INTRODUCTION

Our everyday gratitude to our Lord who strengthens

our weary souls. We bring Him all the praise and glory!
    We also extend our heartfelt gratitude for the
support and help of the following Foremost, we would like
to thank the members of the advisory panel, Dr. Romeo M.
Sumayo Jr., Prof. Romeo C. Layones, and Prof. Dr. Joy SB.
Gaza, Prof. Ernesto Gurnot Jr., for their area of
expertise and valuable comments, ideas, recommendations,
genuine encouragement, guidance, and understanding which
significantly motivated us to finish this study.
To Romeo M. Sumayo Jr., our beloved thesis adviser and
mentor, for his constant motivation and encouragement.
For unconditionally imparting his intellectual ideas and
for his valuable assistance by sparing his precious time
throughout the completion of this study.
To the PSDS of Sipocot, Libmanan, and Pasacao Districts
for allowing us to conduct a study.
     To the respective school heads and respondents of
the three schools of the Division of Camarines Sur who
religiously answered and gave a reliable response to the
questionnaire.

The Researchers
 DEDICATION
 
 
This study is wholeheartedly dedicated to our beloved
family, who have been our source of inspiration and gave
us strength, and continue to provide their moral,
emotional, spiritual, and financial support.
To our friends who are always there even in times of
difficulty, sharing their pearls of wisdom and
encouragement to finish our studies.
To our thesis adviser who is always available anytime
and anywhere. Giving us professional and constructive
advice to further enhanced this study.
To our fellow educators who continue to seek the best way
to deliver and transfer the learning.
To our pupils and students who are always the
benefactors of all the efforts to uplift the education
quality.
And Finally, we dedicate this book to the Almighty
God for the strength, guidance, protection, and for
giving us the skills, power of mind and heart, and
healthy life. All of these, we offer to you.

The Researchers
 ABSTRACT

FUTURE PROOFING TEACHERS THROUGH GOOGLE COMPETENCY

CERTIFICATION by AILEEN BOMBALES, ALLAN
CAMACHO, and RICKY STO TOMAS (Unpublished Master's
Thesis, University of Nueva Caceres. Naga City, March
2023)

Keywords: Educational technology, Google Classroom,

Integrating technology, future-proofing, Google
competency certification

The main purpose of the study is to assess the Google

skills sets of selected teachers and proposed
professional development training to future-proof them.
The study is carried out through a quantitative research
design. The sample of the study, which uses the survey
questionnaire method, consists of 72 elementary and
secondary education teachers who have implemented Google
Classroom for the school year 2022-2023 in their
classroom of the Division of Camarines Sur. This study
used the checklist questionnaire as the main gathering
instrument and computed it according to statistical tools
such as weighted mean, percentage calculation, and
ranking. Based on the primary and secondary sources, the
researchers propose training for up-skilling teachers
about Google skills. The training workshop will help ICT
lecturers, especially senior ICT Division staff; learn
how to use the various aspects of ICT to help teach their
students. The workshop's objectives include teaching
academics with special needs how to use computers and
related applications and helping them feel confident
using computer software. Additionally, the workshop will
help academics learn why Google classroom is useful in
teaching and learning more likely to explore ICT domains
and become comfortable with its applications. Teachers
face a challenge when it comes to using technology to
support learning. They don't always understand how
technology can help, and they have a hard time responding
to Google skills. Teachers need to have the competence to
make use of the Google form. The schools need to conduct
continuous training including training for lecturers as
resource persons. Should the lecturers provide optimal
service and continue to do community service in schools,
and be a resource following the needs of the
school/teacher?
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Our future-proof teaching provides hybrid

