Investigating New Literacies Among Teacher Educators: A Multi-Institution Collaborative Self-Study

Abstract

This multi-institutional, collaborative self-study explores how teacher educators learn to embed new literacies (NL) in teacher education coursework. Utilizing collaborative self-study methodology, seven faculty engaged in a year-long collaborative study focused on the incorporation of NL in preservice teacher education courses, meeting regularly over the course of the year to share reflections, provide feedback to one another, and continually revise course and assignment designs related to NL. Data sources included recordings of collaborative planning meetings, written reflections, annotated teaching artifacts, notes and transcripts from partner and whole group recorded Zoom sessions and post-meeting reflections. The findings describe diversity in both conceptualizing and teaching NL, parallels between teacher educators’, preservice teachers’ and P-12 teachers’ challenges integrating NL into their teaching, and institutional barriers to collaborative study, curricular revision, and the use of new technologies. The authors discuss these findings in relation to the potential value of multi-institutional study groups and collaborative self-study as a methodology for helping support literacy teacher educators’ ongoing learning.

Keywords

self study new literacies technology integration teacher education university faculty

Literacy practices are constantly being redefined as new technologies continually demand paradigm shifts in what constitutes literacy in the 21^st century (Baker, 2021). Literacy instruction can no longer be narrowly conceived of through a binary lens between traditional and digital literacy skills. Rather, literacy researchers and educators must now account not only for the existence of digital technologies in classroom spaces, but also continually adapt to new literacies (NL) that are constantly in flux. The rapid shifts in literacy practices the field is witnessing pose particular challenges for teacher educators (TEs) working to prepare preservice teachers (PSTs) for an information landscape that is in many ways unrecognizable from the one TEs experienced themselves as students.

There is an ongoing need for literacy TEs to critically examine and reflect upon how they teach for, through, and with NL, and to develop shared conceptions and definitions that allow for researchers and practitioners in the field to work together towards fluid approaches to critical digital literacy pedagogy (Baroud & Dharamshi, 2020). As just one example, the artificial intelligence writing program ChatGPT has, as of this writing, captured the attention of the education world, prompting a flurry of questions, seminars, activities, and new policies regarding writing instruction in relation to a (still-developing) literate technology (Baidoo-Anu & Ansah, 2023). Other new literacy tools and practices will continue to emerge, demanding that TEs find means to continue developing their knowledge and pedagogical practices in relation to NL.

In this collaborative self-study, we—a group of literacy TEs—examined the work of a learning community focused on incorporating NL into literacy teacher education across seven universities in seven U.S. states, and thus seven different cultural and policy contexts. We met regularly over the course of a year, engaging in collaborative learning, peer feedback, and critical reflection on teaching practices in order to investigate how TEs learn, teach, model, and use NL within literacy teacher education classrooms. Specifically, we address the following research questions:

How did a group of seven literacy teacher-educators embed new literacies in courses designed to prepare literacy preservice teachers?

What concerns and challenges emerged as this group of TEs worked to incorporate new literacies?

Background and Perspectives

A Broad Conception of New Literacies in Literacy Teacher Education

The “digital turn” (Mills, 2010, p. 247) in literacy studies led to a wealth of research on digital literacies in classrooms, on the internet, and in out-of-school spaces (e.g., Kim & Omerbašić, 2017; Nash & Brady, 2022). Researchers have used the term new literacies (a lowercase n and l) to describe practices that are both ontologically new (they did not exist before) and that are taken up with a “new ethos” characterized by active participation, collaboration, and decentralization of authorial control (Knobel & Lankshear, 2014). This use of the term “new literacies” is separate from the term “New Literacy Studies,” referring to sociocultural perspectives on literacies that frame them as varied practices within cultural contexts and power relationships (Street, 2003). Although the term new literacies is inclusive of both digital and analog literacies, digital practices are considered “paradigm cases” (Knobel & Lankshear, 2014, p. 97), and have thus far received the most attention in scholarship. In this study, we draw from these authors’ framing, attending to NL as practices primarily connected to digital technologies and online worlds, while at the same time recognizing the diverse practices that may be included under the larger umbrella of “new literacies.”

Despite (and because of) the rapid shifts in definitions and conceptions of literacies, it is imperative for literacy TEs to continue examining NL in curriculum and instruction designed for preservice teachers (PSTs) (Mirra, 2019). There is now a long history of research on NL in teacher education examining sub-topics such as digital audio production and consumption (Brownell & Wargo, 2017), multimodal literacies (Nash et al., 2023), out-of-school literacies, and multiliteracies (Skerrett, 2011). Research on these topics has emphasized numerous pedagogical approaches to preparing PSTs to engage with NL, including examinations of theory (Hobson, 2014), reflective self-inquiry (Kesler, 2011), field-based experiences (Kist & Pytash, 2015), and situated practice with NL (Hundley & Holbrook, 2013).

Much of this research has been conducted by TEs in their own classrooms, with some studies being framed using self-study methodology (e.g., Rice & Dallacqua, 2018). There has been little research, however, examining how literacy TEs themselves learn about and develop NL pedagogies, with only a handful employing collaborative self-study as a means of examining TEs working across institutions (e.g., Baroud & Dharamshi, 2020; Martin & Dismuke, 2015; Rosaen & Terpstra, 2012). Working across institutions can provide a variety of perspectives, encourage meaningful professional development, and increase the complexity and intentionality of incorporating NL into coursework (Kitchen & Parker, 2009). In this study, we addressed the challenge posed to literacy TEs as they attempted to incorporate NL into their own practices as TEs through collaborative self-study.

