Marvin Wacnag Lidawan, Ethel Reyes Chua


This paper highlights educators’ innovativeness as digital participants and facilitators adapting themselves in current global educational changes as upshots of technological fusion that influences instructional variation for learners’ real–world. It is perceived that teachers’ flexibility to evolving trends in current instructions is crucial. It is fundamentally a structured expository concept on teachers and students’ development reinforced by theories and researches’ investigated outcomes toward the challenges of emerging pedagogic phenomena sustained by model project- tasks designed for innovative, collaborative and digital literacy participations. This inquisition attempts to respond to the succeeding inquiries: Why do educators innovate in the 21st century? Is professional development necessary to situate contemporary learning? What are the roles of technology and digital literacy for innovative and collaborative instructions? What are the features of digital literacy and digital participations and how do participants pragmatically engage? What are some collaborative and innovative projects that define digital participations? Are these tasks sustained by current and duly sanctioned educational principles and frameworks? Do these tasks conform to the scope of integrated digital literacy taxonomy framework? Do the framework and principles produce practical assessment of outcomes to improve future project-based tasks? An empirical investigation is recommended to test the significance and correlation among students’ project performance towards their attitudes and efficacy on digital literacy.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



digital literacy participation frameworks, innovation and collaboration, project-based tasks, digital taxonomy, integrated digital literacy taxonomy, technology and education

Full Text:



Ashrafi, M. (2013). Behavioral objectives movement and its contribution to the use of language in art material development. European Journal of Experimental Biology, 3(2):301-305. Retrieved from www.pelagiaresearchlibrary.

Bell, P., & Winn, W. (2000). Distributed cognitions, by nature and by design. In D. Jonassen, & L. S. M., Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environment. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. pp. 123-145.

Berger, A. (2002). Video games: A popular cultural phenomenon. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Bhatt, Ibrar. (2012). Digital literacy practices and their layered multiplicity. Educational Media International. 49. 289-301.https. Doi 10.1080/09523987.2012.741199

Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman. p. 145.

Brown, k. & Cole, M. (2000). Socially-shared cognition: System design and the organization of collaborative research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ. Pp.197-214

Brame, C. (2015). Effective educational videos. Retrieved from

Burns, M. (2002). From black and white to color: Technology professional development and changing practice. T H E Journal (Technological Horizons in Education, 29(11), 36-42.

Bybee, R., & Starkweather, K. (2006). The twenty-first century workforce: A contemporary challenge for technology education. The Technology Teacher. Pp.27-32.

Chastain, K. (1988) Developing second language skills. HBJ, Publishers.

Crossan, M. (1998). Improvisation in action. Organisation science, 9 (5), 593- 599.

Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s digital taxonomy.edorigami.wikispaces.

Churches, A. (2008). Bloom's taxonomy Blooms’ digitally. Retrieved from

Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. Retrieved from

Cooper, G. (1990). Cognitive load theory as an aid for instructional design. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 1990, 6(1)

Darling-Hammond,L., Barron,B., Pearson,P., Schoenfeld, A., Stage, E., Zimmerman, T., Cervetti, G & Tilson, J. (2008) Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. pp. 193-212.

Domalewska, D. (2014). Technology-supported classroom for collaborative learning: Blogging in the foreign language classroom. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology.Vol. 10, Issue 4, pp. 21-30

Elbelazi, S. (2015). The use of technology in second language literacy: Does it work? Arab World Journal. Retrieved from

Evans, J (ed) (2004). Literacy Moves On: Using popular culture, new technologies and critical literacy in the primary classroom. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Farren, Y. & Crotty, Y. (2013). Digital literacies in education: Creative, multimodal and innovative practices. Peter Lang Publishing Group.

Gebhard, J. (1996). Teaching English as a foreign language: A teacher self –development and methodology. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

Genesee, F. & J. Upshur (1996). Classroom-based evaluation in second language education. Cambridge University Press.

Genç, G. (2016). Learned resourcefulness and burnout levels of English teachers. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies. 3 (1), 1-13.

Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Publishing.

Greenwald, M. (2013).How does the Sony virtuoso language lab technology measure up? 21st century technology for language learning. World Languages Standards. Language Teacher.Pp.2. Retrieved from

Griffin, L. (2015). Using video in the classroom. Library video company. Retrieved from

Framework for 21st Century Learning. (2007). Partnership for 21st century learning; A unified vision for learning to ensure student success in a world where change is constant and learning never stops. Retrieved from

Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007) “The Power of feedback”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 77, pp 81–112.

