and the World Wide Web-A paradigm for learning. In ASCILITE conference, Perth, Australia.


196

Metz, M. (2018). Pedagogical content knowledge for teaching critical language

awareness: The importance of valuing student knowledge. Urban Education,

doi:10.1177/0042085918756714

Miller, S. M. (2015). Teacher learning for new times: Repurposing new multimodal literacies and digital-video composing for schools. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (Vol. 2, 441–453). New York, NY: Routledge.

Miles, R., & Knipe, S. (2018). “I sorta felt like I was out in the middle of the ocean”: Novice teachers’ transition to the classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(6), 105–121. doi:10.14221/ajte.2018v43n6.7

Milner, H. R. (2003). Reflection, racial competence, and critical pedagogy: How do we prepare pre-service teachers to pose tough questions? Race, Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 193–208.

Miltiadou, M., & Savenye, W. C. (2003). Applying social cognitive constructs of motivation to enhance student success in online distance education. Association for the Advancement in Computing in Education Journal, 11(1), 78–95.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2214–2226). San Antonio, TX: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Monk, D. H., & King, J. A. (1994). Multilevel teacher resource effects in pupil performance in secondary mathematics and science: The case of teacher subject matter preparation. Choices and Consequences: Contemporary Policy Issues in Education, 29–58.

Moss, B., & Lapp, D. (2010). Teaching new literacies in grades 4-6: Resources for 21st-century classrooms (Vol. 1). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2005). Growing the tree of teacher knowledge: Ten years of learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 767–790.

Muthén, B. & Muthén, L. (1998–2010). Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles, CA: Authors.


197

Nathanson, S., Pruslow, J., & Levitt, R. (2008). The reading habits and literacy attitudes of inservice and prospective teachers: Results of a questionnaire survey. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 313–321.

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93.

Niess, M. L. (2015). Transforming teachers’ knowledge: Learning trajectories for advancing teacher education for teaching with technology. In C. Angeli, & N. Valanides (Eds.), Technological pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 19–37). New York, NY: Springer.

Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming teacher education for a new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 180–187.

O’Brien, L. M., Salinas, A., Reinhart, K. C., & Paratore, J. R. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ use of multimodal text sets and technology in teaching reading: Lessons learned from a design-based study. In E. Ortlieb , E. H. Cheek, Jr., & P. Semingson (Eds.), Best practices in teaching digital literacies (Vol. 9, pp. 123–136). Bingley, WA, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.

O'Byrne, W. I., & Smith, S. A. (2015). Multicultural education and multiliteracies:

Exploration and exposure of literacy practices with preservice teachers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(2), 168–184.

Oldfather, P., & Dahl, K. (1994). Toward a social constructivist reconceptualization of intrinsic motivation for literacy learning. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(2), 139–158.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). Teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and the teaching profession: Background report and project objectives. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved

from http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/Background_document_to_Symposium

_ITEL-FINAL.pdf

Otterborn, A., Schönborn, K., & Hultén, M. (2018). Surveying preschool teachers’ use of digital tablets: General and technology education related findings. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1–21. doi:10.1007/s10798-018-9469-9

Parker, W. R. (1987). Navigating the unity/diversity tension in education. Social Studies, 88(1), 12–18.

Paul, J. L. (2005). Introduction to the philosophies of research and criticism in education and the social sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.


198

Pearson, P. D. (2005). Changing the face of reading comprehension instruction. In R. B. Robinson (Ed.), Reading instruction (pp. 100–113). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York, NY: Grossman Publishers.

Picton, I. (2019). Teachers’ use of technology to support literacy in 2018. London: The National Literacy Trust.

Potts, A., Schlichting, K., Pridgen, A., & Hatch, J. (2010). Understanding new literacies for new times: Pedagogy in action. International Journal of Learning, 17(8), 187–194.

Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241–250.

Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354–395.

Prawat, R. S., & Floden, R. E. (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 37–48.

Risko, V. J. (2017). Professional learning, instructional shifts, and missed opportunities. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 5(1), 3–9.

Risko, V. J., & Reid, L. (2019). What really matters for literacy teacher preparation? The Reading Teacher, 72(4), 423–429.