Collaborative Self-Study

Self-study is a method for exploring one's own professional actions; it is both a practice and a form of research. Self-study of teacher education practices (S-STEP) has become a rigorous and imperative field of research whereby teacher educators study, reflect, and improve upon their practice (Kitchen, 2005). S-STEP has emerged as a way to better understand and reflect upon the “how” of teaching such that TEs can learn from their own experience and the experiences of others (Russell, 1998, p. 5).

Handal (1999) argued that institutions have numerous processes in place to critique research, but lack a corresponding tradition for teaching. He employed the term critical friends to describe colleagues that critique each other's teaching for the purpose of making each other's pedagogical practices more robust. Some researchers have designed collaborations with critical friends to support and strengthen their reflective practice (Chen et al., 2022; Tannehill et al., 2015). Louie et al. (2003) argued that collaboration provides self-study researchers with much-needed social support, a deeper culture of reflectiveness, and increases the transferability of work to others. While S-STEP is powerful as an individual pursuit, collaborative S-STEP has the potential to be even more compelling (Moorhouse & Tiet, 2021).

Collaborative S-STEPs have been conducted in a wide variety of settings. Some occur within the same institutions and educational departments. For example, Gallagher et al. (2011) included every pre-tenure faculty member of the Education Department of Brock University as they explored their individual identities as teachers within the broader university-wide focus of teaching and scholarship. Han et al. (2014) worked across different departments within the same institution as a college-wide Diversity Committee as they incorporated culturally responsive teaching into their respective courses. Others have designed collaborative S-STEPs that span institutions (Appleget et al., 2022 ; Chen et al., 2022; Kitchen & Parker, 2009). They found that conducting collaborative S-STEPs allowed them to be more vulnerable and avoid some of the fear and power struggles they might have experienced doing the same work within their own respective institutions.

Collaborative self-study has been employed less frequently with regard to NL. Sandretto et al. (2006) conducted a collaborative self-study with primary teachers as they worked to incorporate NL into their reading instruction. Their research found that teachers opened conversations with students about the world that were previously not occurring. Rosaen and Terpstra (2012) examined their practices as they prepared PSTs to incorporate NL into their teaching. They found that PSTs reported a broadened conception of literacy and applied this new understanding to their planning and teaching.

There remains a need for more empirical research on collaborative self studies, specifically research that focuses on “planning and enactment” in relation to NL (Martin & Dismuke, 2015, p. 13). Additionally, few studies have employed collaborative self-study of teacher education practices related to incorporating NL in pre-service education classrooms. The present study was designed in response to this need and seeks to illuminate how a group of seven literacy TEs from across the U.S. planned and enacted NL into their respective literacy courses.

Methods

We shared an interest in a collaborative, systematic study of our teaching and thus selected self-study methodology (Louie et al., 2003) for this project. Self-study research is characterized as being self-initiated, collaborative, and focused on improving practice, and generally relies on qualitative research methods for data collection and analysis (Vanassche & Kelchtermans, 2015). Establishing the trustworthiness of self-study research includes adopting an openness to new ways of framing our work and providing a detailed narrative of the analysis process with specific examples (Barnes, 1998).

We came together as critical friends (Schuck & Russell, 2005) to study and reflect on NL in relation to specific teacher education courses we were teaching. We believed participation in an ongoing learning community would inform and enhance our practices while also providing support for TEs who brought a diverse range of NL knowledge and experience. Collaborating with others provides diverse perspectives throughout the self-study process (Samaras, 2011) and encourages critical examination of beliefs and assumptions. In this study, we sought to explore our beliefs and practices relative to NL while also challenging one another's assumptions about how NL could and should function as content and/or instructional methods in our courses.

Participants: Teacher-Researchers

The seven participants in this study initially came together at an academic conference based on a shared interest in incorporating NL into our courses. Throughout the project, we engaged both as TEs in undergraduate and graduate courses, and as researchers examining our teaching. We are university or college instructors/professors at different institutions in seven states from four regions of the United States (Eastern, Midwestern, and Southwestern, and West Coast). Our group includes six assistant professors and one associate professor, all with varied knowledge and experience with NL. Two participants had studied NL extensively and were well-read in the professional literature, while five had limited experience with NL.

The courses we used as the focus of our study included theoretical courses about literacy, methods courses—some with field experiences—and children's/young adult literature courses. The students included first-year students in their initial teacher education courses, juniors and seniors enrolled in more advanced theory or methods courses, and students enrolled in post-baccalaureate initial teacher certification courses. Most classes met face-to-face, while some were scheduled as online experiences. Critical to self-study of teacher education is the development of trusting relationships through regular opportunities to engage in conversation about teaching practices (Williams et al., 2012). Similar to Guilfoyle et al. (2004), our self-study group benefited from examining our diverse teaching contexts as these supported and/or challenged our efforts to engage in this focused self-study and make changes in the content of our courses and in our teaching practices.

