Intelligence Style and Digital Literacy

Introduction

In contrast to past eras, the 21^st century sees many drastic changes in lifestyle, needed job skills, and even social behaviour, and with these transitions, technological innovation can be seen as playing a significant role.  These developments have also brought with them challenges in coping with learning the technology, especially since more and more of life’s daily routines have migrated to the Information Age – communication, banking, gaming, shopping, social media, and even medical and government services (OECD, 2019).  Therefore, in this rapidly changing and highly interconnected world, it is important that each person has a wide range of skills and competencies and will need to learn them continuously throughout their lives (Council of the European Union, 2018; Uerz, Volman, & Kral, 2018; Benali, Kaddouri, & Azzimani, 2018; Van Laar, van Deursen, van Dijk, & de Haan, 2017).

With all these developments in internationalization and globalization, it is necessary to note that the skills needed to build a functioning society have also been created or changed (Schwab, 2016).  Since the introduction of water and steam as a source of power for production, society has undergone drastic advances, with key goals of improving productivity and quality of life (Lu, 2017).  These eras are widely known as (1) Industry 1.0 with water and steam, (2) Industry 2.0 with mass manufacturing and assembly lines, (3) Industry 3.0 with electronics and computer technology, and (4) Industry 4.0 with more sofisticated technologies and artificial intelligence (Benešová & Tupa, 2017; Lu, 2017; Schwab, 2016). 

These new technologies have a significant influence on education, resulting in a more qualified and highly trained workforce, as the skills taught decades earlier differ significantly from what will be expected in the next few years (Benešová, & Tupa, 2017; McKendrick, 2015).  In tandem, the term “literacy” has also taken a new meaning.  From the traditional definition of being able to just read and write, literacy has now become multi-faceted and incorporating various new literacies such as multicultural literacy, social or civic literacy, media literacy, financial literacy, DL, ecological literacy, and creative literacy (De Leon, 2020).  These developments have pushed governments to formulate reference frameworks focusing on learning outcomes to guide schools to produce graduates who are ready to meet the needs of their community and society.  DL frameworks and plans to promote it have emphasized its importance for everyone (Law, Woo, De la Torre, & Wong, 2018).

The following are some of the significant frameworks crafted by major international organizations:

Table 1: Frameworks

Keeping up with these global initiatives, the Philippine educational system has also made a major paradigm change.  Shifting from the ten-year basic education program to the new 12-year program, or K-12 curriculum, Philippine education progressed from the traditional content-based education to outcomes-based education, allowing its graduates to be fully prepared and qualified for the workforce.

Some researchers discuss that the new generation of learners think and learn differently from the previous generations, having been exposed to digital technologies at a young age, making these innovations a part of their daily lives.  They may have already gained much technical experience before they even reach the university (Lai & Hong, 2014).  Prensky (2001), who coined the terms, “digital natives, digital immigrants, and digital aliens,” suggested that higher education adapts and responds to these new types of learners, and has “more technology-driven, spontaneous, and multi-sensory” teaching-learning styles and strategies.  With students being more familiar with technology and are more comfortable with a technology-rich learning environment, it is vital for schools to understand the importance of digital communication, to discover new ways of thinking and processing the learners’ knowledge, and integrate it into their academic environments (Karakoyun & Lindberg, 2020; Buragohain, 2019; Krumsvik, 2014).

Educators, therefore, need to have more than just the basic literacy or competency on digital technologies, have positive attitudes to learn and apply, and have workplace support in order to have a successful integration in the classroom (Karakoyun & Lindberg, 2020; Michalakis, Vaitis,  & Klonari, 2019).  The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2021 initiative is developing a conceptual framework to assess the integration of ICT in the teaching-learning environment, mainly because (1) cognitive processes, well-being, and what is learned are affected by the learner’s use of ICT; (2) educators’ use of ICT in various areas is drastically increasing; and (3) literacy/competence, are vital skills needed in today’s society (OECD, 2019).  With this, it is the focus of this study to determine the DL of teachers, and to ascertain as to whether or not their multiple intelligence inclination has an effect on the development of such literacy.

Theoretical Background/Related Literature and Studies

Digital Literacy/Competence

As previously mentioned, the definition of literacy has shifted in the recent years.  Its traditional definition states that literacy is the ability to read and write to communicate and/or get information (De Leon, 2020; Pate & Grote, 2011).  Modern views of literacy have expanded its definition from reading and writing to knowledge, wherein “new” literacies, such as DL, are now needed for successful participation and survival in the Information Age, including the development of 21^st century skills such as collaboration, creativity, communication, and critical thinking (Alata & Ignacio, 2019; Envision, 2017; Campbell & Kresyman, 2015; Hixson, Ravitz, & Whisman, 2012; Voogt & Roblin, 2012).  George-Palilonis & Watt (2018) defined digital literacy as the ability or skill to effectively make and share meaning in different types and media, to effectively create, collaborate, and communicate in digital settings, and to understand when and how digital technology can support these tasks.  A summary of definitions of digital literacy and competencies taken from some studies are reflected in Table 2.

