Vol. 35 No. 1 (2020): Special Issue on Technology and Teacher Education
Special Issue

Multiple Perspectives on Digital Literacies Research Methods in Canada

Michelle Hagerman
University of Ottawa
Pamela Beach
Queen's University
Megan Cotnam-Kappel
University of Ottawa
Cristyne Hébert
University of Regina
Published October 30, 2020



In this article, we call for Canadian digital literacies researchers to invest in designs and research methods that centralise in-the-moment insights, embrace complexity, and that are informed by a deep commitment to authentic, ethical reciprocity that serves the communities in which our work is placed. We present three cases that offer multiple perspectives for how we might operationalise these principles, and we consider implications for the use of data collected with new approaches to digital literacies assessment, with virtual retrospective think alouds, eye-tracking, and spy glasses video. As the first co-authored article by The Digital Literacies Collective, this article contributes our shared position on the methodological priorities that will enable Canadian digital literacies researchers to construct new, contextually-situated frameworks that inform digital literacies policies and practices in Canadian systems of schooling.

Keywords: digital literacies; research methods; Canada; think aloud; eye tracking; spy glasses; assessment


Dans cet article, nous appelons les chercheurs canadiens en littératie numérique à investir dans des conceptions et des méthodes de recherche qui centralisent les connaissances instantanées, embrassent la complexité et sont éclairées par un engagement profond envers une réciprocité authentique et éthique au service des communautés dans lesquelles se situe notre travail. Nous présentons trois cas qui offrent de multiples perspectives sur la façon dont nous pourrions opérationnaliser ces principes, et considérons les implications pour l'utilisation des données collectées avec de nouvelles approches d'évaluation des littératies numériques, avec des rétrospectives virtuelles de réflexion à haute voix, des suivis du mouvement des yeux, des vidéos enregistrées par lunettes d'espionnage. En tant que premier article co-écrit par le Collectif des littératies numériques, cet article défend notre position commune concernant les priorités méthodologiques qui permettront aux chercheurs canadiens en littératies numériques de construire de nouveaux cadres contextuels qui éclairent les politiques et les pratiques des littératies numériques dans les systèmes scolaires canadiens.

Mots-clés : littératies numériques; méthodes de recherche; Canada; réfléchir à haute voix; suivi de l'oeil; lunettes d'espion; évaluation


  1. Aagaard, T., & Lund, A. (2013). Mind the gap: Divergent objects of assessment in technology-rich learning environments. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 8(4), 225–243. https://www.idunn.no/dk/2013/04/mind_the_gap_divergent_objects_of_assessment_in_technology
  2. Afflerbach, P., Cho, B.-Y., Kim, J.-Y., Crassas, M. E., & Doyle, B. (2013). Reading: What else matters besides strategies and skills? The Reading Teacher, 66(6), 440–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.1146
  3. Alemdag, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2018). A systematic review of eye tracking research on multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 125, 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.023
  4. Baird, J., Andrich, D., Hopfenbeck, T. N., & Stobart, G. (2017). Assessment and learning: Fields apart? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(3), 317–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1319337
  5. Beach, P., Henderson, G., & McConnel, J. (2019, June 1–5). Examining elementary teachers’ learning experiences as they use the Canadian Financial Literacy Database [Conference presentation]. Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE) Annual Conference, Vancouver, BC. https://csse-scee.ca/conference-2019/
  6. Beach, P., Kirby, J., McDonald, P., & McConnel, J. (2019). How do elementary teachers study and learn from a multimedia model of reading development? An exploratory eye-tracking study. Canadian Journal of Education, 42(4), 1022–1058. https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/3919
  7. Beach, P., & Willows, D. (2014). Investigating teachers’ exploration of a professional development website: An innovative approach to understanding the factors that motivate teachers to use Internet-based resources. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 40(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.21432/T2RP47
  8. Beach, P., & Willows, D. (2017). Understanding teachers’ cognitive processes during online professional learning: A methodological comparison. Online Learning, 21(1), 60–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.949
  9. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415
  10. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,18(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
  11. Bergstom, K., Jenson, J., Flynn-Jones, E., & Hébert, C., (2018). Videogame walkthroughs in educational settings: Challenges, successes, and suggestions for future use. Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2018.237