opportunities to equip students with 21st-century skills
to respond to the challenges of today and whatever the
future may bring. Students can learn 21st-century
problem-solving and the skills they’ll use in their
future careers with accessibility features that help
every student do their best work. Google Workspace and
Classroom are available at no cost for schools, and
shareable Chrome books extend the benefits of technology
entirely and affordably to more students—with 24/7
support and multiple layers of security to keep students
and data safe. Google for Education shareable devices and
collaborative tools help teachers prepare all students
with new, more engaging ways to learn the skills they
need to succeed.
    Google provides educational services known as
nonprofit Google apps for education with free data
storage, and its applications are classroom, Gmail,
drive, calendar, docs, sheets, slides, and sites. Google
apps for education are free communication tools and
collaboration, including email, calendar, and documents.
More than 30 million students, teachers, and
administrators use Google apps for education.
    The Philippine government has shown its serious
commitment to ICT in education by announcing a series of
initiatives applying ICT to teaching and learning. These
were aligned with the Millennium Development Goals and
Education for All movements. They have created a global
policy environment for the direction and nature of
interventions to improve access and quality of basic
education. Other important policy documents highlighted
the need for ICT reform in the education sector and led
regions, schools, and teachers to prioritize the
integration of ICT in the education system according to
Cecilia San Diego.
The DepEd Order Number 78, s. 2010, said that every
public school had to get computer programs that would
help teach and learn better in the 21st century. In
response to the computer shortage in public schools, it
supplies hardware, software, and instruction in
straightforward troubleshooting. One of the tools that
every school uses to become a learning institution fit
for the 21st century is information and communication
technology. It made it possible to improve education
management by improving the quality of advanced teaching
methods and learning outcomes. It permits reform or
improves the management of educational systems and
education quality (Nalugon et al., 2015).
Today's students are more interested in technology;
Using ICT tools, they can quickly adapt, learn, and
investigate knowledge. If students are exposed to
gadgets, it will be easy for them to learn. Also, the
public education policy will be implemented and examined
to determine how it is the key to teaching (Ghavifekr et
al., 2015). Literacy, critical thinking, and other skills
that teachers and students need to convert information
into useful knowledge must be developed for effective ICT
integration in education programs (Arinto, 2016).
Teachers should be knowledgeable about the latest
teaching advances and how technology is integrated into
education to help support learning. Innovation
coordination in schools roused positive changes in
showing strategies on the global level (Norman, 2016). As
technology became more available and people in more
countries started using computers and mobile devices,
many people’s predicted this trend would continue
(Poushter, 2016).
The importance of competence in IT is one of the
demands of the curriculum, so teachers need to have
sufficient skills or competency in IT. The school has
tried to equip teachers with the knowledge and skills
they need to use IT by involving them in training
activities related to the use of technology.
This study is significant for evaluating the Google
proficiency of particular teachers. Additionally, this
study finds value and relevance for educators, learners,
administrators, and future researchers. The beneficiaries
of this study are the teachers that make them aware of
and updated on technology and use the ICT to improve
instructional materials, learning experience, teaching
competence, and students’ performance. Also, computers
can help teachers in terms of information access and
research. In this study, they will also be aware of their
weaknesses and strengths in computers; and make the
necessary adjustments from outdated to updated training
and seminars. It will also benefit the students because
they are the ultimate recipients of the computer literacy
program by the teachers. This study will help
administrators to use it as a basis for planning,
designing, and implementing a computer literacy program.
Also, they may use the collected statistics or outcomes
to emphasize the need for a Google competency for
teachers. The results can be a basis for other
researchers’ future references. It will also give them an
idea of the importance of computers in the research
process. They may include other variables to deepen the
study of assistance professional development training for
future-proofing teachers.
    The inputs and outcomes of this study could serve as
sources of material baseline data and information for use
as a reference or basis in the formulation, conduct, and
implementation of projects and programs and propose
professional development training to future-proof them.
Research Objectives
This study aimed to assess the Google skills sets of
selected teachers and proposed professional development
training to future-proof them.
Scope and Delimitation
This study the Google skill sets of selected teachers and
propose professional development training to future-proof
them. There are seventy-two (72) respondents to this
study, including nineteen (19) elementary teachers and
fifty-three (53) secondary teachers chosen from DepEd
Camarines Sur during the school year 2022-2023. The
following topic covered in the discussion on preparing
teachers for the future through Google competency
certification: teachers' perceptions of how well Google
skills support the teaching and learning process in the
classroom; respondents' assessments of the level of
Google competencies in the classrooms; computer skills of
teacher respondents that described in terms of using
technology in the class; access to help and learning;
paperless classroom; and time-saving communications.
The study excluded other school staff, including the
disbursing officer, bookkeeper, librarian, school nurse,
clerks, watchman, manager of the school canteen, security
guards, and utility workers.
Theoretical Framework

