This page is referenced by:

• 1 2020-04-15T17:11:55+00:00 Theoretical Frameworks 16 This is a page in the literature review that outlines theoretical frameworks - ontology and epistemology. plain 2020-05-04T21:38:15+00:00      A theoretical framework identifies a researcher's worldview, from the heart, not the head, and impacts every decision made in the unfolding of the research (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). The choice of research theory needs to be explicitly and clearly stated (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). My PhD research is grounded in the theoretical foundations of socio-cultural constructivist theories of learning originating from Dewey, Vygotsky, and Papert (Dewey, 1916; Lowenthal & Muth, 2009; Papert & Harel, 1991; Roth & Lee, 2007) and critical literacies (Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2010; Luke, 2012). My “constructivist paradigm assumes a relativist ontology (there are multiple realities), a subjectivist epistemology (knower and respondent co-create understandings)” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2013), and framed by conceptions of shared and collaborative practice within networked and participatory cultures (Gee, 2015; Ito et al., 2010).
       This research will apply an interpretive framework from a constructivist-interpretive and critical paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). The interpretive researcher is described as a bricoleur (Denzin, 2017; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011), informed by "personal history, biography, gender, social class, race, and ethnicity and those of the people in the setting"; one who "stitches, edits, and puts slices of reality together” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p. 5). I push this notion of researcher as bricoleur by suggesting this interpretivist research as a crystallization accomplished by an alchemist, mixing elements into something precious and worthy of recognition (Stewart et al., 2017). I will explore this notion of crystallization in other sections of this literature review.
       The theory of connectivism (Siemens, 2018) will be explicated within this research. Connectivism relates to the role of cognition when generating connections and networks, both internally and externally to the human brain. Siemens (2012) set out the principles of connectivism as a “response to a perceived increasing need to derive and express meaning, and gain and share knowledge. This is pro­moted through externalisation and the recognition and interpretation of patterns, which are shaped by complex networks” (Tschofen & Mackness, 2012, p. 125). The four key principles of connectivism – autonomy, connectedness, diversity, and openness – (Siemens, 2012; Tschofen & Mackness, 2012) are supported by emerging technologies that are shaping human cognition in the way we “create, store, and distribute knowledge” (Couros, 2010, p. 114). For this research, the cognitive processes within the connectivist structures of teacher educators will be explored in the stories of their lived experiences as they navigate and make sense of complex MDL and OEPr amalgamations.
       This research is positioned within the cognition and learning field of study. I am interested in exploring the inner and outer cognitive landscapes of the human mind in relationship with others and technologies, as mediated by MDL within OEPr. Research into the cognitive theory of multimedia learning focuses on the demands on cognitive processing and the retrieval of information from long term memory. Working memory (WM), particularly our cognitive ability to manage multimedia information within complex teaching and learning environments, can impact MDL and OEPr. WM processes are described as essential, extraneous, and generative (Mayer, 2017). There are specific cognitive demands placed on teacher educators when using multimedia and exploring MDL. Multimedia is holistically defined by de Vries (2003) as “the influence of different symbol systems” presented concurrently or consecutively using text, pictures, sound, and animation (p. 157). Conceptions from the theory of connectivism, cognitive load theory (van Merrienboer & Sweller, 2005), and socio-cultural cognition (Kirschner et al., 2018) impact teacher educators as they engage with MDL to enact their OEPr. 
       This research is influenced by the philosophy of technology and material engagement theory (Ihde, 2011; Ihde & Malafouris, 2019) to better understand the human–technology relationship. Since the "larger overarching social, cultural, and political frameworks in which people partake and that may be said to vary on a scale from ‘left,’ e.g., (neo-)Marxist to ‘right,’ e.g., (neo)liberal" (Van Den Eede et al., 2015, p. 239) impacts how OEPr and MDL are perceived. I recognize that the everyday use of technology in education does not take place in a vacuum (VanDenEede et al., 2015). My interest lies in understanding the individual and socially negotiated actions that lead to a TEd's enacted OEPr and where this is influenced by MDL considerations.
  