  12. Bhatt, I., de Roock, R., & Adams, J. (2015). Diving deep into digital literacy: emerging methods for research. Language and Education, 29(6), 477–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1041972
  13. Black, P., McCormick, R., James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Learning how to learn and assessment for learning: A theoretical inquiry. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520600615612
  14. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
  15. Boren, M. T., & Ramey, J. (2000). Thinking aloud: Reconciling theory and practice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1109/47.867942
  16. Bower, M., & Sturman, D. (2015). What are the educational affordances of wearable technologies? Computers & Education, 88, 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.013
  17. Branch, J. (2006). Using think alouds, think afters, and think togethers to research adolescents’ inquiry experiences. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 52(3), 148-159. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ajer/article/view/55153
  18. British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2013). Core competencies. https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/competencies 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
  19. Burke, A., & Rowsell, J. (2007). Assessing multimodal learning practices. E-Learning, 4(3), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2007.4.3.329
  20. Campbell, C., Osmond-Johnson, P., Faubert, B., Zeichner, K., Hobbs-Johnson A., Brown, S., DaCosta, P., Hales, A., Kuehn, L., Sohn, J., & Steffensen, K. (2016). The state of educators’ professional learning in Canada. Learning Forward. https://learningforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/state-of-educators-professional-learning-in-canada-executive-summary.pdf
  21. Canadian Teachers’ Federation. (2014). Highlights of CTF survey on the quest for teacher work-life balance. https://www.ctf-fce.ca/Research-Library/Work-Life-Balance-Survey-DW-CAPTO.pdf
  22. Carless, D. (2019). Feedback loops and the longer-term: towards feedback spirals. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5), 705–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1531108
  23. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
  24. Cho, B.-Y., & Afflerbach, P. (2017). An evolving perspective of constructively responsive reading comprehension strategies in multilayered digital text environments. In S. E. Israel (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension (2nd ed., pp. 109–134). Guilford Press.
  25. Christensen, P., & James, A. (2017). Introduction: Researching children and childhood: Cultures of Communication. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (3rd ed., pp. 1–10). Routledge.
  26. Clapp, E., Ross, J. O., Ryan, J., & Tishman, S. (2016). Maker-Centered learning: Empowering young people to shape their worlds. Jossey-Bass.
  27. Coiro, J. (2011). Talking about reading as thinking: Modeling the hidden complexities of online reading comprehension. Theory into Practice, 50(2), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.558435
  28. Coiro, J. (2020). Toward a multifaceted heuristic of digital reading to inform assessment, research, practice, and policy. Reading Research Quarterly, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.302
  29. Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Quinn, D. (2016). Personal inquiry and online research: Connecting learners in ways that matter. The Reading Teacher, 69(5), 483–492. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1450
  30. Coiro, J., Dobler, E., & Pelekis, K. (2019). From curiosity to deep learning: Personal digital inquiry in grades K-5. Stenhouse Publishers.
  31. The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
  32. Desjarlais, M. (2017). The use of eye-gaze to understand multimedia learning. In C. Was, F. Sansosti, & B. Morris (Eds.), Eye-tracking technology applications in educational research (pp. 122–142). IGI Global.
  33. Duke, N. K., & Mallette, M. H. (2001). Critical issues: Preparation for new literacy researchers in multi-epistemological, multi-methodological times. Journal of Literacy Research, 33(2), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960109548114
  34. Egenfeldt-Nielson, S., Smith, J. H., & Tosca, S. P. (2016). Understanding video games: The essential information (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  35. Ericsson, K. (2002). Towards a procedure for eliciting verbal expression of non-verbal experience without reactivity: Interpreting the verbal overshadowing effect within the theoretical framework for protocol analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 981–987. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.925
  36. Ericsson, K. (2003). Valid and non-reactive verbalization of thoughts during performance of tasks: Towards a solution to the central problems of introspection as a source of scientific data. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(9–10), 1–18.