Data Sources

Data collection occurred over the course of 12 months from January to December 2022. In keeping with self-study research design, the data we gathered included artifacts of our teaching, regular reflections on small-group and whole-group discussions, and transcripts of recorded discussions. The artifacts included annotated course syllabi, “before and after” drafts of syllabi that captured ongoing changes, and example assignments and assessment tools (such as rubrics and scoring guides) where NL were involved. We held video conference meetings twice a month during the Spring 2022 semester and once a month during summer and fall as a full research team to discuss shared and self-selected readings and to develop the iterative design of the study (16 full-group meetings total). We also met eight times throughout the project in pairs and small groups for 30–60 minutes each. These smaller video conference sessions provided opportunities to discuss our individual courses, new insights into NL, and emerging/lingering questions. We used a shared Google Docs folder to maintain a running set of meeting notes for the full group sessions. In addition, we used a collaboratively designed Google Form to capture written reflections in response to some full group meetings and to critical friends partner meetings (62 written reflections total). Each of these partner, small group and whole group sessions was audio recorded and the transcripts were uploaded to the shared Google folder to support further analysis.

Research Process

The collaborative self-study research evolved through an iterative, design-based process (Reinking & Bradley, 2008) that allowed for new understandings and practices to emerge and inform next steps (Barab & Squire, 2004). At the outset, we established a general framework for monthly meetings, including the commitment to read shared articles, share information about our courses (the syllabi and key assignments), and participate in systematic data collection and reflection. In each subsequent whole group meeting, we included time to discuss what we were learning and what we needed to do next to further our inquiry. For example, we shared our course syllabi at the start of the project. Then, as we reported on our first round of critical friends-style partner conversations, we decided to include annotations on our syllabi and other course artifacts to capture the ways our study group experience was impacting our teaching. Reflection forms were similarly generated, revised, and replaced in response to the discussions and ongoing reflections. During one meeting, the need emerged for additional questions on the reflection form and one member of the group made the revisions as we talked. The content and structure of the Google Folder similarly evolved to meet the archival needs of the group. For example, one group member shared articles about NL appropriate for sharing with our students, which we organized separately from the articles we were reading to drive our own learning.

Data Analysis

Three authors analyzed the eight data sources (post-meeting reflections that included subgroups and team meetings, meeting notes, summer planning meetings, syllabi, syllabi reflections, and initial reflections) in a series of four steps: organizing, reading, coding, and creating themes (Creswell, 2009). First, one author organized and prepared the data for analysis. Three authors read through all data sources to get a general sense of the data as a whole. They then conducted a second pass through the data together, working synchronously to assign inductive codes to the data in relation to the research questions (Saldaña, 2021). The open codes included Digital tools; Modeling and use of digital tools for their students; Literature; Standards; Technology in planning/instruction and assessment; Emphasis for use with multilingual students; Collaboration or expand communication; Various modalities in planning/instruction and assessment; and Students as critical consumers. After we assigned initial codes, we organized them using a spreadsheet, counting their frequency. We used the frequencies to highlight recurrent trends in the data, drawing upon the most frequently used codes as we worked to collapse the initial codes in relation to the research questions. This process led to the establishment of axial codes (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), where we established relationships among the categories and decided on tentative themes based on the meaning that emerged from the data (Saldaña, 2021).

To support trustworthiness, three authors engaged in triangulation and member checking. Triangulation involved using several data sources to develop a robust data set and cross checking findings across data sources (Bhattacharya, 2017). Two authors met three times for member checking and then with a third author to determine the overall themes based on reading the data as a whole and examining the frequencies table. Following this process, the three authors wrote initial analytic memos; all seven members of the study group then read these memos as a form of member checking, responding to the themes and providing feedback for incorporation into the findings.

Findings

Data analysis surfaced four findings related to learning and incorporating NL in literacy teacher education: (a) conceptualizing NL, (b) embedding NL in teacher education classrooms, (c) differing standards and contexts, and (d) challenges and concerns incorporating NL.

Conceptualizing New Literacies

During the initial phase of the study in which we met for a collaborative self-study, it became clear that some TEs were interpreting NL as a theoretical approach to literacy learning, while others were equating this term with technologies. In their initial reflections, some members defined NL as: (a) incorporating technologies (e.g., files, videos, images, music) in the classroom; (b) the inclusion of multiple sign systems—various ways of making/sharing meaning that include semiotic systems such as art, music, movement, drama, mathematics; (c) new skills, strategies and knowledge related to the Internet and other technologies; (d) different modes of representation (e.g., gestural visual, audio); and (e) the skills, strategies, and dispositions needed to use and adapt information and communication technologies and contexts to identify questions, locate information, engage in critical evaluation, synthesize information, and communicate (Initial reflections). Recognizing discrepancies between multiliteracies and NL emerging from these initial reflections, the team members who had more knowledge and experience with NL suggested readings for the entire team to discuss.

Our initial discussions of NL led to a shared emphasis on digital literacies within the context of literacy instruction and assessments (Leu et al., 2017). The group also made connections to sociocultural perspectives on literacy (Street, 2003). Reflecting on these conversations, some members conveyed “literacy is socially shaped and culturally situated” (Initial reflection) and that “communication patterns…cross cultures, communities, and national boundaries” (Initial reflection). Some TEs connected NL to reading by stating “comprehension and learning are socially constructed within multiliteracies/NL” (Initial reflection). Differential thinking about NL continued to be a point of generative thinking and some tensions for us throughout the course of the study as we worked to incorporate NL into situated classroom contexts. The overall emphasis in these discussions was on applying NL in classrooms designed to prepare PSTs for their classroom teaching.