The incorporation of these new skills does not replace the conventional curricula on essential reading, writing, mathematical skills, as well as history, science, and others, but will also find instructional strategies and/or create instructional materials that represent the development of these skills or competencies and make learning more meaningful (Geisinger, 2016; Abril, 2013).  These skills are more than rote learning as they focus more on experimentation, creativity, use of multimedia imagination, which allows learners to be participants and contributors of technology, and not just as consumers (Davidson, 2012; Davidson, 2016).  Such critical and needed skills, not just knowledge, should be taught and instilled in the learners – skills that are crucial for success in an ever-changing, digitally dependent society (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008; Siddiq, Gochyyev, & Wilson, 2017).

Table 2: Summary of Definitions of Digital Literacy and Competencies

Digital literacy has many components. In Soo Jung Moon’s and Sang Y. Bai’s (2020) study, digital components of Radovanović, Hogan, & Lalić (2015) were the basis for predicting youth civic engagement and the role of social media news attention in South Korea.  These components are formal operational skills, information retrieval, and analytical skills, digital communication skills, and creation skills.  Voogt and Roblin (2012), in their comparative analysis of 21^st-century competencies of various international frameworks, determined that digital literacy includes basic scientific, economic, technological visual and information, multicultural literacies, and global awareness.  George-Palilonis & Watt (2018), together with the Professor Garfield Foundation, introduced the digital literacy website to K-5 teachers in Midwest, USA, which emphasizes the 21^st-century skills of creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication, along with functional meaning-making, cultural and social understanding, finding and selecting information, and e-safety.  The Ministry of Education in British Columbia, Canada elaborates that the characteristics of digital literacy are research and information literacy; critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making; creativity and innovation; digital citizenship; communication and collaboration; and technology operations and concepts.  In addition, UNESCO, along with the European Commission, emphasizes the following dimensions of digital literacy: (1) research and information literacy, (2) critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision making, (3) creativity and innovation, (4) digital citizenship, (5) communication and collaboration, and (6) technology operations and concepts (Law, Woo, De la Torre, & Wong, 2018).

H1:          There is a significant relationship between the different components of digital literacy/competency.

Multiple Intelligence

The concept, measurement, and development of intelligence have long been debated by many – psychologists and educators to name a few (Sternberg, 2003).  It has been a question of nature versus nurture, individual versus group influence, or the classification of the different types of intelligence (Walinga & Stangor, 2014).  Intelligence, which was initially regarded as a single entity acquired during birth, has been identified as one of the main factors in the teaching-learning environment and academic achievement (Dolati & Tahriri, 2017; Çeliköz, 2017).  In the study of Mujis and Reynolds (2011), the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) Theory states that intelligence is the determining factor for people’s ability to learn and achieve academically, which then allows them to assume leadership positions in society.  Because of this view, standardized tests are given to measure IQ, which allows educators to have a glimpse of the learners’ capacity to achieve (Çeliköz, 2017).

A new paradigm that counter-flowed with this one-standard-for-all intelligence viewpoint was the Theory of Multiple Intelligence (MI) which was discovered by Howard Gardner in 1983. This theory changed the way psychologists, educators, and even parents view the learners (Alhamuddin & Bukhori, 2016).  It stresses that intelligence is not just developed logically nor linguistically, but is also developed in other ways (Alhamuddin & Bukhori, 2016).  MI consists of different types that are not usually reflected in IQ tests, and that each one is equally important as the other types of intelligence (Gardner, 1993). This theory also notes the fact that each person is smart, but in vary in degrees of strength, which may even change from time to time depending on his/her exposure to different factors (Kennedy-Murray, 2016; Yaghoob & Hossein, 2016).  The different intelligence types are logical-mathematical, verbal-linguistic, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, musical, naturalistic, and existential (Gardner, 1993; Shearer, 2019; Shi, 2019; Çeliköz, 2017; Dolati & Tahriri, 2017; Kennedy-Murray, 2016; Alhamuddin & Bukhori, 2016; Yaghoob & Hossein, 2016; Walinga & Stangor, 2014). 

Since individuals have all nine intelligences, though in varying degrees, and that these intelligences are dynamic – developed through time and various learning experiences – it may be safe to assume that individuals have more than one dominant intelligence and that each of these intelligences are interrelated with each other (Yaghoob & Hossein, 2016).  According to Shi (2019), MI has the following characteristics: (1) different – there are nine (9) types of intelligence that vary in each individual; (2) practical – intelligence allows individuals to discover new knowledge, create and be innovative, and are able to solve problems; (3) integrity – all nine intelligences are interrelated and interact with each other; and (4) developmental – strength of each intelligence may change depending on the different learning opportunities, training, or environment.  The study of Overchuk and Niemczyk (2009) on the applicability of MI theory in pilot assessment and training shows that the respondents are strong in both intrapersonal and spatial intelligence.  In addition, Çeliköz’s (2017) study showed that prospective teachers of Yildiz Technical University are dominant in mathematical-logic, verbal, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences.

H2:          There is a significant relationship between the different multiple intelligence types.

H3:          There is a significant relationship between digital literacy/competency and multiple intelligence types.