The following theories strengthen the investigation

of the theoretical framework shown in figure 1. The
researchers adopted some theories related to this study:
Professional Competencies Theory, Diffusion of
Innovations Theory, and Connectivism Learning Theory
which have the potential to make a significant
contribution to the growth and development of teachers’
Google skills.
This study is anchored on the Teachers' Professional
Competencies Theory by Guerriero et al. (2017), which
describes the capacity to meet complex demands in a
particular context by utilizing psychosocial (cognitive,
functional, personal, and ethical) skills. This theory is
creating on the teacher's idea of learning, from sources,
including initial teacher training, in-service CPD,
informal or non-formal learning, and so forth. According
to this model, learning opportunities will affect
teachers' content and pedagogical knowledge and their
ability to motivate students.
Learning opportunities will affect teachers'
material, pedagogical knowledge, motivational abilities,
and beliefs related to this study. However, the level of
self-efficacy in teachers' perceptions is also a factor
in how their affective and motivational competencies are
affected. The ability to handle complex demands in a
particular setting that uses a variety of psychosocial
(cognitive, functional, personal, and ethical) resources
falls under the category of teacher competence, which
cannot be attained only by knowledge, motivational
competencies, or beliefs held by teachers. Teachers must
therefore be able to use their knowledge and skill to
respond quickly to what they observe in the classroom and
other situations.
The Diffusion of Innovations Theory by Rogers
(2003) focused on investigating technology in education
and educational environments. Much diffusion research
involves technological innovations by Rogers (2003), who
usually used the word “technology” and “innovation” as
synonyms.
This study related to adopting a new idea, product,
practice, philosophy, etc. Rogers mapped out this
process, stressing that most cases are open to the new
design and adopt its use. As these early innovators
‘spread the word’ and more people become wide open to
lead to the development of a critical mass. 
The Connectivism Learning Theory of Siemens (2004),
which is also related to this study, digital technology
connects people and creates new learning opportunities.
Individuals are not the only ones who learn. Learning
occurs when learners connect ideas in and across networks
through digital channels such as web browsers, search
engines, social media, online discussion forums, and
blogs. Technology increases learners' access to
information and their ability to become part of a larger
learning community.
This study related to emphasized knowledge of an idea
is a collection of interconnected webs from experiences,
digital observations (such as websites and Google
classroom), and  even organizations. Connectivism
recognizes that technology plays a role in their
decision-making process. People are technology influenced
in a world where robots like Siri, Cortana, Watson, and
others provide answers to people. Their decisions and
knowledge base on influenced by their constant
connectivity. For instance, rather than going to the
 Reference book Britannica for replies, today they are
essentially asking an Amazon Reverberation instead of
remembering realities about a subject an understudy can
research anything. Over time, technologies have evolved
into a more individualized medium. Learning occurs when
all knowledge is interconnected.
     The researcher's (2023) theory is Google the skill
sets of selected teachers and proposes professional
development training to future-proof selected teachers in
DepEd Camarines Sur.

Conceptual Framework

The researcher conceptualized a figure to represent the

process used in conceptualizing the framework method.
 CHAPTER II

In this chapter, relevant and meaningful readings

relating to professional literature and studies by
education authorities that may relate to the present
undertaking are considered. The literature and related
studies are presented in thematic form. Valuable data and
information from various websites, journals, books,
theses, and dissertations, guided the researcher to
establish meaningful insights and analysis of each theme.
The Future Proofing Teachers, Effectiveness of Google
Classroom, and Digital literacy in the classroom used by
the researchers in this chapter to pair the most recent
research with the technology education approach to
effective technology integration. Various attempts are
made by the school to equip teachers to use Google
classroom knowledge and skills by involving teachers in
training activities related to the use of technology. The
world is undergoing rapid changes in information
communication and technology (ICT), and the role of the
21st-century teacher has had to adapt accordingly to fit
and exist within the said changes in the classroom. The
modern-day teacher must be highly computer literate to
assist learners in modern society.

