Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education

ISSN: 2153-2974 (Print) 2332-7383 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujdl20

Digital Literacy in Teacher Education: Are Teacher

Arlene C. Borthwick & Randall Hansen

To cite this article: Arlene C. Borthwick & Randall Hansen (2017) Digital Literacy in Teacher
Education: Are Teacher Educators Competent?, Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education,
33:2, 46-48, DOI: 10.1080/21532974.2017.1291249

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1291249

Published online: 02 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 11772

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 19 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Digital Literacy in Teacher Education: Are Teacher Educators Competent?

Why Should We Care Whether Teacher
Align efforts with research-based Members of ISTE’s Technology
Education Faculty Are Competent? standards, frameworks, and creden- Education Network (TEN) had, for
With a revision of the International Soci- tials recognized across the field. some time, contemplated the value of
ety for Technology in Education (ISTE) (U.S. Department of Education, a set of competencies for educator
Standards for Teachers to be released at Office of Educational Technology, preparation faculty. ISTE TEN worked
ISTE 2017, we will expect, once again, 2016a) collaboratively with the Society for
teacher preparation programs to enable Information Technology and Teacher
Further, the National Educational
candidates to design learning environ- Education (SITE) to form a leadership
Technology Plan (U.S. Department of
ments and experiences that leverage digi- team including representatives from
Education, Office of Educational Tech-
tal tools and resources that maximize the Council for the Accreditation of
nology, 2016b) asserts that “there should
student outcomes. Accreditors accentu- Teacher Preparation (CAEP), the
be no uncertainty of whether a learner
ate the role of educator preparation pro- National Technology Leadership Coali-
entering a PK–12 classroom or college
viders (EPPs) through standards such as tion (NTLS), the U.S. Office of Educa-
lecture hall will encounter a teacher or
the Council for the Accreditation of Edu- tional Technology, and the American
instructor fully capable of taking advan-
cator Preparation (CAEP) Standard 1.5: Association of Colleges of Education
tage of technology to transform learning”
(AACTE) to investigate and prepare a
(p. 37).
Providers ensure that candidates draft set of competencies. The group
model and apply technology has taken a research-oriented approach
standards as they design, imple- to generating its draft, crowdsourcing
How Can We Judge Whether Teacher
ment, and assess learning experi- related literature and using a Delphi
Education Faculty Are Competent?
ences to engage students and procedure to distill essential elements
ISTE has long issued sets of standards for
improve learning, and enrich pro- (Foulger, Graziano, Slykhuis, Schmidt-
students, teachers, and administrators—
fessional practice. (CAEP, 2015) Crawford, & Trust, 2016).
the National Technology Standards with
Should we have a similar yet separate
NETS-S (for students), NETS-T (for
set of standards for teacher educators? Is
Similar expectations were issued by teachers), NETS-A (for administra-
there a unique set of competencies that
the U.S. Department of Education’s tors)—with the first release of the NETS-
are different from standards for preser-
Office of Educational Technology (OET) T occurring in 2000. One way to judge
vice or inservice teachers? Participants
following a June 2016 summit of innova- whether teacher education faculty are
attending the 2016 National Technology
tive educators culminating in a challenge competent to work with teacher prepara-
Leadership Summit discussed this ques-
to teacher preparation institutions to tion candidates could be to have an iden-
tion as they reviewed a beginning draft of
commit to four guiding principles: tified set of standards or proficiencies
identified competencies. They also
faculty should aim to achieve, along with

Focus on the active use of technology debated the importance of specific termi-
related essential conditions for their
to enable learning and teaching nology such as “using, applying, model-
institution to effectively support candi-
through creation, production, and ing, advocating, researching” and specific
date preparation.
problem solving. items to be addressed in the competen-
The Office of Educational Technol-

Build sustainable, program-wide sys- cies including elements of TPACK (TK,
ogy supported this concept in the fol-
tems of professional learning for PK, CK, and TPACK as an integrated
lowing recommendation found in the
higher education instructors to whole), instructional design, and online/
National Educational Technology Plan
strengthen and continually refresh blended design. These participants rep-
(NETP):
capacity to use technological tools to resented a variety of professional educa-
enable transformative learning and Develop a common set of technol- tor associations, including the College
teaching. ogy competency expectations for and University Faculty Assembly

Ensure preservice teacher experiences university professors and candi- (CUFA), an affiliate of the National
with educational technology are pro- dates exiting teacher preparation Council for the Social Studies, the Asso-
gram-deep and program-wide rather programs for teaching in techno- ciation of Mathematics Teacher Educa-
than one-off courses separate from logically enabled schools and post- tors (AMTE), and the Association for
methods courses. secondary education institutions. Science Teacher Education (ASTE). Fol-
(U.S. Department of Education, lowing NTLS, Delphi participants con-
Office of Educational Technology, tinued their iterative process, with an
© 2017 ISTE j iste.org/jdlte 2016b, p. 37) anticipated release of a draft of Teacher

46 l Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education l Volume 33 Number 2