Statement of the Problem

This study assessed the perceived digital literacy levels of teachers pursuing their masteral or doctoral degrees and aimed to answer the following questions:

1. As perceived by the respondents, what is their digital literacy levels as to information processing, communication, content creation, safety, and problem-solving?
2. What is the multiple intelligence profile of the respondents?

Methodology

This study used the descriptive-correlational survey method to determine the digital literacy competencies and distribution of multiple intelligences of teachers pursuing graduate studies in the Province of Cebu, Philippines.  These teachers come from different areas of the region, both in the urban and rural areas, as well as working in either private or public schools.

After permission from the deans of the colleges to conduct the research was granted, hard copies of two (2) questionnaires were distributed to 287 respondents, including a letter of consent to take part in the research.  Confidentiality of data was emphasized, including proper storage of answered sheets.

The digital competency survey was adapted from the study of Al Khateeb (2017).  The survey was used to measure the respondents’ perception of their digital competencies and was based on the European Digital Competencies Framework for Citizens (DigiComp), which was formulated by the European Commission.  The study of Law, Woo, De la Torre, and Wong (2018) through UNESCO, also referred to this framework to propose a global framework of reference for digital literacy skills for all.  Indicators of the said framework are information processing, communication and collaboration, digital content creation, safety, and problem-solving.  Scoring procedure is a 7-point Likert scale wherein competency levels are rated as “expert” at seven (7) and “digital illiterate” at one (1).

The second questionnaire on multiple intelligence was adapted from the study of McClellan and Conti (2008), wherein the authors have developed a reliable and valid instrument to measure the learners’ preferences.  There are three (3) groups with nine (9) statements in each group.  Statements in each group are ranked where one (1) describes the respondent the most and nine (9) describes the respondent the least.  Scores of each statement are tallied according to each intelligence type and sum of each type determines which is the dominant intelligence type of the respondent, as well as the least dominant type.

ANOVA, Cronbach’s Alpha, and principal component analysis were done to treat the data before Pearson r was used to check the relationship of the variables.

Results and Discussion

Profile of the Respondents

Table 3 shows that the average of the respondents is 32 years.  GradschoolHub.com (2019) mentioned that the average age of graduate school students is 33 years, with older students taking up doctoral degrees.  Most of the respondents of Rungduin and Miranda (2018) in their study on factors on completing graduate degree completion are within the 31-40 years age range.  Most of the respondents are pursuing their masters degree, with 95 (33.1%) of the respondents are taking up Early Childhood Education.  For the doctoral program, 17 (5.9%) of the respondents are taking up Special Education.  The domination of female teachers (241 or 64%) can also be seen in the census taken by UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2018) wherein 91.08% are female teachers in pre-primary education in the Philippines.

Majority of the respondents are teachers (247 or 86.1%) working in the public sector (170 or 59.2%).  It is interesting to note that despite knowing that public school teachers have more workload aside from teaching tasks, many still prefer to be part of the government service (David, Albert, & Vizmanos, 2019).  This study focused on the data of the teachers.

Table 3: Profile of the Respondents

Digital Literacy/Competency Profile

Digital literacy in the 21^st century has now become one of the important and fundamental competencies alongside reading, arithmetic, oral skills, and writing (Almås, A.G. & Krumsvik, R., 2007).  Therefore, having digitally literate students, along with improving technology tools for blended learning, flipped classroom, online classes, and other innovative teaching strategies, will require teachers to also be digitally literate.  Table 4 gives a description of the digital literacy profile of the respondents.

Information processing, communication, and safety indicators scored high on the respondents’ profile.  Information processing is the ability to know what information is needed, to know how to properly search and recover data, and to verify the source and content of the information, including data management and organization (Law, Woo, De la Torre, & Wong, 2018).  Teachers search the internet for various needs such as looking for affordable or free instructional materials, seminars for professional development, research, connecting the classroom to the world, and many more.  Furthermore, the communication indicator is the ability to use digital technologies to collaborate, communicate, interact, and share information, among others.  When physical presence or face-to-face meetings are not possible, teachers are able to meet with their students and continue lessons using various media.  Lastly, the Safety indicator is being able to protect one’s device and one’s data privacy, especially that digital transactions and activities are becoming part of daily routine.

Table 4: Digital Literacy/Competency Profile

Legend: 1.00-1.86 digitally illiterate/incompetent, 1.87-2.72 very illiterate/incompetent, 2.73-3.58 mildly illiterate/incompetent, 3.59-4.44 fairly literate/competent, 4.45-5.30 moderately literate/competent, 5.31-6.16 very literate/competent, 6.17-7.00 digital expert

Results show that there is a need to update the digital literacy or competencies.  Quality teaching and school leadership are two of the most important factors in increasing student achievement.  In order to have quality and effective teachers, professional development to develop and hone their expertise and skills are one of the best practices of an institution (Mizell, 2010).  A professional and upgraded teacher would have the confidence and credibility to teach, giving students a more engaging learning environment and experience.  He/She is then updated with new teaching strategies that will meet or address the students’ learning needs or challenges. 