Future Proofing Teachers

    In the 21st century, technology is the subject of

education. This technology has become the highway of
knowledge transfer in most countries. Technological
integration today has gone through innovations and
transformed our societies, transforming the way people
think, work, and live. Within this framework, schools and
other educational institutions aiming to prepare students
for life in a knowledge society must be in their
curricula.
     Educational strategies come and go. Some stand the
test of time; some become obsolete with the latest OS
update. True game-changers are rare. Beyond Technology
Education’s approach was effective technology integration
with School-Wide Integration Model Grid (SWIMGrid),
pairing it with the current research using the
Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK)
approach. It will cover the foundation of each approach
and provide a few examples of how TPACK was used with the
SWIMGrid approach.
Beyond Technology Education has coined the concept of the
School-Wide Integration Model Grid is a technology
planning and integrative four-part model for effective
technologically rich schools. The School-Wide Integration
Model Grid is a simple approach to effective technology
integration into schools by supporting teachers and
students with both, the technology and the training. It
is a simple and effective, 5-part, tech integration model
for K-12 administrators. The objective of a School-Wide
Integration Model Grid plan goes beyond saving time and
money. Ultimately the objective is for administrators and
all stakeholders in the technology integration to have a
timeline and process in place to set and assess goals.
The five parts break down as follows.
Professional development in this model is individualized
to the needs of the school and the teacher. It starts by
working with educators through an initial assessment.
This assessment determines teachers’ level of
technological comfort and ability. The pre-assessment is
used as a building block for professional development.
 The three Cs, confidence, competence, and content,
are utilized as a foundation for professional
development. It is important to note that professional
development is a fundamental part of any technology
integration plan. It lays the foundation for effective
technology use. If the goal of a technology integration
plan is to go beyond playing games and spending money on
apps, appropriate and effective professional development
is critical. Professional development is ongoing
throughout the process of the School-Wide Integration
Model Grid, and it sets the stage for the second stage of
the model (Mishra, et al., 2016).
It is often assumed that students have the
technological skills to perform the tasks asked of them
when using devices. However, the School-Wide Integration
Model Grid model makes no assumptions as to what students
know about appropriate technology use. Students may know
how to use the technology for personal use; however, they
may lack educational application-based skills. Step two
works with students on foundational skills to prepare
them for more advanced uses that they will be called to
practice later on in the curriculum. These foundational
skills are supported by the educators through the
professional development that they have received and lead
both students and teachers into Classroom Lesson
Integration.
The third part works with the content areas of
the program with the technical support that this TPACK
makes the most obvious use of. In these lessons,
technology is used not just for online games or
worksheets, but as a problem-solving tool related to
content standards. The program is developed and adapted
by a team of educators and educational technology
experts. It builds on the foundational skills provided to
students and the professional development provided to
educators. Even with effective professional development,
many teachers will still struggle at this stage due to a
lack of experience and benchmarks for using technology in
their classrooms. This is often the perfect opportunity
to model or coach teachers and show them how technology-
enhanced teaching and instruction should be introduced to
students. Equally important is the fact that any embedded
project created by teachers can easily be used as a
template and recreated for a different lesson. This way,
the time taken to create a lesson can easily be justified
as they produce many variations to support classroom
learning. However, this would not be successful without
the right infrastructure (Koehler, et al., 2018).
Without proper infrastructure, any rich technological
curriculum will fail. The SWIMGrid assesses the current
tech environment, addresses needs, and puts into place
robust wireless networks with appropriate firewalls,
policies, and devices. Part four also ensures all devices
are up to date and places those devices on rotation.
Although the goal for many schools is a one-to-one
implementation (1 device for each student and teacher),
the goal should be to prepare for many-to-one. Very
shortly schools will also have to deal with smart
watches, smart glasses, smart backpacks, smart-lunch
boxes, smart-tennis shoes, etc. Each student and teacher
will have several connected devices. These four parts
lead us to the final part of project management (Koehler,
et al., 2018).
Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
(TPACK) is a transformed term that Koehler & Mishra
(2018) have adapted from Shulman’s (2017) pedagogical
content knowledge (PCK) to include the technological
aspect. It emphasizes teachers’ knowledge because
teachers are the biggest influences in the classrooms.
Using the TPACK framework, allows us to look at equal
distribution of focus on each of the three-core knowledge
areas in TPACK, Technological, Pedagogical, and Content.
A combination of knowledge from one of the three
core components of TPACK is most often used by teachers
