The educational landscape has been dramatically altered by the digital turn, with digital technologies permeating classroom practices to the extent that the distinction between "digital” and “non-digital” teaching appears to have been rendered virtually obsolete (Fawns, 2019). While expanding methodological possibilities, this rapid acceleration also raises novel questions and demands for teachers and students alike. For instance, identifying students’ needs in an uncertain and digital future challenges teachers’ understanding of their role and responsibility, especially concerning the continuously evolving field of digital literacy education (DLE).  

Furthermore, as teachers attempt to integrate DLE into their established belief system, they may be confronted with points of misalignment, experienced as dilemmatic spaces (Fransson & Grannäs, 2013). Ultimately, teachers seek to navigate these dilemmatic spaces by integrating DLE in a way that satisfies different expectations: from society, students and even themselves. In the process, they must make choices regarding curriculum and classroom practice that may confirm, contradict or recalibrate their understanding of responsibility towards DLE.

Didactical choices surrounding DLE cannot only be understood at an individual or classroom level. The demands set forth by educational policies, such as the European Commission’s “Digital Education Action Plan” (EC, 2023) impact teacher and student experiences, also in Switzerland. Obviously influenced by educational policies on the European level (e.g. Eurydice, 2019), the new Swiss framework curriculum for upper-secondary schools requires teachers to adapt to this new culture of digital learning and instruction (EDK, 2020). Teachers of all subjects will be expected to integrate a set of transversal learning objectives, from teaching with digital tools to teaching in and about a digital world.  

This contribution draws on belief research in education (Fives & Buehl, 2016), as teachers’ beliefs on DLE in a subject-specific context are assumed to be of paramount importance for their instructional reasoning and practices. The precise relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their practices cannot be viewed as simply linear, however; there are certain “inconsistencies” between beliefs and action (Raymond, 1997). This complex relationship between beliefs and instructional practices has been explained by the influence of school context, the complexity of work in the classroom, and sometimes contradictions between beliefs on the subject matter characteristics and the pedagogical settings (Depaepe et al., 2013; Yaakobi & Sharan, 1985). We also refer to Lenk’s (2017) philosophical ethics framework of responsibility as a multi-dimensional construct, which is both relational and attributional. This allows for a deeper understanding of possibly conflicting perceptions of teachers’ responsibilities concerning DLE. The question arises as to how subject-teachers’ belief systems, perceived responsibilities and their instructional rationale are related to their practices in the classroom. Inspired by the multi-component approach to responsibility, this refers both to the object (DLE) and to the addressees of responsibility (Lauermann & Karabenick, 2011). Hence, the key questions are: 1) What do EFL-teachers believe to be their responsibilities towards subject-integrated DLE? 2) Towards whom do they feel responsible? 3) How are their views reflected in their instruction? 4) To what extent does the instructional offer meet students’ learning needs?

To answer these questions, this contribution starts with an overview of the investigated teachers’ belief systems concerning DLE and their related responsibilities. Additionally, exemplary case studies of teachers demonstrating diverse or even contradicting didactical practices will be presented. These cases are developed further through the presentation of student perspectives collected from post-lesson feedback surveys. As an outlook, our contribution will shortly discuss the results against the background of a supposedly post-digital educational landscape.

Inspired by design research (McKenney & Reeves, 2012), the three-year project underlying this contribution follows a mixed methods approach by triangulating both research instruments and data sources (Denzin, 2012; Schreier & Echterhoff, 2013). First, data were collected in interviews with 22 Bernese upper-secondary English teachers and with 30 of their students, who participated in focus groups consisting of 5-6 students each. The interviews included questions on the interviewees’ conceptualizations of digital literacy in general and subject-integrated digital literacy education (DLE) in particular, and were preceded by a visualization task asking teachers to explain their understanding of digital literacy. We combined both inductive and deductive processes for coding the interview and visual data (Bell, 2001; Mayring, 2014; Schreier, 2012) and developed a coding scheme based on the questions mentioned above. To enhance the validity of the analysis, 1/5 of the interviews were coded and re-coded in a sequential and repeating loop by two researchers. The visualizations were verbally summarized and crosschecked with two experts for digital literacy who were not part of the research team. This first phase of analysis provided insight into belief systems and perceptions of responsibility. Lesson study cycles (Dudley, 2016) with twelve teachers from six schools provided the second source of data. Teachers were asked to use a set of material based on a DLE-related topic. Data were collected both in the form of teachers’ extended lesson plans and a survey comprising reflection on the planning process. During the lessons, two to three researchers recorded their observations in a semi-standardized form. To obtain access to students’ perspectives, they were surveyed twice (n = 240): 1) Before the lesson study cycles, to gain insight into their general views on digital literacy; and 2) directly after the lesson. The questionnaires included both closed and open questions and were developed based on the data and analyses generated in the interviews. The analysis of lesson study data provided a deeper understanding as to how different belief systems and perceptions of responsibility are manifested in a classroom setting. In our contribution, we will analyze three exemplary cases in more detail to illustrate how different belief systems are reflected in the classroom. We will present student data on perceived learning goals, motivation and suitability of instructional methods, which will indicate to what extent students’ learning needs were met.