The new generation of students are more tech-savvy than the previous generation, using the internet and other digital resources in most of their daily activities.  With the shift to focus on student learning, teaching with technology gives teachers a wide variety of strategies that enhance student outcomes.  Teachers who are able teach with technology are, therefore, at an advantage.  With the dependency on smart devices and technology, students are able to adapt quickly to technology-rich learning environments such as flipped classroom, blended learning, and online classes.  With the rise of the corona virus-19 pandemic worldwide, teachers are forced to use technology to reach students who are not able to physically go to school (Anft, 2020).  Teachers who are comfortable and are capable to use technology will find it easy to use any of these methods, while those who are not may find it challenging.  Therefore, it is important and advantageous that digital literacy be integrated into the pre-service teachers’ curriculum or that professional development on digital literacy be emphasized for teachers to be able to use various digital tools to meet the needs of their learners.

With all of the respondents taking up their masters or doctoral degrees, it is given that promotion is part of the goal.  They will be involved more in educational administration or management than the teachers who have no postgraduate degrees. Digital literacy skills are important in accomplishing administrative functions which are, but not limited to, collation/submission of administrative reports, teacher evaluation reports, budget proposals, research, personnel files and monitoring, plotting of teacher class loads, facilities management, project management, online enrollment procedures and approvals, choosing the appropriate learning management system (LMS), and others (Aduwa-Ogiegbaen & Iyamu, 2005). As administrative procedures are transitioning from manual to digital, it is important that all teaching and non-teaching staff know how to process basic protocols online such as filing of leaves of absence, attendance logs, monthly accomplishment reports, facilities requests and purchases, computation of grades, making digital instructional materials, research, online banking, usage of the appropriate LMS, and many more.

Multiple Intelligence (MI) Profile

The theory of MI gives opportunities for diverse teaching strategies to maximize learning.  Since intelligence is dynamic, it believes that a person’s intelligence strength or weakness may change over time through exposure to different factors.  Furthermore, a person can be “smart” in more than one area.  Table 4 shows the profile of the MI of the respondents, with “A” as the primary strength and “B” as the secondary strength.

Table 5: Multiple Intelligence Profile

Results show that most respondents are existentialists as the primary strength and intrapersonal as secondary strength.  Existentialists have strong intuitions and have a solid belief system that enable them to understand others and, eventually, the world around them (Kelly, 2019).  McCoog (2010) stated that existentialists are very introspective, recognizing that in order to understand the world, they need to understand themselves first.  Filipinos are innately religious, with emphasis on the question, “Who am I?” as part of the development of their whole persona (Ramos, 2017). Culturally, the belief in God, who is the reason for existence, is the very nature of Filipinos.

In addition, understanding how life is through their own experiences, most existentialists are also strong in intrapersonal intelligence (McCoog, 2010), as seen in the results of this study.  Intrapersonal intelligence, as compared with interpersonal intelligence, is the awareness of one’s strengths and weaknesses, and how to use these effectively in life (Parker, 2016).

Correlations Between Digital Literacy and MI

Digital literacy/competency is an important skill, especially in the 21^st century teaching-learning environment.  It is interesting to know how each MI strength of the respondents affects the way the respondents develop their digital skills.

Table 6 used Pearson r Correlation Coefficient to find out whether there are relationships between the different components of digital literacy/competency at 0.01 level of significance using two-tailed test. All coefficient values showed that there are positive and significant correlations between the paired literacies, namely: information processing and communication (r =.763, p < 0.01), information processing and content creation (r =.565, p < 0.01), information processing and safety (r =.709, p < 0.01), information processing and problem solving (r =.763, p < 0.01), communication and content creation (r =.647, p < 0.01), communication and safety (r =.733, p < 0.01), communication and problem solving (r =.668, p < 0.01), content creation and safety (r =.649, p < 0.01), content creation and problem solving (r =.745, p < 0.01), safety and problem solving (r =.742, p < 0.01).  Therefore, hypothesis is supported.

Table 6: Correlation between the different components of digital literacy/competency

(Pearson correlation with sig 2-tailed)

The above-mentioned components are equally important for one to be able to participate fully in the digital society (mediasmarts.ca, 2019).  They are interrelated and as one navigates through the digital platform, each component is actively seen.

Table 7 presents the correlations between the different multiple intelligence types using Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient.

Table 7: Pearson correlation between the different multiple intelligence types

(2-tailed sig])

The results revealed that some correlations of the paired intelligences were positive while others were negative. Moreover, 10 correlations out of 36 are statistically significant   but having weak correlations. The positive and significant correlations were bodily-kinesthetic and interpersonal (r =.247, p < 0.01), bodily-kinesthetic and naturalistic (r =.222, p < 0.01), existential and interpersonal (r =.245, p < 0.01), existential and intrapersonal (r =.462, p < 0.01), interpersonal and intrapersonal (r =.248, p < 0.01), intrapersonal and logic (r =.272, p < 0.01), logic and naturalistic (r =.142, p < 0.05), naturalistic and verbal (r =.181, p < 0.01), and verbal and visual (r =.250, p < 0.01). These correlations, therefore, support the hypothesis.  On the other hand, bodily-kinesthetic and verbal (r = -.151, p < 0.05) had a negative and significant correlation, and therefore do not support the hypothesis.