in their classrooms. The study by Koehler, et al.,
(2018) shows the combination of the components of the
TPACK framework. Each component is equally important and
the uniform distribution of the component creates the
best learning environment.
Any combination of the basic knowledge and
components can exist. Content knowledge is knowledge of
the material to be transmitted (Mishra, et al., 2016). In
the case of using the School-Wide Integration Model Grid,
the knowledge of the content would only focus on the
topic of the program. It would not integrate technology
or adapt instructional strategies. A teacher using only
content knowledge would be very content-knowledgeable;
however, they may not know how to teach or how to use
technology. Knowing how to teach is very important, which
is TPACK also emphasizes pedagogical knowledge.
Pedagogical knowledge is educators' knowledge of how to
teach, including learning objectives, student
assessments, and learning processes (Mishra, et al.,
2016). Typically, educators learn pedagogy through study
and in their pre-service education program. Knowing how
to effectively create lesson plans, vary instructions,
and run a classroom makes it all a pedagogical expert.
This experience is reflected in differentiation and a
strong sense of concern for the student's education and
well-being. Being an expert in pedagogy separates
experienced people or those who have good content
knowledge from competent educators.
 Not only is it important to have a strong
foundation in content knowledge, but strong educators
must also be experts in content pedagogy. The combination
of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge creates a
better learning experience for students. Educators who
can do this effectively can select appropriate teaching
methods and organize content so that it is better
understood (Mishra, et al., 2016). Educators who
understand and apply content and pedagogical knowledge
well will have positive evaluations from students.
Students find that instructors can meet their diverse
learning needs and create a positive educational
environment for them while continuing to improve their
content knowledge. For example, in a math class, a
teacher would ask meaningful questions related to what
students know. A content and pedagogically sound teacher
will be able to effectively detect errors in student work
and suggest corrections. The teacher not only knows the
mathematical concepts but can adapt the lessons to the
need of the student.
Technological knowledge is the knowledge a person
has about technological tools. These tools can be analog
(books and/or blackboards) or digital (internet, tablet
applications, and/or web 2.0 tools) (Mishra, et al.,
2016). Technological knowledge is constantly evolving
because technologies are constantly evolving. With this
in mind, it is difficult to define technological
knowledge due to the flow state. Becoming computer
literate is a skill a teacher possesses with the ability
to remain flexible and apply knowledge across different
platforms or tools, providing the teacher with knowledge
of technology (Koehler, et al., 2018). Educators with
technological knowledge can solve technical problems
themselves. They don't need a lot of guidance and also
have a large repertoire of tools to use. However,
technological knowledge alone is not enough to make an
effective educator.
Blending Technological Knowledge and Content
Knowledge is when the educator can find or create
connections between the content areas and the
technologies. An expert teacher in this area would be
able to find tools that connect to the core subject
areas, for instance using Geometer’s Sketchpad for
teaching mathematics. TCK teachers can augment tasks that
were 2done without technology and provide relevant
technologies to achieve those same learning
objectives (Mishra, et al., 2016). 
Technology teachers usually have strong
technological and pedagogical knowledge and can choose
the right technologies for learning objectives. The
educator understands and demonstrates different teaching
strategies and varies the use of technology. An expert in
this field can find a variety of tools for a variety of
educational purposes (Mishra, et al., 2016). He knows how
to adapt to technological trends and keeps abreast of the
latest educational technologies. Rather than taking on an
analog task and replacing it with technology, this type
of teacher will use technology as a tool to redefine that
project. The key to technological and pedagogical
knowledge is the diversity of teaching tools and
strategies that the teacher implements. Technology is the
tool, not the goal.
Finally, Technological, Pedagogical, and Content
Knowledge is the ideal blend of all three components. It
requires a full understanding of each area and how to use
and apply each of the core components. TPACK applies a
variety of technologies that represent concepts and
facilitates pedagogical techniques to differentiate
teaching (Mishra, et al., 2016). An educator who
incorporates Technological, Pedagogical and Content
Knowledge effectively can build on students’ prior
knowledge by including appropriate technologies and best
pedagogical practices. This type of instruction blends
technology seamlessly into the classroom. This applies to
the technology teachers and their courses as well as the
subject matter instructors. He or she does not use
technology for the sake of technology use but rather has
a deliberate educational purpose. A sound Technological,
Pedagogical and Content Knowledge competent educator can
facilitate several different applications of tech tools.
An effective Technological, Pedagogical and Content
Knowledge integrating educator can model this framework
in instruction daily and provide an integrated teaching
approach to meet the diverse needs of all learners. This
is the approach that SWIMGrid incorporates in the
professional development and classroom lesson integration
parts of the model.