Differing Standards and Contexts

The localized contexts in which this group of TEs worked played a large role in the way that NL were manifested in their classrooms. Some institutions, for example, had existing philosophical alignment with, or requirements for using, digital technologies or literacies. Some employed technology-related standards, while others did not. Therefore, when we examined our practices across spaces, we realized that a lack of cohesive standards across professional organizations, states, and teacher education program requirements affected the design of curriculum and course assignments incorporating NL. A few TEs decided to use the International Society for Technology Education (ISTE) standards and the National Educational Technology Standards for teachers to modify their courses. Another TE used “ISTE Standards for … a step-by-step instruction for how and when they could introduce the tool to their students” (Post-meeting reflection).

Other group members encouraged critical orientations towards NL and towards technology standards. One member shared, “part of NL is fostering critical consumers of technology and information, so I want [PSTs] to be critical consumers of these resources they are looking at, evaluating what they are reading and [the] value it holds for their own teaching” (Summer planning meetings). Some TEs were aware that “teaching students how to use certain technology skills is different from teaching students how to think critically while reading online” (Post-meeting reflection). One TE gave a precise example of PSTs becoming critical consumers by mentioning, “[PSTs] are searching online, researching, being critical consumers of online media, searching for diverse books as a research topic, then applying that to show how they design their lessons and where they get their ideas” (Meeting notes). TEs examined their course outcomes and “how NL can be a seamless part of how [they] do [their] work” (Summer planning meetings) to ensure they integrated NL in instruction and assessments in PSTs’ preparation courses where they learned to use NL critically.

Embedding New Literacies in Teacher Education Classrooms

The TEs implemented NL into classrooms in varied ways, including discussions of theory, projects in which PSTs engaged with NLs, and support for PSTs in NL lesson and unit planning.

New literacies as theory

Some TEs discussed incorporating NL as part of overarching goals of their course design. One, for example, teaching a theory-oriented literacy course, introduced several theories related to NL, including Leu et al.'s (2017) dual level theory of NL, multiliteracies, and work related more specifically to digital technologies in classrooms. Another, focusing on broad course goals, explained a multi-faceted approach, “My hope is that (PSTs) could do anything using technology to differentiate instruction and support all students. TEs could integrate NL in instruction, content, and assessments” (Syllabi reflections).

New literacies projects

Other TEs focused more specifically on projects in which PSTs engaged in situated activity with NL. Reflecting a general approach tried across classes, one TE described “using inquiry-oriented projects that offer students many choices of project focus and design” (Syllabus analysis). More specific projects emerged from these courses as well. One educator described PSTs “capturing photographs of artwork or phone videos of drama or music presentations (that) allow students to examine these products over time, share them beyond the walls of the classroom, and invite feedback from educator audiences” (Syllabus analysis). Another TE integrated technology in a case-study project where PSTs conducted online inquiries into the digitally literate lives of students and shared the summary about their case-study students, showing artifacts using interactive PowerPoint presentation tools. Other educators shared that they used NL in a “mini-inquiry experience that invite[ed][PSTs] to explore their own ways of making/sharing meaning, including attention to collaboration, tools, and multiple sign systems” (Summer planning meetings). Another used NL for planning a “memoir project that included digital texts in an intercultural text set they designed” (Initial reflection and Syllabi analysis). Another educator shared PSTs were using NL in “literacy inventory presentations where they brainstormed and tracked all the different forms of literacy in their lives” (Meeting notes). Some required PSTs to respond to readings using podcasts, or reading a portion of the book and adding sound effects to recordings. Some of the digital tools TEs and PTs used in their classes were Kahoot, Jam boards, Google Docs, Flipgrid, Course LMSs, and visual programs like Canva. Across these projects, TEs incorporated NL in ways that were germane to the particular course context, a topic taken up in greater depth in the following section.

New literacies in teaching and planning for K-12 literacy instruction

TEs also incorporated NL into planning activities for PSTs. In one methods course, for example, PSTs incorporated digital literacies into lesson plans; they then recorded lessons and uploaded them to a discussion board where fellow PSTs commented on their peers’ videos. One TE used NL to “design a project-based unit outline” (Syllabi analysis) in which students planned adolescent literacy curricula that was intentionally responsive to the contemporary digital media environment. Three TEs designed online mini-lessons for students, engaging them in discussions of lesson delivery in online spaces (Syllabi analysis and Meeting notes). PSTs were required to create an application activity using NL for their class presentations to ensure their peers mastered the content of the lesson. One TE identified using NL for “differentiating instruction and assessments” (Initial reflections), as this was how she used NL as a framework for her course.

Across these examples, TEs emphasized NL as theories, as elements of their own course design, and as elements of teaching and learning in K-12 classrooms. The diversity of approaches to incorporating NL highlights the ways in which NL are layered (Abrams, 2015) across any situated activity, including teaching in school spaces.

Challenges and Concerns Incorporating New Literacies

TEs shared concerns about using NL during discussions, reflections, planning meetings, and post-meeting discussions with subgroups and with the entire team. They asked how to prepare PSTs and incorporate NL in their courses intentionally. However, some of the common concerns team members identified were the universities’ requirements, lack of time, and lack of access to resources.

Localized requirements and institutional barriers

University, departmental, state, and district requirements influenced what and how each TE implemented NL in their classes. For example, one TE explained, “our school systems make these objectivist, logical, quantitative assumptions about how people work” (Post-meeting reflections). Another team member described wanting to be more explicit in teaching NL, but class requirements dictated by the university limited their content delivery using NL. Another member expressed, “I would like to… delve deeper into digital reading practices and go into more explicit pedagogical practices related to NL. As it stands, we only touch on them more lightly” (Syllabi reflections). Similarly, another stated that their agency “was constrained by institutional issues, including things like certification requirements, university, state, the broader profession” (Post-meeting reflection). Course requirements thus informed and in some cases limited how TEs felt they could incorporate NL into their curriculum.