There are several possible factors that influence the development of an intelligence type, such as environmental conditions or opportunities that foster its development (Ahvan & Pour, 2016; Raissi Ahvan, Zainalipour, Jamri, & Mahmoodi, 2016).  A person may have, not just one, but multiple intelligences due to motivational, cultural, and experiential factors (Luo & Hwang, 2018; Gardner & Hatch, 1989 as cited in Ahvan & Pour, 2016).

Table 8: Analysis of Differences of Literacy and Intelligence Style

Table 8 presents the ANOVA test conducted between the codification of preferred intelligence style (A, B or other) and the summary measure of each of the five dimensions of digital literacy.  As an example, in the computation of MIFBodilyK, “A” means that it is chosen as the first preferred style, “B” that it is the second preferred style and “C” that it is another choice.   The coefficients presented in the table reflect the existence of a difference or not in the digital literacy of respondents given their intelligence style preferences. 

As the reader sees, only three (3) statistically significant differences are observed.  The Content Creation skill is different for those with “intra,” or intrapersonal, intelligence style (F=3.054, sig=.049); similarly, the Safety component is different for those with that type of intelligence (F=4.667, sig=.010).  Finally, Problem Solving may be different or those with “musical” as preferred intelligence style.  Since there are only three (3) significant relationships, one should exercise caution in the interpretation of these results.

This is also seen in the study of Sherman (2014) wherein findings showed that verbal-linguistic intelligence did not have significant correlation with digital literacy.  Most common intelligence with correlations to digital literacy is the intrapersonal intelligence, specifically with the communication, content creation, and safety components.  It is not surprising because working in the digital setting is often an individual activity, allowing the person to be aware of his/her own personal thoughts, experiences, and behaviour while online.  Musically-inclined individuals often use their right brain and are typically more creative when looking for a solution to a problem (Sholihah, Saefudin, & Priyandoko, 2020).

Discussion

Given the importance of information technology in life and in education of new generations, this study focus was to determine the literacy level of teachers and explore its potential relationship with their dominant style of intelligence.  From our respondent’s self-estimation, it appears that they report having a competency profile varying from moderately literate / competent (content creation and problem-solving) to very literate/competent (information processing, communication and safety).  As teachers, digital literacy/competency is a necessity especially when doing blended or online teaching.

Our paper proposed three hypotheses:  the first one was about the existence of a significant relationship between the five dimensions of the concept of literacy /competency.  A Pearson correlation study was made among those, which resulted into high coefficient, ranging from .565 to .763, all with a 2-tails significance of .000.  Clearly the literacy/competency is sufficiently captured by the 62 questions of the instrument.  The second hypothesis was suggested the existence of a significant relationship between the nine intelligence types.

Results show the “existential” style as the primary intelligence type and “intrapersonal” as the secondary intelligence type.  All the components of digital literacy/competency are correlated to one another, as each one is equally important to have a successful and effective digital experience.  Significant and positive correlations between MI pairs are found, such as (1) bodily-kinesthetic and interpersonal, (2) bodily-kinesthetic and naturalistic, (3) existential and interpersonal, (4) intrapersonal and logic, (5) logic and naturalistic, (6) naturalistic and verbal, and (7) verbal and visual. The most important relationship is found for existential – intrapersonal intelligence style (r=.462).   However, bodily-kinesthetic and verbal had a negative and significant correlation.  Only 13 of the 36 correlations were found statistically significant; this may indicate the effect of the hazard, since the coefficients are relatively low, even for those with a significance of .000.

The third hypothesis postulated the existence of a correlation between intelligence type and digital literacy skills.  Findings showed that intrapersonal intelligence is significantly correlated with communication, content creation, and safety, while musical intelligence is significantly correlated with problem-solving.  Although the results of this study indicate some associations between certain intelligences and digital literacy skills, only 5 out of 45 are significant, with a low coefficient “r”, the highest being .177, limiting confidence on the reality of the observed relationship.  

Conclusion

This study has shown that teachers master many aspects of the main dimension of digital literacy.  It has also indicated that intelligence style might not be so important to explain or impact the digital literacy level.   

This study suffers from several limits and flaws.  It was conducted among a limited number of teachers on a single university in Philippines.   It is suggested that a more representative sample of teachers be taken from the country to eliminate the bias due to this convenience selection of respondents.  Additionally, the self-assessment of competencies should be compared to objective tests, although the instrument was based on literature review.   Further research is suggested in order to overcome these limitations, namely a more objective measure of literacy could be used to correlate skills with intelligence style.     

This study has opened a first step to the understanding of the role (or the impact) of intelligence on digital literacy.  Our mixed results suggest that a better understanding is needed of both constructs.  The information technology is not a monolithic knowledge and the five dimensions used as surrogate of this construct might not be sufficient to assess it.  Also, this study shows that digital literacy might have a different meaning depending on the society in which it is used so further studies may be done to understand the cultural and contextual impact of environment. 