   
• 1 2020-04-17T18:37:15+00:00 Literacies: Untangling a Concept 14 This is a subsection of the literature review and also a standalone page describing the complexity of the literacy concept. plain 2020-05-04T20:31:32+00:00      Surrounding these definitions of media and digital literacies there exists a veritable Pandora’s box of literacy terminology (Belshaw, 2012) including transliteracies (Sukovic 2016), cosmopolitan literacy (Zaidi & Rowsell, 2017), cultural literacies (Halpert & Chigeza, 2015), place based literacies (Harwood & Collier, 2017; Mills & Comber, 2013); artefactual literacies (Pahl & Rowsell, 2011); information communication literacies (Forkosh-Baruch & Avidov-Ungar, 2019; Horton, 2008); internet or web literacies; technological literacy; multiliteracies (New London Group, 1996); multimodal; multicultural; visual literacy (Collier 2018), transmedia literacies (Jenkins 2010), and re/mix literacies (Hoechsmann, 2019). While this literature review does not specifically examine this tangle of terminologies, they are mentioned here to acknowledge the confusion and recognize potential misconceptions resulting from the conflation of terminology (Belshaw, 2012; Spante et al. 2018).
       As a reflection of critical theoretical frameworks, my research is influenced by conceptions of critical literacies that are “historical works in progress. There is no correct or universal model. Critical literacy entails a process of naming and renaming the world, seeing its patterns, designs, and complexities, and developing the capacity to redesign and reshape it” (Luke, 2012, p. 9). This conception of critical literacy rings true for my research since how TEds "shape and deploy the tools, attitudes, and philosophies of critical literacy are utterly contingent: It depends upon students’ and teachers’ everyday relations of power, their lived problems and struggles, and … on educators’ professional ingenuity in navigating the enabling and disenabling local contexts of policy” (Luke, 2012, p. 9). 
       For this literature review, the primary conceptualization for literacy/literacies will encompass a critical framing of media and digital formats under the term MDL while recognizing that literacies are both an internal, cognitive ability and a social practice, with each requiring action and reflection. This literacy conception will be contextually placed within teacher education and the teaching and learning relating to MDL done in FoE. While Stordy’s (2015) taxonomies of literacies is particularly helpful as a starting point for a preliminary understanding of literacy/literacies, there is potential for further development for generating a phylogenetic graphic to establish origin stories of literacy terminology, integrating information about inherited characteristics, but that required more time than is available for this current review. 
  
   
• 1 2020-04-17T18:35:31+00:00 Digital Literacy 10 This is a subsection of the literature review and also a standalone page describing digital literacy. plain 2020-05-04T20:29:43+00:00