Risko, V. J., Roller, C. M., Cummins, C., Bean, R. M., Block, C. C., Anders, P. L., & Flood, J. (2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 252–288.

Risko, V. J., & Vogt, M. E. (2016). Professional learning in action: An inquiry approach for teachers of literacy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Robinson, R. (2005). Readings in reading instruction: Its history, theory, and development. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 31–47.

Romine, B. G., McKenna, M. C., & Robinson, R. D. (1996). Reading coursework requirements for middle and high school content area teachers: A U.S. survey. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(3), 194–198.


199

Roy-Campbell, Z. M. (2013). Who educates teacher educators about English language learners? Reading Horizons, 52(3), 255–280.

Rowsell, J., & Walsh, M. (2011). Rethinking literacy education in new times: Multimodality, multiliteracies & new literacies. Brock Education, 21(1), 53–62.

Rust, F. O. (2010). Shaping new models for teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(2), 5–18.

Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H. P., Cook-Smith, N., & Miller, J. L. (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1020–1049.

Saltan, F., & Arslan, K. (2017). A comparison of in-service and pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge self-confidence. Cogent Education, 4(1), doi:10.1080/2331186X.2017.1311501

Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177.

Scheuren, F. (2004). What is a survey? Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.

Schneider, R. M., & Plasman, K. (2011). Science teacher learning progressions: A review of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge development. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 530–565.

Schuman, L. (1996). Perspectives on instruction. Retrieved from http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec540/Perspectives/Perspectives.html

Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Schwandt, T. A. (1998). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 118–137). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455–498.


200

Shepherd, R., & Goggin, P. (2012). Reclaiming “old” literacies in the new literacy information age: The functional literacies of the mediated workstation. Composition Studies, 40(2), 66–91.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.

Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Silverman, S. K. (2010). What is diversity? An inquiry into preservice teacher beliefs. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 292–329.

Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D., . . . & Brunkhorst, H. (1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 930–954.

Sipe, R. L. (2005). Invention, convention, and intervention: Invented spelling and the teacher’s role. In R. B. Robinson (Eds.), Reading instruction (pp. 133–143). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Smith, L. R. (1985). The effect of lesson structure and cognitive level of questions on student achievement. The Journal of Experimental Education, 54(1), 44–49.

Smolin, L. I., & Lawless, K. A. (2003). Becoming literate in the technological age: New responsibilities and tools for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 56(6), 570–577.

Spear-Swerling, L., & Cheesman, E. (2012). Teachers’ knowledge base for implementing response-to-intervention models in reading. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1691–1723.

Spires, H. A., Paul, C. M., & Kerkhoff, S. N. (2019). Digital literacy for the 21st century. In Advanced methodologies and technologies in library science, information management, and scholarly inquiry (pp. 12–21). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Stanford, B., & Reeves, S. (2009). Making it happen: Using differentiated instruction, retrofit framework, and universal design for learning. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 5(6). Retrieved from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol5/iss6/art4

Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893–898.

Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Annual Spring Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.


201

Stone, J. E. (1996). Developmentalism: An obscure but pervasive restriction on educational improvement. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 4. http://olam.ed.as

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An Overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). London: SAGE.

Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Street, B. (1997). The implications of the “new literacy studies” for literacy education. English in Education, 31(3), 45–59.

Stürmer, K., & Seidel, T. (2015). Assessing professional vision in teacher candidates. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(1), 54–63.

Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the literacy Web: Changes in reading from page to screen. The Reading Teacher, 55(7), 662–669.

Swenson, J., Young, C. A., McGrail, E., Rozema, R., & Whitin P. (2006). Extending the conversation: New technologies, new literacies, and English education. English Education, 38(4), 349–367.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New

York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.

Taffe, S. W., & Bauer, L. B. (2013). Digital literacy. In B. M. Taylor, & N. K. Duke (Eds.), Handbook of effective literacy instruction: Research-based practice K-8 (pp. 162–188). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 99–110.

Teo, T. (2015). Comparing pre-service and in-service teachers' acceptance of technology: Assessment of measurement invariance and latent mean differences. Computers & Education, 83, 22–31.

Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. (1997). Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Thibaut, P. (2015). Social network sites with learning purposes: Exploring new spaces for literacy and learning in the primary classroom. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 38(2), 83–94.