  37. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
  38. Fong, K., Jenson, J., & Hébert, C., (2018). Challenges with measuring learning through digital gameplay in K-12 classrooms. Media and Communication, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v6i2.1366
  39. Gaissmaier, W., Fifić, M., & Rieskamp, J. (2010). Analyzing response times to understand decision processes. In M. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, A. Kuhberger, & R. Ranyard (Eds.), The handbook of process tracing methods for decision research: A critical review and user’s guide (pp. 89–114). Psychology Press.
  40. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage.
  41. Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504676
  42. Hagerman, M. S., & Cotnam-Kappel, M. (2019). Making as embodied learning: Rethinking the importance of movement for learning with digital and physical tools. Education Review, 6(2), 1–3. https://education.uottawa.ca/sites/education.uottawa.ca/files/uo_fefe_re_fall_06_acc_02_0.pdf
  43. Hagerman, M. S., Cotnam-Kappel, M., Turner, J.-A., & Hughes, J. M. (2019, April 8). Layers of online reading, research and multimodal synthesis practices while making: A descriptive study of three fifth-grade students [Roundtable paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Toronto, ON, Canada. http://mschirahagerman.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/AERA_2019_fairemaker.pdf
  44. Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–505. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063
  45. Hansen, D., & Imse, L. A. (2016). Student-centered classrooms. Music Educators Journal, 103(2), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432116671785
  46. Hartman, D. K., Hagerman, M. S., & Leu, D. J. (2018). Towards a new literacies perspective of synthesis. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 55–78). Routledge.
  47. Hartman, D. K., Morsink, P. M., & Zheng, J. J. (2010). From print to pixels: The evolution of cognitive conceptions of reading comprehension. In E. A. Baker (Ed.), The new literacies: Multiple perspectives and practice (pp. 131–164). Guilford Press.
  48. Hébert, C., & Jenson, J. (2019). Digital game-based pedagogies: Developing teaching strategies for game-based learning. The Journal of Interactive Technology & Pedagogy, 15. https://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/digital-game-based-pedagogies-developing-teaching-strategies-for-game-based-learning/
  49. Hébert, C., & Jenson, J. (2020). Making in schools: Student learning through an e-textiles curriculum. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 41(5), 740–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2020.1769937
  50. Honeyford, M. A. (2014). From Aquí and Allá: Symbolic convergence in the multimodal literacy practices of adolescent immigrant students. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(2), 194–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X14534180
  51. Hughes, J. M. (2017). Digital making with “at-risk” youth. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(2), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-08-2016-0037
  52. Jaldemark, J., Bergström-Eriksson, S., von Zeipel, H., & Westman, A. K. (2019). Wearable technologies as a research tool for studying learning. In Y. A. Zhang, & D. Cristol (Eds.), Handbook of mobile teaching and learning (pp. 1291–1305). Springer.
  53. Jaspers, M. W. (2009). A comparison of usability methods for testing interactive health technologies: Methodological aspects and empirical evidence. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 78(5), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.10.002
  54. Jewitt, C. (2003). Re-thinking assessment: Multimodality, literacy and computer-mediated learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 10(1), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940301698
  55. Jones Miller, J. (2013). A better grading system: Standards-based, student-centered assessment. English Journal, 103(1), 111–118.
  56. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329
  57. Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2017). Researching new literacies: Design, theory, and data in sociocultural investigation. Peter Lang.
  58. Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2016). Reconceptualizing qualitative research: Methodologies without methodology. Sage Publishers.