Several TEs voiced concerns regarding shifts in students’ conceptions of NL in relation to school settings. One described the challenge of

getting PSTs to change their thinking as far as NL is applied in their teaching. Changing their mindset from thinking like a student (getting points on a rubric because they used technology in their lesson plan and teaching) to thinking like a teacher and considering the impact NL could have on their students (Post-meeting reflection).

TEs felt that reflecting on their pedagogy, and making this thinking explicit to PSTs, would assist PSTs in transferring knowledge into their future classrooms. Still, they remained concerned about the need for more NL to be incorporated in the placement schools PSTs were visiting and wondered how to better encourage in-service teachers to incorporate NL into their classrooms. Another teacher shared, “the pressure on me and the habits of school students are bringing stand in the way of this new ethos” (Post-meeting reflection).

The flux in course schedules and preferred educational philosophies in universities and districts also presented challenges. One TE, reflecting on both her own teaching situation and that of her PSTs, explained that TEs “don’t have the ability to advocate for this, yet, especially when we have so much content to cover” (Syllabi reflections). Most of the TEs in this study were early career faculty, and mentioned their schedule was constantly changing, which impacted their ability to enhance their courses. One voiced, “My teaching schedule is ever-changing. I know I am building courses for instructors, but uncertain of what I am actually teaching. I will for sure implement these pieces into these courses, but it'll be different to implement without getting feedback from students” (Summer planning meeting). The challenges faced by TEs in incorporating NL—departmental requirements, a lack of agency, and a larger institutional focus on autonomous literacy content—mirror the challenges faced by K-12 teachers and PSTs working in student teaching placements (Zoch et al., 2017).

Lack of time and access

TEs also described needing more time to learn about different literacy technologies and to integrate NL into their courses. Developing a course that centered NL proved challenging given competing responsibilities regarding content. As one TE stated, “My course sessions are packed. So, I need to rethink not adding ‘more’ to the plate but consider ways to adapt what I'm doing to incorporate NL” (Syllabi reflections). TEs continuously discussed time as a challenge in “planning and identifying different tools to use” (Syllabi reflections). One TE explained that integrating NL in the classroom would be burdensome for some in-service teachers in her graduate courses, explaining, “teachers are already inundated with things they have to teach, and I am not sure what our responsibilities are (to schools) as universities” (Introductory reflections). Access to technology and having reliable internet presented another barrier for some PSTs. Ensuring students had equal access to internet connections, hardware, and software was critical. An educator stated, “not all students have access to technologies at different times….some applications require fees which limit students’ access” (Syllabus reflection). Throughout the self-study, time and access continued to be a concern for the TEs.

Across settings, limitations and challenges did not entail destiny, however, as different group members took on critical voices, drawing upon the larger community to build self-efficacy and confidence in their approaches. An educator wrote, “we can be agentic in creating spaces to highlight NL and push against systemic forces that discourage innovation” (Post-meeting reflection).

Discussion

In this study, a group of seven TEs working across institutions engaged in a mutually-supportive, year-long collaborative self-study focused on integrating NL in teacher education coursework. In this section, we consider conceptual, pedagogical, and logistical challenges and implications of this work.

New Literacies in the Field: Diverse Conceptions Come to Life

The diverse ways in which we operationalized NL in our classrooms reflects the variations in terminology and conceptions of NL within the field of literacy research, with different researchers taking up the same or similar terms with different meanings or emphases (Knobel & Lankshear, 2014). Grappling with this challenge together supported each of us in reading the professional literature more deeply, and developing a “working definition” allowed us to collaborate and offer support to one another, even as we took up NL in diverse ways within our respective pedagogical and social contexts. Although the group worked to come to a tentative consensus for conceptualizing NL, each teacher educator ultimately designed curriculum and employed conceptions in ways that were bespoke to their own settings and classrooms. In this sense, this study suggests that the theoretical diversity regarding conceptions of NL within literacy studies applies as much to the practice of teacher education as to theoretical conceptions of NL.

This finding thus serves as an application of the literacy-as-social-practice/New Literacy Studies tradition (Barton & Hamilton, 2005) to teacher education spaces, in that NL (as technologies) were employed to do particular kinds of things in particular teaching contexts. The group's conception was not able to remain static or autonomous, but rather took on particular localized characteristics when different practitioners began to plan and teach and work with real students in real contexts.

Confronting the Challenges of Using New Literacies

Although ample research has examined the pedagogies TEs employ to teach NL (e.g., Brownell & Wargo, 2017; Kist & Pytash, 2015; Skerrett, 2011), only a handful of studies have focused on TEs’ own practices as learners and course designers (e.g., Martin & Dismuke, 2015; McVee et al., 2013; Rice & Dallacqua, 2018). TEs in this self-study encountered multiple challenges as they learned about and incorporated NL, many of which were unique to their teaching contexts. At the university level, course requirements are often established based on university curriculum guidelines as well as state certification requirements. These university and state licensure requirements often have not kept pace with expanding notions of literacies, nor are they designed to be fluid or easily changed. Addressing such barriers is a daunting task for junior faculty, requiring time and support to navigate both the political and systemic components of the change process.