  Defining Digital Literacy

       Stordy (2015) defines digital literacies as the “abilities a person or social group draws upon when interacting with digital technologies to derive or produce meaning, and the social, learning and work-related practices that these abilities are applied to” (p. 472). When considering digital literacies as autonomous, conceptions relate to skills, proficiencies, fluencies, and competencies. Competencies broadly cover knowledge, skills, attitudes and values (OECD, 2018). Skills and fluencies focus on the mechanics of how to use digital technologies, and knowledge relates to the information required and used when manipulating digital resources. Competencies subsume skills, fluencies and knowledge into a fuller conception that includes attitudes and values (Spante et al., 2018). Competencies and literacies are frequently interchanged in the literature, depending on geographic contexts (Spante et al., 2018). Accordingly, some research suggests that digital literacy originated from a “skill-based understanding of the concept and thus relates to the functional use of technology and skills adaptation” (Spante et al., 2018, p. 7).
       Ideologically, digital literacy is a “complex and socio-culturally sensitive issue” (Lemos & Nascimbeni, 2016, p. 2). Digital literacy shifts into social, collaborative, communication and sense-making actions and interactions using a variety of digital devices (Beetham et al., 2012; Belshaw, 2012; Lemos & Nascimbeni, 2016). Digital literacy is therefore defined as a dynamic process wherein the “creative use of diverse digital devices to achieve goals related to work, employability, learning, leisure, inclusion and/or participation in society” (Lemos & Nascimbeni, 2016, p. 2) are integrated into everyday life (Belshaw, 2015). Digital behaviors, practices, identities and citizenship, as well as wellbeing, are incorporated into this definition (Belshaw, 2012; Hoechsmann & DeWaard, 2015; Lankshear & Knobel, 2007; Spante et al., 2018).
       The term critical literacy refers to the use of print and other media technologies to “analyze, critique and transform the norms, rule systems and practices governing the social fields of everyday life” (Luke, 2012, p. 5). Critical digital literacies (CDL) acknowledge power differentials, strive for equitable access to diverse resources, and the reconstruction of transformative potentials (Spante et al., 2018). This definition requires that those within a field of study examine how, why, and where norms, rules, ways of doing, ways of being in relationship to topics, processes, procedures, and each other, are critiqued with a social justice view, examining the spaces and places where those who are marginalized and disenfranchised can find intentionally equitable hospitality (Bali et al., 2019). Luke (2012) further explores how education utilizes “community study, and the analysis of social movements, service learning, and political activism, …. popular cultural texts including advertising, news, broadcast media, and the Internet” (p. 7). CDL are important considerations in course development and the design of learning experiences when infusing MDL into methods and core course requirements in teacher education programs.
       The overarching conception of digital citizenship subsumes all layers of skills, fluencies, competencies, literacies, and criticality when using, creating, and communicating with digital technologies and resources (Choi et al., 2018; Hoechsmann & DeWaard, 2015). Additionally, citizenship infers activism, engagement, and cosmopolitanism (Zaidi & Rowsell, 2017). Belshaw (2012) posits nine C's of digital literacy, identified as curation, confidence, creativity, criticality, civic, communicative, constructive, cognitive, and cultural. These incorporate key citizenship elements. When focusing on digital citizenship and the responsible use of technology, Ribble (2017) proposes nine elements categorized under three principles of behaviour – respect, educate and protect. Although citizenship is a worthy area of investigation and needs to be recognized for future attention, it is beyond the scope of this literature review.
       Definitions and practices of critical media and digital literacies (MDL) are continually in flux, since contexts dictate the core and critical elements. In teacher education programs, MDL is shaped by, and adapts to, current cultural, social, political, and technological climates.Digital literacy within FoE providing teacher education, focusing on the skills, competencies, beliefs and attitudes of teacher educators (TEds) frequently falls between literacy education focusing on teaching about reading, writing, and oral communications, the instruction of communication and media studies which is not always explicitly covered in FoE programs, and the integration of digital technologies into lesson design which is often done as a stand-alone course (Buss et al., 2018).
• 1 2020-04-17T14:01:10+00:00 Teacher Education 8 This is a section of the literature review but also a stand alone page outlining elements and contextual details related to Faculties of Education. plain 2020-04-29T19:22:57+00:00

  "Simply put, it is reasonable to assume that quality teacher preparation depends on quality teacher educators. Yet, almost nowhere is attention being paid to what teacher educators should know and be able to do" (Goodwin & Kosnik, 2013, p. 334)  