Our preliminary findings show the following: Teachers have strongly value-laden, partially ambivalent beliefs about their duties and responsibilities concerning DLE. These seem to be determined by their highly-complex belief systems on what DLE is and, thereof, the resulting challenges to integrate DLE into subject-matter learning. Our contribution will show a divergence in understanding when it comes to digital literacy; while the majority of participating teachers consider digital literacy to be primarily concerned with the use of digital tools and media within the classroom, others take into account broader social and cultural implications and the impact on the individual as a citizen of the digital world. Results indicate that the degree to which teachers embrace or deflect their responsibility can in part be explained by their understanding of DLE. Concerning the addressee or object of responsibility, teachers’ perceived responsibilities include their own pedagogical goal-settings and their students’ needs, the subject-specific demands, and the expectations to integrate DLE, which are externally set by the curriculum. With reference to Lenk (2017), results concerning accountability issues indicate that the system of authorities and values within which teachers operate and feel accountable to, should also be considered from a temporal perspective. The data indicate that teachers feel their main responsibility is to prepare students for the (uncertain) future. Based on an in-depth analysis of three cases, we will shed light on a selection of specific situations observed in the classroom that bring those different orientations and values to the fore. By integrating students’ post-lesson feedback surveys, we were able to identify tendencies in students’ described learning and emotional experiences.

Bell, P. (2001). Content analysis of visual images. In: Van Leeuwen, T. & Jewitt, C. (Eds.), The Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp. 10–34). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020062.n2 Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186 Depaepe, F., Noens, P., Kelchtermans, G., & Simons, M. (2013). ¿Tienen los profesores una relación con su asignatura? Revisión de la literatura sobre la relación asignatura-profesor. Teoría de La Educación. Revista Interuniversitaria, 25(1), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.14201/11153 Dudley, Peter. (2016). Lesson study: Professional learning for our time. Routledge. (EDK) Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektorinnen und -direktoren. (2020). Weiterentwicklung der gymnasialen Maturität, Projekt Rahmenlehrplan: Kapital II Transversale Bereiche. https://matu2023.ch/de/projekt-und-arbeitsgruppen/rahmenlehrplan. European Commission, EC (2023). Digital Education Action Plan – 2021-2017. https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/action-plan European Commission, EC, Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8bc1dd11-e8ea-11e9-9c4e-01aa75ed71a1.0002.01/DOC_1 Fawns, T. (2019). Postdigital Education in Design and Practice. Postdigit Sci Educ 1, 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0021-8 Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs in the context of policy reform. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215623554 Fransson, G., Grannäs, J. (2013). Dilemmatic spaces in educational contexts – towards a conceptual framework for dilemmas in teachers work. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 19(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.744195 Lauermann, F., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Taking teacher responsibility into account(ability): Explicating its multiple components and theoretical status. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558818 Knüsel-Schäfer, D. (2020). Überzeugungen von Lehrpersonen zu digitalen Medien. Klinkhardt. Lenk, H. (2017). Verantwortlichkeit und Verantwortungstypen: Arten und Polaritäten. In: Heidbrink, L., Langbehn, C., Loh, J. (Eds.), Handbuch Verantwortung (pp. 57–84). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06110-4_3 Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. Beltz. McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. Routledge. Raymond, A. M. (1997). Inconsistency between a beginning elementary school teacher’s mathematics beliefs and teaching practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 550–576. https://doi.org/10.2307/749691 Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage. Schreier, M., & Echterhoff, G. (2013). Mixed-Methods-Designs. In W. Hussy, M. Schreier, & G. Echterhoff, Forschungsmethoden in Psychologie und Sozialwissenschaften für Bachelor (pp. 298–310). Springer. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-642-34362-9_10 Yaakobi, D., & Sharan, S. (1985). Teacher beliefs and practices: The discipline carries the message. Journal of Education for Teaching, 11(2), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260747850110207