The structure of this project provided support in multiple areas: learning about NL, exploring new strategies for college-level teaching, and considering new pedagogical perspectives by learning from other group members. Discussing strategies for integrating self-study of teaching alongside competing responsibilities, adding to research skills, and finding a safe space to reflect on challenges unique to members’ individual teaching contexts proved invaluable (Chen et al., 2022; Rosaen & Terpstra, 2012). Often, TEs’ experiences in education did not prepare them to address NL in any context--P-12 or in a teacher preparation program.

The challenges faced by TEs in integrating NL into their own teaching are similar to those faced by PSTs and the P-12 teachers they work with in field experiences: systemic pressures to resist change, narrow focus on static conceptions of literacy in curriculum and assessment, minimal support for ongoing professional learning in NL, and difficulties accessing reliable internet and updated technology tools (Zoch et al., 2017). Adequately preparing PSTs to anticipate and address these challenges may help to increase retention of new teachers looking to expand what counts as literacy and wanting to incorporate new methods into their courses. By overcoming obstacles within our collaborative S-STEP, TEs were better able to support PSTs implementing these methods into their future teaching practices.

Addressing course design challenges

Throughout this study, TEs reflected on the design of their courses and brought challenges, resources, and new insights to the group for discussion. A recurring theme in these discussions was the stance toward NL. Using Halliday's (1980) notion of learning language, we explored learning NL, learning about NL, and learning through NL, while also learning to critically reflect on NL. While some were teaching methods courses, including field work components, they wanted to do more than teach students how to use NL tools and perspectives in their own teaching. Others were teaching foundational literacy courses that emphasized the why of using NL through consideration of theoretical perspectives. Discussions about course development or revisions included how to balance theory and practice.

Many of the TEs were newer faculty at their institutions and were tasked with teaching courses initially designed by others. As newcomers, making changes to existing curricula is daunting, and often actively discouraged. Adding new content to existing courses is also challenging as most already included more content than could reasonably be addressed in the time allotted. Some TEs expressed that there were no standards to incorporate NL in their state, making it more challenging to justify the time and technology resources necessary to integrate NL into their programs. Throughout the conversations, we affirmed our commitment to using NL in our classes, and our desire to support PSTs in becoming critical consumers of technology who can justify the technology tools they incorporate in their lesson plans for work in P-12 settings.

Developing Conceptions and Pedagogies Through Critical Collaborations

This group of novice and expert literacy TEs came together with the intention of developing their pedagogical knowledge of NL. We found that before we could implement the pedagogical, we needed to first deepen our theoretical understandings. Like Martin and Dismuke (2015), this collaborative self-study “provided an opportunity for us to theorize practice while also practicing theory” (p. 11). While engaging in NL as a group of critical friends, we recognized that only through reading, reflecting, and critiquing one another's work could we grow as learners, teachers, and researchers (O’Dwyer et al., 2018), similar to the findings of other collaborative groups (Appleget et al., 2022 ; Han et al., 2014).

Engaging in a multi-institutional self-study did not occur without obstacles. We found it challenging to make time for our collaborative S-STEP within our busy lives as faculty members. While we deeply valued our time together, finding the time in busy teaching schedules, juggling life events, and working across four different time zones was challenging.

Although none of the institutions discouraged us from working with colleagues in other locations, and many professed the benefits of collaboration, none of the institutions had processes in place to support faculty working across multiple institutions. Processes necessary to conduct this research across multiple institutions such as obtaining IRB approval, managing and storing data, and utilizing different qualitative data analysis software systems made a relatively simple task more complex and complicated. Much of our time was spent navigating the institutional boundaries put on faculty, either through the standards we were required to cover in our classes or the technology we were required to use for data collection, rather than engaging in a reflective self-study of our teaching practices.

Implications for Teacher Educators and University Administrators

Just as the process of becoming a teacher educator is fraught with challenges (Butler et al., 2015), the process of becoming a reflective teacher educator that incorporates NL came with complications, nuances, and challenges. As faculty with varied experiences in our positions, and various levels of support from our institutions, we supported one another in an endeavor that we felt was critical to improving our teaching practices and enhancing our PSTs’ learning. While we greatly appreciated the collaborations across such differing institutions, this study has made it abundantly clear how little time we are provided as TEs to develop our courses and improve our practice. TEs often stress the need for reflective practice to their PSTs (Russell, 1998); providing faculty with the time and support to engage in these same practices is imperative for all educators, but especially those educators preparing future teachers.

Supporting collaborative self-study and faculty learning

This study highlighted the benefits of engaging in collaborative self-study research related to our teaching. Institutional support for collaborative faculty professional development would encourage ongoing reflection on university teaching practices (Butler et al., 2015). Further, surfacing the unintentional barriers to collaborative, multi-university research projects may make such studies easier to develop. Specific forms of support would include promoting collaborative self-studies at the unit or campus level, valuing self-study as a form of scholarship, providing broader options for data collection and storage, purchasing different data analysis software licenses, and increasing professional travel budgets, particularly for junior faculty, to encourage building connections with a network of researchers (Kitchen & Parker, 2009).

Supporting the incorporation of new literacies

As TEs working within a framework of competing responsibilities, we needed to have adequate preparation and state, university, and department support to fulfill this need. Universities and departments have crucial roles in supporting TEs’ professional training. While there are published studies on the effectiveness of using certain technologies (e.g., McVee et al., 2013; Pellegrino et al., 2014), faculty may benefit from personalized training so that they can meet specific course requirements. There are pedagogical steps educators will need to use to introduce the NL tools to their current or future students. Administrators may consider the time and access to technologies that TEs require to prepare their courses (Kitchen, 2005). As educators gain knowledge about NL, they will be better prepared to support their PSTs to use NL in their instructions and assessments.