Authors suggest also that since the education of the 21th century will largely rely on technology, studies should be conducted to take into account the psychological aspects of dematerialization of the teaching, giving more importance to computers for information transmission (prepared by a technology skilled teacher) and more importance to the teacher for supporting projects, class animation and personal motivation, especially given the growing popularity of flipped classroom.    As students’ interactions and teacher interactions are expected to be more mediated by technology, authors suggest that studies be conducted in the area of sociology to examine the capacity of teachers to efficiently manage interactions in the classrooms.  The authors are actually planning a replication of their study with Canada, in order to see if economic development and or cultural differences can provide a better understanding.

Acknowledgement

This paper was supported by the Canada-ASEAN Scholarships and Educational Exchanges for Development (SEED) program, and the partnership between Cebu Technological University, Philippines and University du Quebec en Montreal, Canada.

References

• Abril, JMVN (2013), ‘Life College Teachers’ Awareness of the 21^st Century Learning Themes and Skills and Its Relation to Classroom Practice and to the Teacher’s Induction/Training,’ [Online], [Retrieved December 19, 2019], https://bit.ly/30SvbE4
• Aduwa-Ogiegbaen, SE and Iyamu, EOS. (2005), ‘Using Information and Communication Technology in Secondary Schools in Nigeria: Problems and Prospects,’ Journal of Educational Technology & Society , 8, No. 1 (January 2005), pp. 104-112.
• Ahvan, YR and Pour, HZ. (2016), ‘The Correlation of Multiple Intelligences for the Achievements of Secondary Students,’ Academic Journals, 11(4), pp. 141-145.
• Al Khateeb, A. (2017), ‘Measuring Digital Competence and ICT Literacy: An Exploratory Study of In-Service English Language Teachers in the Context of Saudi Arabia,’ International Education Studies, 10, No. 12 DOI:10.5539/ies.v10n12p38.
• Alata, EJP and Ignacio, EJT. (2019), ‘Building and Enhancing New Literacies Across the Curriculum,’ Manila, Philippines, Rex Book Store Inc.
• Alhamuddin, A and Bukhori, B. (2016), ‘The Effect of Multiple Intelligence-Based Instruction on Critical Thinking of Full Day Islamic Elementary Schools Students,’ Ta’dib: Journal of Islamic Education (Jurnal Pendidikan Islam), 21(1), 31 – 40.
• Almås, AG and Krumsvik, R. (2007), ‘Digitally Literate Teachers in Leading Edge Schools in Norway,’ Journal of In-Service Education, 33:4, 479-497.
• Anft, M. (2020), ‘Expanding the Digital Curriculum,’ Chronicle .com. [Online],  [Retrieved  from April 15, 2020], https://bit.ly/3mISxV
• or. (2016), ‘ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework,’ ASEAN.org. [Online], [Retrieved November 10, 2019], https://bit.ly/3b6usTm
• Benali, M, Kaddouri, M and Azzimani, T. (2018), ‘Digital Competence of Moroccan Teachers of English,’ International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 2018, 14, Issue 2, pp. 99-120.
• Benešová, A and Tupa, J. (2017), ‘Requirements for Education and Qualification of People in Industry 4.0,’ Procedia Manufacturing, 11, 2195–2202.
• Buragohain, D. (2019), ‘A Survey on Digital Immigrants’ Technology Usage and Practice in Teaching Digital Natives,’ International Research in Education, 8(1), 20 DOI:10.5296/ire.v8i1.15560.
• Campbell, C and Kresyman, S. (2015), ‘Aligning Business and Education: 21^st Century Skill Preparation,’ E-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 9, Iss. 2, 2015, pp: 13-17.
• Çeliköz, M. (2017), ‘Multiple Intelligence Distribution of Prospective Teachers: The Case at Vildiz Technical University,’ Journal of Education and Practice, V8 N2 p206-215 2017.
• Chase, Z and Laufenberg, D. (2011), ‘Embracing the Squishiness of Digital Literacy,’ Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(7), 535–537.
• Council of the European Union. (2018), ‘Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning,’ Official Journal of the European Union. [Online], [Retrieved February 13, 2020], https://bit.ly/2Dc0IYJ
• Davidson, C. (2012), ‘Digital Literacy: An Agenda for the 21st Century,’ com, [Online], [Retrieved April 01, 2020], from https://bit.ly/3clvQlC
• Davidson, C. (2016), ‘Why We Need Digital Literacies,’ org, [Online], [Retrieved April 01, 2020], http://www.choice360.org/blog/why-we-need-digital-literacies
• David, CC, Albert, JRG and Vizmanos, JF. (2019), ‘Pressures on Public School Teachers and Implications on Quality,’ Philippine Institute of Development Studies. Policy Notes. ISSN 2508-0865 (electronic) No. 2019-01 (February 2019).
• De Leon, EB. (2020), ‘Building and Enhancing New Literacies Across the Curriculum,’ QC, Philippines, Lorimar Publishing.