  59. Kress, G. R. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Psychology Press.
  60. Lankshear, C. J., & Knobel, M. (2008). Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices. Peter Lang.
  61. Learning Forward. (2017). Standards for professional learning. https://learningforward.org/standards/resources
  62. Leu, D., Kinzer, C., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. (2019). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. Alvermann, Unrau, N., M. Sailors & R. Ruddel (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy (7th ed., pp. 319–346). Routledge.
  63. Lévesque, S., Ng-A-Fook, N., & Corrigan, J. (2014). What does the eye see? Reading online primary source photographs in history. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 101–140. https://citejournal.org/volume-14/issue-2-14/social-studies/what-does-the-eye-see-reading-online-primary-source-photographs-in-history/
  64. Lotherington, H., & Ronda, N. S. (2012). Multimodal literacies and assessment: Uncharted challenges in the English classroom. In C. Leung & B. Street (Eds.), English as a changing medium for education (pp. 104–128). UTP.
  65. Lund, A. (2008). Assessment made visible: Individual and collective practices. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(1), 32–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749030701798623
  66. Marshall, S., & Marr, J. W. (2018). Teaching multilingual learners in Canadian writing-intensive classrooms: Pedagogy, binaries, and conflicting identities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.01.002
  67. Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1099
  68. Mason, L., Tornatora, M.C., & Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60(1), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.011
  69. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226–232. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104
  70. McDonald, S., Edwards, H., & Zhao, T. (2012). Exploring think-alouds in usability testing: An international survey. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 55(1), 2–19. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2011.2182569
  71. McLean, C., & Rowsell, J. (2020). Digital literacies in Canada. In J. Lacina and R. Griffith (Eds.) Preparing globally minded literacy teachers: Knowledge, practices, and case studies (pp. 175–197). Routledge.
  72. Metcalfe, H., Jonas-Dwyer, D., Saunders, R., & Dugmore, H. (2015). Using the technology: Introducing point of view video glasses into the simulated clinical learning environment, Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 33(10), 443–447. https://doi.org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000168
  73. New Brunswick Ministry of Education. (2020). Provincial assessments. https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/K12/eval/AssessmentBrochure.pdf
  74. Newmann, F., Secada, W., & Wehlage, G. (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards and scoring. Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
  75. Nichols, T. P., & Stornaiuolo, A. (2019). Assembling “digital literacies”: Contingent pasts, possible futures. Media and Communication, 7(2), 14–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i2.1946
  76. Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education Ver. I, 5(6), 2320–7388. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-05616670
  77. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). Growing success: Assessment, evaluation, and reporting in Ontario schools. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/growSuccess.pdf
  78. Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J. (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated learning through self-assessment and peer assessment: Guidelines for classroom implementation. In D. Laveault & L. Allal (Eds.), Assessment for Learning: Meeting the Challenge of Implementation (pp. 311–326). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39211-0
  79. Prinsloo, M., & Krause, L. S. (2019). Translanguaging, place and complexity. Language and Education, 33(2), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1516778
  80. Renzulli, J. S., Gentry, M., & Reis, S. M. (2004). A time and a place for authentic high-end learning. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 73–77. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept04/vol62/num01/A-Time-and-a-Place-for-Authentic-Learning.aspx
  81. Riegler, A. (2011). Constructivism. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Paradigms in theory construction (pp. 235–255). Springer.
  82. Roach, K., Tilley, E., & Mitchell, J. (2018). How authentic does authentic learning have to be? Higher Education Pedagogies, 3(1), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2018.1462099
  83. Rowsell, J., Saudelli, M. G., Scott, R. M., & Bishop, A. (2013). iPads as placed resources: Forging community in online and offline spaces. Language Arts, 90(5), 351–360. https://library.ncte.org/journals/la/issues/v90-5
  84. Salmerón, L., Naumann, J., García, V., & Fajardo, I. (2017). Scanning and deep processing of information in hypertext: An eye tracking and cued retrospective think‐aloud study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(3), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12152
  85. Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2017). The use of eye tracking as a research and instructional tool in multimedia learning. In C. Was, F. Sansosti, & B. Morris (Eds.), Eye-tracking technology applications in educational research (pp. 143–165). IGI Global.