Conclusion

Not all TEs come to the classroom thoroughly versed in NL. And yet, digital technologies are already ubiquitous in literacy practices today and continue to become more so with each day that passes (Baker, 2021; Leu et al., 2017). It is thus imperative that TEs develop both a strong theoretical and pedagogical foundation in N/new L/literacies. The findings in this study expand current understandings of how TEs learn about and embed NL in their courses, bringing to the forefront the conceptual, pedagogical, and institutional challenges that come when they work to do so. The findings also suggest the power of collaborative practice models of teacher educator learning. Efforts to promote NL can be successful when they are grounded in collaboration with other colleagues dedicated to pushing through challenges and supporting one another in developing pedagogical practices germane to today's (digitally) literate world.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Brady Lee Nash

Tala Michelle Karkar Esperat

Crystal Dail Rose

Lauren Fletcher

Author Biographies

Brady Lee Nash is an assistant professor of English language arts at Miami University (OH). His research focuses on critical and culturally sustaining approaches to digital literacies.

Tala Michelle Karkar Esperat is an assistant professor of curriculum and instruction at Eastern New Mexico University. Her research focuses on enhancing the ability of teachers to cultivate racially literate justice through new literacies, multiliteracies, and pedagogical literacy practices.

Kathryn Mitchell Pierce is an associate professor at Saint Louis University in Missouri. Her research interests include children's literature, classroom discourse, and teacher beliefs and practices.

Courtney H. Shimek is an assistant professor in the School of Education at West Virginia University. Her research interests include the confluence between literacy and play, nonfiction children's literature, and literacy teacher education.

Crystal Dail Rose is an assistant professor of curriculum and instruction at Tarleton State University. Her research interests lie in practice based teaching, coaching, observation, and assessment as a way to challenge preservice teachers to engage multicultural, multilingual learners and to be day one ready to serve all students.

Lyudmyla Ivanyuk is an assistant professor in the Department of Education at Trinity Christian College. Her research interest focuses on literacy and culture among English language learners.

Lauren Fletcher is an assistant professor of education at California State University, Stanislaus. Her research interests include children's literature, climate change literacies, and classroom discourse.

References

Abrams

S. S.

(2015). Integrating virtual and traditional learning in 6–12 classrooms: A layered literacies approach to multimodal meaning making. Routledge.

Appleget

Shimek

Myers

Hogue

B. C.

(2022). Self-study communities of practice: A traveler’s guide for the journey. In Butler

B. M.

Bullock

S. M.

(Eds.), Learning through collaboration in self-study: Critical friendship, collaborative self-study, and self-study communities of practice (pp. 235–248). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2681-4_17

Baidoo-Anu

Ansah

L. O.

(2023, January 25). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. SSRN, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4337484

Baker

(2021). Wag the dog: A digital literacies narrative. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 70(1), 38–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377211027556

Barab

Squire

(2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1

Barnes

(1998). Foreword: Looking forward: The concluding remarks at the castle conference. In Hamilton

M. L.

Pinnegar

Russell

Loughran

LaBoskey

(Eds.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education (pp. ix–xiv). Falmer Press.

Baroud

Dharamshi

(2020). A collaborative self study of critical digital pedagogies in teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 16(2), 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2020.1739639

Barton

Hamilton

(2005). Situated literacies. Routledge.

Bhattacharya

(2017). Fundamentals of qualitative research: A practical guide (1st edition). Routledge.

10.

Brownell

C. J.

Wargo

J. M.

(2017). (Re) educating the senses to multicultural communities: Prospective teachers using digital media and sonic cartography to listen for culture. Multicultural Education Review, 9(3), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2017.1346559

11.

Butler

D. L.

Schnellert

MacNeil

(2015). Collaborative inquiry and distributed agency in educational change: A case study of a multi-level community of inquiry. Journal of Educational Change, 16(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-014-9227

12.

Chen

Fletcher

Castagno-Dysart

Popp

J. S.

Rose

Holyoke

E. S.

(2022). Teacher educators’ culturally sustaining pedagogy and activism in practice: A multi-institutional collaborative self-study. New Waves-Educational Research & Development, 25(2), 32–52.

13.

Creswell

J. W.

(2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.) Sage Publications.

14.

Gallagher

Griffin

Parker

D. C.

Kitchen

Figg

(2011). Establishing and sustaining teacher educator professional development in a self-study community of practice: Pre-tenure teacher educators developing professionally. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 880–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.02.003

15.

Guilfoyle

Hamilton

Pinnegar

Placier

(2004). The epistemological dimensions and dynamics of professional dialogue. In Loughran

Hamilton

LaKoskey

Russell

(Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practice (pp. 1109–1167). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6545-3_28

16.

Halliday

(1980). Three aspects of children's language development: Learning language, learning through language, learning about language. In Goodman

Haussler

Strickland

(Eds.), Oral and written language development research: Impact on the schools I (pp. 7–20). NCTE/IRA. http://dx.https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474212007.ch-014

17.

Han

H. S.

Vomvoridi-Ivanović

Jacobs

Karanxha

Lypka

Topdemir

Feldman

(2014). Culturally responsive pedagogy in higher education: A collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 10(3), 290–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2014.958072

18.

Handal

(1999). Consultation using critical friends. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 79, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.7907

19.

Hobson

(2014). Multimodality, ethnodrama, and the preparation of preservice teachers of writing. Perspectives on Urban Education, 11(2), 26–40.