• Dolati, Z and Tahriri, A. (2017), ‘EFL Teachers’ Multiple Intelligences and Their Classroom Practice,’ SAGE Open, 7(3), 215824401772258.
• (2017). ‘21st Century Skills.13 Essential 21^st Century Skills for Today’s Students,’ Envision, [Online], [Retrieved April 01, 2020], https://www.envisionexperience.com/blog/13-essential-21st-century-skills-for-todays-students
• Eshet, Y. (2004), ‘Digital Literacy: A Conceptual Framework for Survival Skills in the Digital era,’ Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93-106
• Eshet-Alkalai, Y and Chajut, E. (2009), ‘Changes Over Time in Digital Literacy,’ CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(6), 713–715.
• Gardner, H. (1993), ‘MultipleIntelligences: The Theory into Practice,’ New York, NY, Basic Books.
• Geisinger, Kurt F. (2016), ‘21st Century Skills: What Are They and How Do We Assess Them?,’ Applied Measurement in Education, DOI:10.1080/08957347.2016.1209207.
• George-Palilonis, J and Watt, T. (2018), ‘Professor Garfield’s 21st Century Digital Literacy Project: Supporting K-5 Teachers in their Digital Literacy Instructional Efforts.’ Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), ISBN 978-1-939797-35-3, 15 October 2018, Las Vegas, NV, United States, 1105-1114.
• com. (2019), ‘What is the Average Age of a Graduate Student?’ GradSchoolHub, [Online], [Retrieved March 27, 2020], https://www.gradschoolhub.com/faqs/what-is-the-average-age-of-a-graduate-student/
• Greene, JA, Yu, SB and Copeland, D. Z. (2014), ‘Measuring Critical Components of Digital Literacy and Their Relationships with Learning,’ Computers & Education, 76, 55–69.
• Hixson, N, Ravitz, J and Whisman, A. (2012), ‘Extended professional development in project-based learning: Impacts on 21st-century teaching and student achievement,’ (ed) Charleston, WV: West Virginia Department of Education
• Ilomäki, L, Paavola, S, Lakkala, M and Kantosalo, A. (2014), ‘Digital Competence – An Emergent Boundary Concept for Policy and Educational Research,’ Education and Information Technologies, 21(3), 655–679.
• Karakoyun, F and Lindberg, OJ. (2020), ‘Preservice teachers’ views about the twenty-first century skills: A qualitative survey study in Turkey and Sweden,’ Education and Information Technologies (2020), 25:2353-2369.
• Kelly, M. (2019), ‘Teaching Students with Existential Intelligence: The Ones Who Ask the Big Questions,’ ThoughtCo. [Online],  [Retrieved March 27, 2020],  https://bit.ly/3clwFuJ
• Kennedy-Murray, L. (2016), ‘Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices of Multiple Intelligences Theory in Middle Schools,’ Walden University ScholarWorks. [Online], [Retrieved March 27, 2020] https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3174&context=dissertations
• Krumsvik, RJ. (2014), ‘Teacher Educators’ Digital Competence,’ Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(3), 269–280.
• Lai, KW and Hong, KS. (2014), ‘Technology Use and Learning Characteristics of Students in Higher Education: Do Generational Differences Exist?’ British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 725–738.
• Law, N, Woo, D, De la Torre, J and Wong, G. (2018), A Global Framework of Reference on Digital Literacy Skills for Indicator 4.4.2. UNESCO, [Online], [Retrieved March 27, 2020], https://bit.ly/2QzmBUQ
• List, A. (2019), ‘Defining Digital Literacy Development: An Examination of Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs,’ Computers and Education, 138, 146–158.
• List, A., Brante, EW., & Klee, HL. (2020), ‘A Framework of Pre-Service Teachers’ Conceptions about Digital Literacy: Comparing the United States and Sweden. Computers & Education,
• Lu, Y. (2017), ‘Industry 4.0: A Survey on Technologies, Applications, and Open Research Issues,’ Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 6, 1–10.
• Luo, MN. and Huang, M. (2018), ‘ESL Teachers’ Multiple Intelligences and Teaching Strategies: Is There a Linkage?’ TESOL Journal, e379 DOI:10.1002/tesj.379.
• McClellan, JA and Conti, GJ. (2008)’ ‘Identifying the Multiple Intelligence of Your Students,’ Journal of Adult Education, V37 n1 p13-32 2008.
• McCoog, IJ. (2010), ‘The Existential Learner,’ The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83:4, 126-128.
• McKendrick, J. (2015), ‘Industry 4.0: It’s All About Information Technology This Time,’ ZDNet, [Retrieved March 27, 2020], https://www.zdnet.com/article/industry-4-0-its-all-about-information-technology
• ca. (2019), ‘Digital Literacy Fundamentals,’ MediaSmarts, [Online], [Retrieved March 27, 2020], https://bit.ly/3gH830b
• Meyers, EM, Erickson, I and Small, RV. (2013), ‘Digital Literacy and Informal Learning Environments: An Introduction,’ Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4), 355–367.
• Michalakis, VI, Vaitis, M and Klonari, A. (2019), ‘The ICT Literacy Skills of Secondary Education Teachers in Greece. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education – Volume 2: CSEDU,I SBN 978-989-758-367-4, ISSN 2184-5026, Heraklion, Crete, Greece pages 376-383. DOI: 10.5220/0007728703760383.