  86. Schifter, C. C, & Stewart, C. M. (2010). Technologies and the classroom come to age after century of growth. In C. M. Stewart, C. C. Schifter, & M. E. Markaridian Selvarien (Eds.), Teaching and learning with technology: Beyond constructivism (pp. 3–26). Routledge.
  87. Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
  88. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass Inc.
  89. Schulz, R., Schroeder, D., & Brody, C. M. (1997). Collaborative narrative inquiry: Fidelity and the ethics of caring in teacher research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(4), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183997237052
  90. Shannon, P., & Hambacher, E. (2014). Authenticity in constructivist inquiry: Assessing an elusive construct. The Qualitative Report, 19(52), 1–13. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss52/3
  91. Silseth, K., & Gilje, Ø. (2019). Multimodal composition and assessment: A sociocultural perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1297292
  92. Smith, B. E. (2014). Beyond words: A review of research on adolescents and multimodal composition. In R. Ferdig, & K. Pytash (Eds.), Exploring multimodal composition and digital writing (pp. 1–19). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4345-1.ch001
  93. Smith, J. (2018). Parasitic and parachute research in global health. The Lancet Global Health, 6(8), e838. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30315-2
  94. Smythe, S., & Neufeld, P. (2010). “Podcast time:” Negotiating digital literacies and communities of learning in a middle years ELL classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(April), 565–574. https://doi.org/10.1598/JA
  95. Spires, H., Bartlett, M. E., Garry, A., & Quick, A. H. (2012). Literacies and learning: Designing a path forward. Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, North Carolina State University. https://www.fi.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/ 2013/05/digital-literacies-and-learning.pdf
  96. Stornaiuolo, A., Higgs, J., & Hull, G. (2014). Social media as authorship: Methods for studying literacies and communities online. In P. Albers, T. Holbrook, & A. S. Flint (Eds.), New Methods of Literacy Research (pp. 224–237). Routledge.
  97. Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal, 7(7), 935–947. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854351.pdf
  98. Tan, E., Calabrese Barton, A., Kang, H., & O’Neill, T. (2013). Desiring a career in STEM-related fields: How middle school girls articulate and negotiate identities-in-practice in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1143–1179. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21123
  99. Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom. ACSD.
  100. Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569
  101. Trainor, A., & Bouchard, K. A. (2013). Exploring and developing reciprocity in research design. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(8), 986–1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.724467
  102. van Gog, T., Kester, L., Nievelstein, F., Giesbers, B., & Paas, F. (2009). Uncovering cognitive processes: Different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 325–331. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.021
  103. van Gog, T., Paas, F., van Marrienboer, J., & Witte, P. (2005). Uncovering the problem-solving process: Cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(4), 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.237
  104. van Kraayenoord, C. E., Honan, E., & Moni, K. B. (2011). Negotiating knowledge in a researcher and teacher collaborative research partnership. Teacher Development, 15(4), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2011.635267
  105. Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C., & Herrera-Seda, C. (2018). Authentic assessment: creating a blueprint for course design. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 840–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396
  106. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682
  107. Wargo, J. M. (2019). Lights! Cameras! Genders? Interrupting hate through classroom tinkering, digital media production and [q]ulturally sustaining arts-based inquiry. Theory into Practice, 58(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1536919
  108. Watt, D. (2019). Video production in elementary teacher education as a critical digital literacy practice. Media and Communication, 7(2), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i2.1967
  109. Wohlwend, K. E., Peppler, K. A., Keune, A., & Thompson, N. (2017). Making sense and nonsense: Comparing mediated discourse and agential realist approaches to materiality in a preschool makerspace. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(3), 444–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798417712066
  110. Wren, S. (2000). The cognitive foundations of learning to read: A framework. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. https://www.sedl.org/reading/framework/framework.pdf