Effectiveness of Google Classroom

The concept of education has undergone a major
shift, in recent times, from teacher-centric to learner
or learning-centric. Earlier, teachers played the role of
knowledge providers, but now their role has expanded.
There is a lot of emphasis on integrating technology in
the classroom through innovative teaching strategies that
focus on enabling students to achieve the desired
learning objectives. Technology facilitates increasing
student engagement which is critical to obtain the
desired learning objectives.
Educational technologies are often incorporated
into a classroom setting to allow learning to be
personalized and independent for the students. Advocates
and critics of using educational technologies have found
a middle ground through Blended (or hybrid)
learning (Hinkelman, 2018). The terms blended learning,
mixed-mode learning, and hybrid learning are used
interchangeably (Zhao, et al., 2013). Blended learning
allows a smooth transition from a shift in teaching
methodology, for teachers and learners. It is important
that the goal should not be just to integrate technology
in the classroom; instead, pedagogical objectives should
determine the different modes of teaching
instructions (O’Byrne, et al., 2015).
Teachers can now use several educational
technologies, along with the traditional classroom setup,
to enhance the learning environment for the students. In
2014, Google Apps for Education (GAFE) launched Google
Classroom. The application is free to use for teachers
and students which makes it an ideal fit for developing
countries, where the budgets are limited. It can act as a
learning management system in schools, colleges, and
higher education institutes. Teachers can effectively
utilize classroom time using Google Classroom.
Google Classroom was launched in 2014; therefore,
studies related to the effectiveness of Google classroom
are limited. Shaharanee, et al., (2016) analyzed Google
classroom’s active learning activities. They used TAM
(Technology Acceptance Model) to study the effectiveness
of the activities posted on the platform. Results of 100
students revealed that the comparative performance of
Google classroom was far better in the areas of
communication, interaction, perceived usefulness, ease of
use, and overall student satisfaction.
Similarly, (Espinosa, et al., 2017) researched to
evaluate the functionality of Google classroom as a
Learning Management System (LMS). The study found that
cost was the primary reason for the adoption.
Collaborative learning through assignments was viewed as
an extremely effective tool for enhancing student
engagement.
Liu, et al.,(2016) conducted action research in
Taiwan in which they used Google classroom with the
integration of a peer tutor mechanism for 6th-grade
students. Students held a positive perception regarding
the use of Google Classroom. The learning objectives were
also achieved. Martínez-Mones et al., (2017) called for
an integration of learning analytics with Google
classroom as they believed that this is a major
limitation of the emerging tool.
So far, to the best knowledge of the researcher,
all the research conducted on Google classroom has
indicated a positive response from the students. None of
the research has focused on considering the teacher’s
perceptions of the effectiveness of Google Classroom. The
role of teachers in the adoption of any new learning
methodology should not be ignored as they are the central
figure in the transformation of educational practices.
Educational institutes’ management or
administration has a major role to play in integrating
technology in classrooms as they have to finance or
manage the process and ultimately decide to what extent
they plan to use technology. Oznacar, et al.,
(2017) conducted research in high schools on the role of
administrators in the use of technology in which they
discovered that the administrators held positive beliefs
regarding integrating technology in the classroom. One of
the many reasons for the failure of not successfully
integrating technology was that the administrators
believed that 80% of their teachers were not
technologically aware to use it effectively; hence, the
project failed.
Another study by Machado, et al.,(2015) showed
the same results in which they examined the role of the
principal in the process of integrating technology into
the classroom. The results showed a strong belief on the
part of principals in the lack of technical training and
teacher competence, which prevented schools from
integrating technology.
According to Samy, et al., (2018), they consider
teacher acceptance is an important factor in the
effective use of technology in the classroom. The role of
administrators is to facilitate teacher training and
infrastructure; ultimately, however, it is the teacher
who must improve students' use of technology.
The educational technology, at the moment, is not
transformative alone, student learning can improve only
through a teacher; therefore, teachers’ acceptance of
technology must be present. Blair (2012) has mentioned
two elements in providing an environment for technology
integration. First, teachers need to place technology
into the hands of students carefully by selecting the
right mediums. Second, technological tools should be
constantly evolving to enhance problem-solving,
innovation, decision-making, and teamwork.