Hani N. (2014). Benefits and barriers of computer assisted language learning and teaching in the Arab world: Jordan as a Model. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 4, No. 8, pp. 1609-1615, August 2014. Retrieved from, doi:10.4304/tpls.4.8.1609-1615

Hiradhar, P. (2015). Task-based pedagogy in technology mediated writing. In Proceedings of 17th International CALL Conference: Task design and CALL, pp. 21-26. Tarragona, Spain: Universitat Rovira i Virgili.

Hague, C. & Williamson, B. (2009).Digital participation, digital literacy and school subjects. A review of the policies, literature and evidence. Futurelab: Innovation in Education. Retrieved from

Hague &Payton (2010) Digital Literacy across the curriculum. Futurelab Handbook. Retrieved from

Hawisher, G. E., & Selfe, C. L. (1991). Introduction. In G. E. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Evolving perspectives on computers and composition studies (pp. 1-4). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English and Computers and Composition. Retrieved from (2018). Video Script. Retrieved from

Ilomäki, L., Paavola, S., Lakkala, M. & Kantosalo, A. Digital competence – an emergent boundary concept for policy and educational research. Springer Science Business Media. New York.

Johnson, D. & Johnson, F. (2009). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kajder, S. B. (2003). The tech-savvy English classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Kaplan, N. (1991). Ideology, technology, and the future of writing instruction. In G. E. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.). Evolving perspectives on computers and composition studies (pp. 11-42). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English and Computers and Composition. Retrieved from

Kreber, C. (2002).Teaching excellence, teaching expertise and the scholarship of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 1, Fall 2002.

Kishi, M. (2008). Perceptions and use of electronic media: testing the relationship between organizational Interpretation differences and media richness. Information & Management, vol. 45, 281–287.

Kiefer K. (1991).Computers and teachers’ education in the 1990s and beyond. In G.E. Hawisher, C.L. Selfe (Eds.), Evolving perspectives on computers and composition studies: Questions for the 1990s, National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, IL.pp. 113-131

Kolawole, C. (2012). Resources and Resourcefulness in Language Teaching and LearningAFRREV LALIGENS,).An International Journal of Language, Literature and Gender Studies Vol. 1 (1).PP.96-108.

Krathwohl,D. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview: Theory Into Practice, Volume 41, Number 4, College of Education, The Ohio State University

Kreber, C. (2002). Teaching excellence, teaching expertise, and the scholarship of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 1. Human Sciences Press, Inc. Pp.18

Lachs, V. (2000). Making Multimedia in the Classroom: A teacher’s guide: Routledge Farmer: 130-142

Lidawan, M.W. (2016). Guided writing through silent motion picture's visual passages. Ezine Articles. Retrieved from

Lidawan, M.W. (2017). Linking Bloom's digital taxonomy on media and instructional technology. Teaching methodology. Retrieved from

Lidawan, M.W. (2016). English language writing instructions with the interventions of Mayer’s multimedia learning principles. International Journal of English Language, Literature in Humanities, 4(5), 26. Retrieved from

Literacy Information and Communication System. (2015).Integrating Digital Literacy into English Language Instruction: Issue Brief U.S. Department of Education, Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education, P. 2.

McFarlane, A. (2003). Assessment for the digital age. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10, 261-266.

Luckin, R., Bligh, B., Manches, A., Ainsworth, S., Crook, C. & Noss, R. (2012) Decoding learning: The proof, promise and potential of digital education, Nesta, London.

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the web 2.0 era. Paper presented at the ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore. Retrieved from

McMahon, M. (2014). Ensuring the development of digital literacy in higher education curricula. In B. Hegarty, J. McDonald, & S.-K. Loke (Eds.), Rhetoric and Reality: Critical perspectives on educational technology. Proceedings ascilite Dunedin.Pp. 524-528.

Myers, M. (1996). Changing our minds: Negotiating English literacy. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Motteram, G. (Ed). (2013). Innovations in learning technologies on English language teaching. London: British Council. Retrieved from

Lonsdale, M. & McCurry, D. (2004). Literacy in the new millennium. Adelaide: NCVER.

Loveless, A. (2002) Literature review in creativity, new technologies and learning. Report 4: A report for NESTA Futurelab. Retrieved from

Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187–198.