       Teacher education programs are referenced here as faculties of education (FoE). These are departments in higher education institutions providing a course of study in the discipline of education. Courses in the FoE are designed and delivered to preservice teachers, also referenced as teacher candidates in some literature, who graduate to become licensed teachers, usually working within the K-12 sector of education. FoE programs should not be confused with professional development courses, instructional design departments, or higher education centers for teaching and learning, that also provide teaching and learning opportunities and support teacher development without the full range of courses or subject matter found in a FoE.
       Since education in Canada falls under provincial jurisdiction, FoE develop programs with limited national oversight. An undergraduate degree followed by a course of study in the education department is the most common design of FoE in Canada (Russell & Dillon, 2015). Some universities offer a concurrent education program whereby education related courses are incorporated into the undergraduate course of study. A subsequent master level of study should not be confused with preservice teacher education or professional-years study. For the purpose of this research, the focus will be on the professional years of study.
       Globally, teacher education programs face the challenge of managing the ‘theory-practice’ tension. In Canada, this is a major consideration in FoE reform initiatives (Russell & Dillon, 2015). Program design traditionally includes the what and the how of teaching practice:

  “The what includes such familiar elements as foundations, subject area methods, and some generic aspects of teaching (e.g., behaviour management and assessment), as well as more recently introduced topics (e.g., diverse learners, inclusive education, and differentiated instruction). The what may also include issues such as the sequencing of courses and practicum experiences and coherence across courses” (Russell & Dillon, 2015, p. 151).

       A secondary issue is the highly transient nature of those who teach in FoE (Kosnik et al., 2015). The term teacher educator (TEds) describes those individuals tasked with teaching in the teacher education programs, seen as gatekeepers and lynchpins to the teaching profession (Kosnik et al., 2015; Voithofer et al., 2019). These individuals frequently bring extensive practice in the field of education into their course designs. TEds can also be new to the discipline, coming through an academic and research stream of study. While teachers in the Ontario K-12 sector are licensed through the Ontario College of Teachers, this is not a requirement for employment or teaching in higher education sectors such as FoE. Although TEds are "at the core of good teacher education" they receive little attention (Vloet & van Swet, 2010). TEds are often overlooked, invisible, and rarely researched within the field of education (Crawley, 2018; Izadinia, 2014; Kosnik et al., 2015; Voithofer et al., 2019; Woloshyn et al., 2017). Perception suggests that TEds:

  "should be able to handle themselves in their practice, to act in an effective way, to take care for themselves and to be physically, emotionally and cognitively balanced. They should have a realistic self-concept, concerning who they are, what they are able to do and how they want to develop themselves, especially when coping with educational innovations. ... They should have insight into their personal experiences, feelings, values and motives, and gain self-knowledge about processes of their identity development, construction of meaning and their professional development" (Vloet & van Swet, 2010, p. 150).

       With rapid changes in media and digital technologies impacting the preparation of teachers in FoE, there are increasing demands on teacher educators to improve outcomes (Buss et al., 2018). Research and change efforts in FoE include: a) self-study (Kosnik et al., 2015); b) the infusion of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) frameworks (Jaipal-Jamani et al., 2018; Voithofer et al., 2019); c) the application of participatory teaching (West-Puckett et al., 2018); d) networking teaching and learning (Lohnes Watulak, 2018; Oddone, 2019); e) digital literacies and digital citizenship (Choi et al., 2018; Nascimbeni, 2018); and f) open educational practices (Albion et al., 2017; Kim, 2018). Some of these changes are politically driven, as seen from the US Department of Educational Technology 2016 release of the Advancing Educational Technology in Teacher Preparation: Policy Brief (Stokes-Beverley & Simoy, 2016) and the European Union Practical Guidelines for Open Education for Academics documents (Inamorato dos Santos, 2019).
       Focusing on these changes, specifically related to digital teaching and learning, Foulger et al. (2017) researched the technological practices of teacher educators. The development of the Teacher Educator Technology Competencies established a foundational set of skills and attributes which can support self-reflection and professional development. Research is beginning to examine these competencies in practice (Thomas et al., 2019) but explicit connections to MDL within OEPr of TEds in FoE have not yet been made. My research will focus on the nexus between MDL and OEPr found in teacher educators in FoE in Canadian contexts, so a deeper awareness of research foci with TEds is essential.