20.

Hundley

Holbrook

(2013). Set in stone or set in motion?: Multimodal and digital writing with preservice English teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(6), 500–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.171

21.

Kesler

(2011). Expanding pre-service teachers’ conceptions of texts, readers, and response through multimodal response. Language and Literacy, 13(1), 72–97. https://doi.org/10.20360/G2001V

22.

Kim

G. M.

Omerbašić

(2017). Multimodal literacies: Imagining lives through Korean dramas. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(5), 557–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.609

23.

Kist

Pytash

K. E.

(2015). “I love to flip the pages”: Preservice teachers and new literacies within a field experience. English Education, 47(2), 131–167.

24.

Kitchen

(2005). Conveying respect and empathy: Becoming a relational teacher educator. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960500288374

25.

Kitchen

Parker

D. C.

(2009). Self-study communities of practice: Developing community, critically inquiring as community. In Lassonde

C. A.

Galman

(Eds.), Self-study research methodologies for teacher educators (pp. 107–128). Brill-Sense. http://dx.https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087906900_008

26.

Knobel

Lankshear

(2014). Studying new literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(2), 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.314

27.

Leu

D. J.

Kinzer

C. K.

Coiro

Castek

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741719700202

28.

Louie

B. Y.

Drevdahl

D. J.

Purdy

J. M.

Stackman

R. W.

(2003). Advancing the scholarship of teaching through collaborative self-study. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(2), 150–171. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2003.0016

29.

Martin

S. D.

Dismuke

(2015). Maneuvering together to develop new practices: Examining our collaborative processes. Studying Teacher Education, 11(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2014.1001356

30.

McVee

M. B.

Bailey

N. M.

Shanahan

L. E.

(2013). The (artful) deception of technology integration and the move toward a new literacies mindset. In Miller

McVee

M. B.

(Eds.), Multimodal composing in classrooms (pp. 13–31). Routledge.

31.

Mills

K. A.

(2010). A review of the “digital turn” in the new literacy studies. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246–271. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310364401

32.

Mirra

(2019). From connected learning to connected teaching: Reimagining digital literacy pedagogy in English teacher education. English Education, 51(3), 261–291.

33.

Moorhouse

B. L.

Tiet

M. C.

(2021). Attempting to implement a pedagogy of care during the disruptions to teacher education caused by COVID-19: A collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 17(2), 208–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2021.1925644

34.

Nash

Brady

R. B.

(2022). Video games in the secondary English language arts classroom: A state-of-the-art review of the literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(3), 957–981. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.454

35.

Nash

B. L.

Dunham

Murdter-Atkinson

Mosley Wetzel

(2023). A culturally sustaining approach to multimodal literacies: Building on students’ funds of knowledge in preservice teacher education. Literacy Research and Instruction. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2022.2153766

36.

O’Dwyer

Pinto

McDonough

(2018). Self-care for academics: A poetic invitation to reflect and resist. Reflective Pratice, 19(2), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2018.1437407

37.

Pellegrino

Sweet

Derges Kastner

Russell

H. A.

Reese

(2014). Becoming music teacher educators: Learning from and with each other in a professional development community. International Journal of Music Education, 32(4), 462–477. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761413515819

38.

Reinking

Bradley

B. A.

(2008). On formative and design experiments: Approaches to language and literacy research. Teachers College Press.

39.

Rice

Dallacqua

(2018). Collage making as a visual inquiry process for supporting practicing teachers’ understandings about literacies. In Garbett

Ovens

(Eds.), Pushing boundaries and crossing borders: Self-study as a means for researching pedagogy (pp. 187–194). S-STEP.

40.

Rosaen

Terpstra

(2012). Widening worlds: Understanding and teaching new literacies. Studying Teacher Education, 8(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2012.657015

41.

Russell

(1998). Philosophical perspectives. In Hamilton

M. L.

Pinnegar

(Eds.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education (pp. 5–7). Psychology Press.

42.

Saldaña

(2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

43.

Samaras

A. P.

(2011). Self-study teacher research: Improving your practice through collaborative inquiry. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230481

44.

Sandretto

Tilson

Hill

Upton

Howland

Parker

(2006). A collaborative self-study into the development of critical literacy practices: A pilot study. Retrieved 07 Feb 2023, from http://www.tlri.org.nz/pdfs/9231_ﬁ nalreport.pdf.

45.

Schuck

Russell

(2005). Self-study, critical friendship, and the complexities of teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 1(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960500288291

46.

Skerrett

(2011). “Wide open to rap, tagging, and real life”: Preparing teachers for multiliteracies pedagogy. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 6(3), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2011.579048

47.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory and techniques. Sage.

48.

Street

(2003). What’s “new” in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77–91.

49.

Tannehill

Parker

Tindall

Moody

MacPhail

(2015). Looking across and within: Studying ourselves as teacher educators. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 6(3), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/18377122.2015.1092726

50.

Vanassche

Kelchtermans

(2015). The state of the art in self-study of teacher education practices: A systematic literature review. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(4), 508–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.995712

51.

Williams

Ritter

Bullock

(2012). Understanding the complexity of becoming a teacher educator: Experience, belonging, and practice within a professional learning community. Studying Teacher Education, 8(3), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2012.719130

52.

Zoch

Myers

Belcher

(2017). Teachers’ engagement with new literacies as support for implementing technology in the English/language arts classroom. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, (CITE Journal),17(1), 25–52.