Digital literacy in the classroom

The digital world offers us enormous advantages.

It provides platforms that allow us to connect and
collaborate. It opens up opportunities to learn about new
and important topics and enables innovation in ways that
were unthinkable just a few years ago. Today,
technological advancements have permeated every aspect of
our lives. Employers expect their employees to have the
skills to live, work and thrive in a digital society.
Making sure pupils are employable is an obvious driver
for schools. So, developing technical skills is crucial.
But digital literacy doesn’t just mean IT proficiency
(although knowing how to use tech is now an essential
life skill). More than 11 million people in the UK do not
have basic digital skills. One out of every 11 completely
avoids the internet (Lloyds Bank UK Consumer Digital
Index, 2017).
Digital literacy is separate from computer
literacy. It requires critical thinking skills, an
awareness of the necessary standards of behavior expected
in online environments, and an understanding of the
shared social issues created by digital technologies. Or
alternatively: digital literacy = digital tool knowledge
+ critical thinking + social engagement (Berardi, 2020).
Digital literacy is necessary to become digital
citizens: individuals responsible for how they use
technology to interact with the world around them.
However, despite facing a fourth industrial revolution
that is set to impact all industries and economies,
education policy is currently failing to prepare pupils
for a new breed of the workplace, and a new world.
Digital literacy should be the fourth pillar of a child’s
education alongside reading, writing, and mathematics and
be resourced and taught accordingly.
One essential component of digital literacy when
it comes to the field of pedagogy is deep learning, of
which there are six core skills: Collaboration the
ability to work collaboratively with others, with strong
interpersonal and team-related skills; Creativity being
able to weigh up opportunities in an entrepreneurial
manner and ask the right questions to generate new
ideas; Critical thinking being able to evaluate
information and arguments, identify patterns and
connections, and construct meaningful knowledge and apply
it in the real world; Citizenship the ability to consider
issues and solve complex problems based on a deep
understanding of diverse values and a
worldview; Character traits such as grit, tenacity,
perseverance, and resilience; alongside a desire to make
learning an integral part of living;
and Communication being able to communicate effectively
through a variety of methods and tools to a range of
different audiences (The State of Technology in Education
Report 2021/22).

Digital Literacy in School

With limited time and increasingly squeezed

budgets, getting your school to commit to developing
digital literacy can be challenging (Blau, et al., 2016).
Consider an audit to find out who in your school is
already teaching digital literacy as part of their
lessons. Such collaborative planning has been shown to
improve cross-curricular learning and maximize resources
across departmental boundaries, as well as foster
cooperation and trust amongst teachers (Cloonan, A.,
2015).
Understandably, teachers might get frustrated at
yet another thing for them to add to an already busy
teaching schedule. But digital literacy doesn’t exist in
isolation. Context is key and the best way to teach
digital literacy is to figure out what that means to a
particular discipline (Dornisch, M., 2013). For example,
English teachers can use blogging to advance digital
literacy, while Citizenship teachers can present their
classes with real-world problems and encourage pupils to
use their computational skills to devise solutions.
New pedagogical methods, such as collaborative learning,
student-led learning, and flipped classrooms – are
gaining popularity and by helping teachers to instill
deep learning, such evidence-based pedagogy supports
digital literacy (Ferrari, A., 2012).
It is difficult to teach students what is needed
in the online world without using digital tools. Teachers
must therefore embrace digital literacy
themselves (Ferrari, A., 2012). Consider using Google and
free educational software like Class Flow to help
students get involved in the art of online learning.
Teachers are short on time; so many schools are
avoiding their responsibilities to educate students about
digital literacy due to anxieties about their own staff’s
technical abilities. Engage with teachers early on in the
process to find out what they need to teach digital
literacy (Gisbert-Cervera, M., et al., 2015). This could
be bite-sized guides, case studies, videos, training, or
regular drop-in sessions. Ensuring buy-in is vital to
your school’s overall success.
Build robust and productive student-staff partnerships to
help develop your school’s digital environment in a way
that adds real meaning to them. Encourage older students
to express their views on what digital literacy means to
them, and what skills they think they need to live, work
and learn in an online world (Greene, et al., 2014). To
get your students started, get them to test their
abilities in this quick quiz.
Computer Competence of School Teachers