McKay, D. & Anderson, LW, and Krathwohl, DR (eds) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Mckee-Waddell, (2015) Digital literacy: bridging the gap with digital writing tools. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin. Vol. 82, Issue 1, p26. Retrieved from

Moeller, B. & Reitzes, T. (2011). Integrating technology with student-centered learning. Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC). Quincy, MA: Nellie Mae Education Foundation

Murphy, E., (1997) Constructivism…from philosophy to practice. Retrieved from

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University press. Morrow, K., S.H. (Ed.). (1977).Authentic text in ESP. Modern English Publication: London

Ofcom (2009). Report of the digital Britain media literacy working group. Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. Digital Britain Final Report. Retrieved from

Oates, W. (1989). Introduction: A history and overview of this collection. In C. L. Selfe, D. Rodrigues, & W. R. Oates (Eds.), Computers in English and the language arts: The challenge of teacher education (pp. xiii-xix). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Pacific Policy Research Center. (2010). 21st Century Skills for Students and Teachers. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools, Research & Evaluation Division.

Presby, L. (2001). Seven tips for highly effective online courses. Syllabus, 14(11), 17.

Prensky, M. (2008). Programming is the new literacy. Edutopia. Retrieved from

Pope, C., & Golub, J. (2000). Preparing tomorrow’s English language arts teachers today: Principles and practices for infusing technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. Retrieved from

Raveendran, V.A. (2013). Wings. Short Silent Film. Retrieved from

Ravitch D. (2009). 21st century skills: An old familiar song. Washington, DC: Common Core; 2009. Retrieved from

Rheingold, H. (2012). Stewards of digital literacies. Knowledge Quest, 41, 52.

Richards, G. (2000). Why use computer technology. English Journal, 90(2) 38-41.

Richard, J. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.

Scroggins, B. (2004). The Teaching-Learning Cycle: Using student learning outcome results to improve teaching and learning. Workshop Activities & Resource Materials. Retrieved from

Selfe, C., Rodrigues, D. & Oates, W. (1989). (Eds.), Evolving perspectives on computers and composition studies Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English and Computers and Composition. pp. 117-131. (2018). Camera angles.

Skinner, B., & Austin, R. (1999). Computer conferencing: Does it motive EFL students? ELT Journal, 531(3), 270-277.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from

Smith, M., & Wilhelm, J. (2002). Reading don’t fix no Cheveys: Literacy in the lives of young men. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Sørensen B. & Levinsen, K. (2015). “Evaluation as a powerful Practices in digital learning processes” The Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 13 Issue 4, (pp291-301). Retrieved from

Sulaiman, T., Sulaiman, S & Suan, W. (2011). Integrating multiple intelligences and technology into classroom instruction to transform instructional practice in Malaysia. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 2, No. 5, pp. 1146-1155. doi:10.4304/jltr.2.5.1146-1155

Tang, C. & Chaw, L. (2016). Digital literacy: A Prerequisite for effective learning in a blended learning environment? Electronic Journal of e-Learning. , v14 n1.PP. Pp.54-65. Retrieved from

Trilling & Fadel (2009). 21st Century Learning Skills. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Thieman, G. (2016). Using technology as a tool for learning and developing 21st century citizenship skills: An examination of the NETS and technology use by preservice teachers with their K-12 Students. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, Volume 1 Issue I.pp.11.Retrieved from,

Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation (2008). Whys and hows of assessment. Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved from,

Thomas, S. Joseph, C., Laccetti. J., Mason, B., Mills, S., Perril, S. & Pullinger, K. (2007). "Transliteracy: Crossing divides". First Monday, 12 (12). Retrieved from (2018). Students film making. Retrieved from

Walsh, F. & Gamage, T. (2003).The significance of professional development and practice: towards a better public education system. Teacher Development 7(3):363-384.Doi: 10.1080/13664530300200218

Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.

Wegerif, R. & Dawes, L. (2004). Thinking and learning with ICT: Raising achievement in primary classrooms. London: Routledge.

Wilhelm, J. (2000). Literacy by design: Why is all this technology so important? Voices from the Middle, 7(3), 4-14.

Willis, J., Stephens, E. & Matthew, K. (1996).Technology, reading, and language arts. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Young, C. A. & Bush, J. (2004). Teaching the English language arts with technology: A critical approach and pedagogical framework. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(1). Retrieved from

Young, C. (2001). Technology integration in inquiry-based learning: An evaluation study of students’ implementation and perceptions of a web-based electronic portfolio (Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(1), 70.

Zeurcher, N. (2002). Technology: Power tools for writers. In M. L. Warner (Ed.) Winning ways of coaching writing: A practical guide for teaching writing, grades 6-12. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Marvin Wacnag Lidawan, Ethel Reyes Chua

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2018. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).