Thorndike, E. L. (1917). Reading as reasoning: A study of mistakes in paragraph reading. Journal of Educational psychology, 8(6), 323–332.


202

Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Differentiating instruction. In T. L. Jetton, & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent Literacy Research and Practice (pp. 228–248. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Tröbst, S., Kleickmann, T., Heinze, A., Bernholt, A., Rink, R., & Kunter, M. (2018). Teacher knowledge experiment: Testing mechanisms underlying the formation of preservice elementary school teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge concerning fractions and fractional arithmetic. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(8), 1049–1065.

Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10.

Van Buuren, S., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2011). MICE: Multivariate imputation by chained equations. Research Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.457.6695&rep=rep1&t

ype=pdf

Van Driel, J. H., Jong, O. D., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86(4), 572–590.

Van Dijk, E. M., & Kattmann, U. (2007). A research model for the study of science teachers’ PCK and improving teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 885–897.Virginia Wesleyan University. (n.d.). Pre-service teaching at VWU. Retrieved from https://www.vwu.edu/academics/majors/education/field-experiences/preservice-teaching.php

Veal, W. R., & MaKinster, J. G. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies.

Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(4). Retrieved from

http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/vealmak.html

Virginia Wesleyan University. (n.d.). Pre-service teaching at VWU. Retrieved from

https://www.vwu.edu/academics/majors/education/field-experiences/preservice-

teaching.php

Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Roblin, N. P., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge—A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121.

Vygotsky, L. (2005). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Gauvain, & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (4th ed., pp. 34–41). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.


203

Walsh, K. (2001). Teacher certification reconsidered: Stumbling for quality. Baltimore,

MD: Abell Foundation.

Wheaton, B., Muthén, B., Alwin, D., F., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing reliability and

stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8, 84–136.

Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 different ways of knowing:

Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers ́ thinking (pp. 104–124). London: Cassell Educational.

Yi, Y., & Angay-Crowder, T. (2016). Multimodal pedagogies for teacher education in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 988–99.

Zeichner, K. M. (1988). Understanding the character and quality of the academic and professional components of teacher education (Research Report 88–1). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED301537.pdf

Zhang, L., Beach, R., & Sheng, Y. (2016). Understanding the use of online role-play for collaborative argument through teacher experiencing: a case study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(3), 242–256.


204

APPENDICES

Appendix A

IRB Approval


205

Appendix B

A Survey on Pre-service Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge of New Literacies

Thank you for taking time to complete this questionnaire. Please answer each question to

the best of your knowledge. Your thoughtfulness and candid responses will be greatly

appreciated. Your individual name or identification number will not at any time be

associated with your responses. Your responses will be kept completely confidential.

1. Are you a preservice teacher?

a. Yes

b. No

2. Major:

a. Early Childhood Education

b. Elementary Education

c. Secondary Education

d. Adult Education

e. Other: _________________

3. Area of Teaching Specialization

a. Art Education

b. Business Education

c. English Education

d. Foreign Language Education

e. Gifted & Talented Ed.

f. Health & Physical Education

g. History Education

h. Instructional Technology

i. Literacy

j. Math Education

k. Music Education

l. Reading

m. School Administration

n. School Counseling

o. Special Education

p. TESOL/ESL/Bilingual

q. Vocational Education

r. Writing

s. Other: ____________________________

4. Year in College:

a. Freshman

b. Sophomore

c. Junior

d. Senior


206

5. Are you currently enrolled or have you completed a pretectum experience in

PreK-12 classroom?

a. Yes

b. No

6. Have you taken at least one literacy course?

- If yes, specify the semester and year completed? (Example, Spring 2019)

_________________________________

- If no, in what future semester and year do you plan to complete it? (Example,

Spring 2019)

_________________________________

- N/A

7. Have you been part of a field experience where you worked in a classroom with a

cooperating teacher on literacy?

- If yes, specify the semester and year completed? (Example, Fall 2018)

___________________________________


Fall 2019)

____________________________________

- N/A

8. Have you been enrolled in a literacy course where you practiced student teaching?

- If yes, specify the semester and year completed? (Example, Spring 2018).