Computer technology has opened wide opportunities

for teachers to integrate computers into the teaching-
learning process. Computers greatly facilitate the
teaching-learning process for various curricular
subjects, especially language, mathematics, and science.
Computer technology is also being increasingly applied in
non-instructional (record keeping, grade averaging,
communication, etc.) and pre-instructional (developing
materials, researching instructional content, etc.) uses.
Various educationists have interrelated computer use with
constructivist, collaborative, and inquiry-based learning
and also, with pedagogical change (Blau, et al., 2016).
Studies conducted in various developed and
information-rich countries around the world have
consistently confirmed that computer technology alone can
never replace teachers and that teachers will always
remain the key players who will enable the true potential
of using computer technology in the classroom. Therefore,
teachers must be computer literate and prepared for the
use of information technology in schools. A willingness
to embrace and use technology, and how that technology
can support student learning, must become an integral
skill in every teacher's professional repertoire. Various
initiatives, mandates, and recommendations from various
organizations and government policies have served as
catalysts to motivate teachers in this direction. Various
developing countries are following the lead of developed
countries in encouraging the use of technology in
education. The Ministry of Human Resources Development
(MHRD), in partnership with the Global e-Schools and
Communities Initiative (GeSCI), formulated a policy on
information and communication technologies (ICT) in
school education, to promote and improve ICT activities
and processes to improve access, quality, and efficiency
of ICT tools and resources for all students and teachers.
It promotes networking, research, evaluation, and testing
of ICT tools and practices to harness the potential of
ICT in school education. Additionally, several technology
companies, such as Intel India, Microsoft Partners in
Learning, and Oracle Education Foundation, are working on
the public-private partnership model in education,
collaborating with governments, educators, and local
content and curriculum providers to create educational
programs to educate teachers, and guide and prepare
students to succeed in the global economy.
In Morton’s study (2016), a marked dichotomy was
found between faculty members with differing amounts of
computer knowledge. He found “Low tech” teachers engaged
in more traditional pedagogical practices and found it
more difficult to assimilate computers into their
teaching style. “High-tech” teachers, by contrast,
integrated computers into their pedagogical practices
readily. Beigel (2016) identified some computer
competencies for educators as (1) evaluating and matching
appropriate software to a learner’s skills and abilities,
(2) helping students use the computer as a personal
productivity tool, (3) assessing individual needs, and
(4) integrating technology into multiple environments.
The UNESCO (2013) implemented Beijing workshop on
Teacher Training in ICT Integration discussed guidelines
for developing Competency-Based Standards for Teacher
Education Curriculum which comprised core competencies
related to pedagogy (new ways of doing things with ICT;
new theories of learning; pedagogical skills: selection,
presentation and assessment), technology (related
concepts and operations; social, health, legal and
ethical issues) and technology-pedagogy integration
(ethical, legal use of technology to design effective
learning experiences; manage students‟ learning; improve
professional skills; support interaction in
learning/social communities).
In the present study, the term computer means a
device that is used for instructional as well as pre-
instructional and non-instructional purposes by teachers
and students in the teaching-learning process. The term
“use of computers” (or “computer use”) includes the use
of computers in both instruction and management of the
teaching-learning process. Computer competence is defined
as specific computer skills or knowledge, demonstrated
through performance which shows that a teacher has
reached defined standards for a particular level of
performance (Beijing workshop, 2013).