Ed Technology Competencies at the may not invest time in keeping up of the tool in several colleges across
SITE Conference in March 2017. with new technologies and their appli- the country.
cation in the PK–12 classroom. Fur-
Aren’t Teacher Educators Already ther, Mouza’s literature review (2016) Closing Challenge
Competent? highlights the wide range of emerging In the PK–12 sector, ISTE standards have
In a review of literature on developing technologies used in teaching and unified educational technology efforts to
and assessing TPACK-ready teachers, learning—those that support under- enhance teaching and learning. We need
Chrystalla Mouza (2016) concluded standing and creating, those that sup- to work together as schools, colleges,
that there is little research on the port learning through collaboration, departments of education, and leaders in
effective preparation of preservice those that enable anytime/anyplace professional associations to move educa-
teachers. As described by Teresa learning, and gaming. Emerging tech- tor preparation to the level outlined in the
Foulger at a December 2016 Summit nologies present another challenge to National Educational Technology Plan
organized by the U.S. Department of assuring that teacher educators are and recent OET policy brief addressing
Education Office of Educational Tech- indeed “competent.” teacher preparation. A common set of
nology, a vision for technology infu- teacher technology competencies for
sion in teacher preparation requires an teacher education faculty will provide a
infusion of technology sustained across How Can We Guide Teacher Educators to pathway for professional development
a teacher preparation program, not Become More Competent? and related essential conditions that can
just presented at an introductory level Establishing a set of competencies or be targeted and purposeful. The OET has
in a single stand-alone technology proficiencies for teacher preparation issued a challenge. Let us step up to meet
course. “The tech infusion method faculty will enable faculty and college it on the road to becoming future-ready
would allow the technology integration leaders to coalesce around an explicit colleges of education.
curriculum to spiral across methods target for faculty development.
courses and student teaching—that is Endorsement of the same set of com-
Author Notes
over a two-year period.” Involvement petencies by multiple professional
Arlene C. Borthwick is associate dean and pro-
of faculty across the teacher prepara- associations will also increase recogni- fessor at the National College of Education,
tion program broadens the scope of tion of the importance and value of National Louis University in Chicago. She is a
who—which teacher educators—needs adopting competencies for teacher member of the AACTE Committee on Innova-
to be competent. Considering the preparation faculty. However, college tion and Technology and served as an ISTE
importance of the use of appropriate leaders and faculty will need to collab- Board member from 2010–14. Her research
relates to online instruction, personalized
technologies and their affordances to oratively and thoughtfully plan profes- learning technologies, and school-university
enhance learning in specific content sional development and organizational collaboration to support preservice candidates’
areas (Koehler & Mishra, 2008), support to enable faculty progress impact on PK–12 student learning.
teacher education faculty, especially toward achieving the desired level of Randall Hansen is professor and program
instructors of methods courses in vari- faculty competency and related preser- chair of the Master’s in Learning Design and
ous disciplines, need to be able to use vice candidate preparation (Herring, Technology at University of Maryland Univer-
and model appropriate uses of the lat- Thomas, & Redmond, 2014). AACTE’s sity College in Adelphi. He is an ISTE Board
est technology available. Research by Committee on Innovation and Tech- member and former president of ISTE’s
Teacher Education Network. His research
Wetzel, Buss, Foulger, and Lindsey nology (I&T) has been working to interests include online teaching and learning,
(2014) on 17 sections of innovative develop a blueprint for college leaders’ emerging technologies, teacher professional
technology-infused preservice language role in supporting the development of development, and personalized learning.
arts and middle school methods TPACK-ready candidates and the
courses found that candidates “viewed development of a TPACK Diagnostic References
instructors as being critical to provid- Tool (Carpenter, Graziano, Borthwick, Carpenter, J., Graziano, K., Borthwick, A.,
ing strategies that fostered develop- DeBacker, & Finsness, 2016) for col- DeBacker, T., & Finsness, E. (2016). A diagnostic
ment of TPACK” and that the courses lege deans and other leaders. The tool tool to help leaders develop TPACK ready
teacher preparation programs. In G. Chamblee
could be “improved by expanding the promotes examination, monitoring,
& L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for
range of tools and providing more reflection, and self-assessment of Information Technology & Teacher Education
hands-on opportunities, providing TPACK-focused vision and goals; International Conference 2016 (pp. 2802–2805).
more modeling and providing more organizational processes; human, fiscal, Chesapeake, VA: Association for the
pedagogical and content instruction and personal resources; and engage- Advancement of Computing in Education
that integrates technology” (p. 95). ment with internal/external partners, (AACE).
Council for the Accreditation of Educator
Instructors of preservice courses, policy environments, and scalability. Preparation. (2015). CAEP accreditation
whether in the college of education or The AACTE I&T Committee is cur- standards. Retrieved from http://caepnet.org/
the college of arts and sciences, may or rently researching the use and impact knowledge-center#left-column

Volume 33 Number 2 l Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education l 47

Foulger, T. S., Graziano, K. J., Slykhuis, D., and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of educational technology in teacher preparation:
Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Trust, T. (2016). technological pedagogical content knowledge Policy brief. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/
Invited commentary: The time is now! Creating (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–29). New York, NY: teacherprep
technology competencies for teacher educators. Routledge. U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, Mouza, C. (2016). Developing and assessing Educational Technology. (2016b). Future ready
24, 249–256. TPACK among pre-service teachers: A synthesis learning: Reimagining the role of technology in
Herring, M., Thomas, T., & Redmond, P. (2014). of research. In M. C. Herring, M. J. Koehler, and education. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/
Special editorial: Technology leadership for P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of technological files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf
preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for Wetzel, K., Buss, R., Foulger, T. S., & Lindsey, L.
technology. Journal of Digital Learning in educators (2nd ed., pp. 169–190). New York, NY: (2014). Infusing educational technology in
Teacher Education, 30(3), 76–80. Routledge. teaching methods courses: Successes and
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing U.S. Department of Education, Office of dilemmas. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher
TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation Educational Technology. (2016a). Advancing Education, 30(3), 89–103.

48 l Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education l Volume 33 Number 2