Fall 2019)

9. Which grade levels are you planning to teach?

a. Primary

b. Middle

c. Secondary

d. High School

e. I don’t know, have not decided


207

Imagine how you will organize your own future classroom to help your teaching as you read each of the following survey statements. Please answer all the questions, and if you are uncertain or neutral about your response you may select “neither agree or disagree”

To guide student thinking and learning in literacy: Strongly Disagree Disagree

Neither Agree/

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

1. I can provide students with a list of prefixes and suffixes, along with their respective meanings, to guide them in decoding words.

2. I can select effective teaching approaches to engage students in analyzing multiple texts to personalize learning.

3. I can teach students which verbs take direct objects.

4. I can demonstrate for students how to categorize information.

5. I can select effective teaching approaches to help students evaluate and synthesize information using a rubric.

6. I can select effective teaching approaches to guide the development of students’ mechanical skills for adaptive instruction.

7. I can encourage students’ group collaboration and give constructive feedback to each other using a rubric.

8. I can select effective teaching approaches like students giving constructive feedback to each other to develop student problem-solving skills.


208



Neither Agree/


1. I can help my students understand the content I am teaching by using intentional gestures and body movements.

2. I can help students understand the meaning of words using their five senses.

3. I encourage collaboration (group work) among students in the classroom.


209



Neither Agree/


1. I use graphs to organize information relevant to students to promote student thinking and learning.

2. I use different teaching approaches and interactive texts (texts that include visuals and interactive activities) to guide student thinking and learning.

3. I use different technologies in teaching to guide student thinking and learning in teaching my subject.


210



Neither Agree/


1. I can guide student understanding by asking them to demonstrate what they learned using theater and music.

2. I use different literacy practices that involve generating, communicating, or negotiating meanings audibly (singing, dialogue, monologue).


211



Neither Agree/


1. I create a personalized space (names, posters of student interests, pictures) for each student to support their learning.

2. I ask students to describe the classroom space in writing.

3. I ask students to communicate the importance of our country’s geographic place in relation to the world.


212



Neither Agree/


1. I can assess student learning using combinations of different texts (graphic novels, digital stories, primary source documents, advertisement, or electronic texts).

2. I can help students make connections between words and images using visuals and audio tools.

3. I can support students in exploring texts using a combination of different perspective, coherent geographic meaning or bodily movements.

4. I can encourage students to use a combination of visuals, sound effects, music, language or body language to demonstrate concepts they learned in groups.

5. I can help students use different discourses (visuals, sound effects, music, language or body language) to formulate arguments and build alliances.


213

Open Ended Question You are asked to teach a reading/literacy/English arts class for the grade level you teach that include students from different cultural and variety reading experiences. Based on your practice or future application: How would you use New Literacies to choose a topic of your choice? To what extent are you capable of using the following technologies? Where 0 = not at all capable and 6= extremely capable

a. Computer in general b. Computer for instruction c. Social media such as Twitter, Facebook d. Blogging and creating wikis e. Printing scanners, digital cameras, projectors, and smart boards for instruction f. Learning management system as a teacher g. Learning management system as a student

Gender:

a. Female b. Male c. Prefer not to answer

Age (in years): ___________________ Is English your first language?

a. Yes b. No

Country of Origin: ________________ What is your cultural background?

a. American b. Asian c. Arab d. Caribbean e. European f. Mexican g. Latin American

Have you taught in the United States?

a. If yes, for how long? Year(y) or month (m) (example 1year or 12m) ________________________

b. No


214

Region of residence in the United States a. Northeast b. Midwest c. South d. West e. n/a

Name of your University: _____________________________________ Are you completing an educational computing minor?

a. Yes b. No


215

Appendix C

Email to Participants

Dear Members of the Oakland University Community, Hello! My name is Tala Karkar Esperat and I am a Doctoral Candidate focused on literacy in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Texas Tech University. I am reaching out to ask for your support in distributing my dissertation survey to pre-service teachers. Your support will help me to prepare teachers to use literacy in the 21st century. This survey research has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at Texas Tech University [IRB 2018-1096]. Here is the link to the survey:

https://educttu.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0NiLG7tkCNcKZ8N

assessing preservice teachers' knowledge of new literacies by

Documents