Work Package 3 Literature Review

The reason for extracting the pedagogical pathway was to determine the proficiency level that the participants attain through engaging in professional learning. This is based on existing proficiency levels identified in competence frameworks such as DigCompEdu as well as other models of levels of technology integration. Regarding competency frameworks, DigCompEdu uses 6 levels of proficiency; Newcomer (A1); Explorer (A2); Integrator (B1); Expert (B2); Leader (C1); Pioneer (C2). 3 Whereas UNESCO use three levels knowledge awareness, knowledge deepening and knowledge creation. 4 Many of these proficiency levels map to phases of technology integration such as that outlined by Christensen et al, 2001 5 ; Stage 1 Awareness, Stage 2 Learning the process, Stage 3 Understanding and application of the process, Stage 4 Familiarity and confidence, Stage 5 Adaptation to other contexts, Stage 6 Creative application to new contexts. The SAMR model- Substitution, Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition 6 . Both of which end with redefining and remodelling learning through technology. They also relate to elements outlined within theories regarding models of change such as the stages of concern in the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM), which again an outline six stages ranging from awareness to refining or developing new ideas. 7 It has been acknowledged in the research that change is complex and often not linear, in addition sometimes people need to be reassured, and information or awareness may need to be provided, thus phases may overlap. 8 9 . It is important that this is considered within the analysis. Furthermore, apart from DigCompEdu many of these descriptors do not consider the progression to leadership or innovators. To enable overlap between the levels and map profession to leadership it was decided to map existing models to three levels Knowledge Awareness, Knowledge Creation and Leadership. This amalgamates the proficiency levels in the DigiCompEdu framework, to create consistency between frameworks and allow for broader definitions to remove the concept of linearity. It also considers models such as technology integration levels SAMR, CBAM. See Table 6 for an overview of these Outcome Focus Knowledge awareness Awareness of the pedagogical and professional potential of digital learning technologies Supporting them to understand their beliefs about digital learning technology, building their critical understanding of digital learning technologies and encouraging them to apply it to their practice Knowledge deepening Engage in critical discourse with stakeholders regarding the selection and application of digital Reflective experimentation, collaboration and knowledge 3 EU (n.d.) DigCompEdu proficiency levels 4 UNESCO (2018) UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers; 2018 5 Christensen, R., Griffin, D. and Knezek, G., 2001. Measures of Teacher Stages of Technology Integration and Their Correlates with Student Achievement. 6 Puentedura, R.R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education 7 Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2020). Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and Potholes (5th ed.). Pearson. 8 Sansom, D.W., 2020. Investigating processes of change in beliefs and practice following professional development: multiple change models among in-service teachers in China. Professional development in education, 46(3), pp.467-481. 9 Fullan, M., 2016. The elusive nature of whole system improvement in education. Journal of Educational Change, 17(4), pp.539-544.