• Ministry of Education of British Columbia, Canada. (n.d.), ‘Digital Literacy,’ Ministry of Education of British Columbia, [Online], [Retrieved November 10, 2019], https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/k-12/teach/teaching-tools/digital-literacy
• Mizell, H. (2010), ‘Why professional development matters,’ Learning Forward, [Online], [Retrieved November 10, 2019], https://learningforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/professional-development-matters.pdf
• Muijs, D & Reynolds, D. (2011), ‘Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice (3rd ed.),’ London: Sage.
• (2019), ‘PISA 2021 ICT Framework,’ OECD, [Online], [Retrieved October 10, 2020], https://www.oecd.org/pisa/sitedocument/PISA-2021-ICT-Framework.pdf
• Overchuk, EJ & Niemczyk, M. (2009), ‘Investigating the Applicability of Multiple Intelligence Theory in Pilot Assessment and Training,’ Collegiate Aviation Review International, Vol 27, No 2 (2009).
• Parker, JL. (2016), ‘Academic Success for the 21^st Century Learner: Intrapersonal Intelligence and Resilience,’ Walden University Scholar Works, [Online], [Retrieved November 10, 2019],  https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3180&context=dissertations
• Pate RS & Grote-Garcia SA. (2011), ‘Literacy Development,’ In: Goldstein S., Naglieri J.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. Springer, Boston, MA
• Prensky, M. (2001), ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1,’ On the Horizon, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 1-6.
• Radovanović, , Hogan, B., & Lalić, D.(2015), ‘Overcoming Digital Divides in Higher Education: Digital Literacy Beyond Facebook,’ New Media & Society, 17(10), 1733–1749. 
• Radovanović, D., Holst, C., Belur, SB., Srivastava, R., Houngbonon, GV., Le Quentrec, E., Miliza, J., Winkler, AS., and Noll, J. (2020), ‘Digital Literacy Key Performance Indicators for Sustainable Development,’ Social Inclusion, 8(2), 151-167.
• Raissi Ahvan, Y, Zainalipour, H, Jamri, M, & Mahmoodi, F. (2016), ‘The Correlation Between Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences and the Problem-solving Styles and their Role in the Academic Performance Achievement of High School Students,’ European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 5(1), pp. 32-39.
• Ramos, CCR. (2017), ‘Filipino Concept of “Loob,”’Proceedings of the 10^th International Conference on Arts, Social Sciences, Humanities, and Interdisciplinary Studies (ASSHIS-17), https://doi.org/10.17758/URUAE.UH217422, 17-18 December 2017, Manila, Philippines, 75-79.
• Rungduin, TT & Miranda, PA. (2018), ‘An Exploration of the Factors Affecting Graduate Degree Completion in a Teacher Education Institution (TEI): Inputs for Graduate Program Management and Pedagogy,’ Asten Journal of Teacher Education, AsTEN Special Issue 2018.
• Sauro, S. (2017), ‘Teacher Perceptions of Digital Literacy in an L2 Classroom,’ Malmo Hogskola, [Online], [Retrieved September 23, 2019], https://bit.ly/309OzLY
• Schwab, K. (2016), ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution: What it Means, How to Respond,’ We Forum, [Online], [Retrieved September 23, 2019], https://bit.ly/3kKORRt
• Schoen, L & Fusarelli, LD. (2008), ‘Innovation, NCLB, and the Fear Factor: The Challenge of Leading 21st-Century Schools in an Era of Accountability,’ Educational Policy Vol 22, Issue 1 pp 181-203.
• Shearer, B. (2019), ‘A Detailed Neuroscientific Framework for the Multiple Intelligences: Describing the Neural Components for Specific Skill Units within Each Intelligence,’ International Journal of Psychological Studies, 11. 1. 10.5539/ijps.v11n3p1.
• Sherman, C. (2014), ‘Technology Skill Development Among Education Majors,’ The Journal of Technology Studies,40(1/2), 2-10.
• Shi, F. (2019), ‘Research on the Application of Multiple Intelligence Theory in College English Teaching – Taking the Teaching of 21st Century Visual and Speaking Course as an Example,’ Proceedings of the 2019 1st International Education Technology and Research Conference (IETRC 2019), DOI: 10.25236/ietrc.2019.117, 14-15 September 2019, Tianjin, China.
• Sholihah, U, Saefudin, S, & Priyandoko, D. (2020), ‘The Relationship of Multiple Intelligence with Higher-Order Thinking Skills,’ Proceedings of The 2^nd International Conference on Elementary Education Vol 2 No. 1 (2020), 06 November, 2019, Universitas Pendidikan, Indonesia, 257-269.
• Siddiq, F, Gochyyev, P, & Wilson, M. (2017), ‘Learning in Digital Networks–ICT Literacy: A Novel Assessment of Students’ 21st-Century Skills,’ Computers & Education, 109, 11–37.
• Son, JB, Robb, T, & Charismiadji, I. (2011), ‘Computer Literacy and Competency: A Survey of Indonesian Teachers of English as a Foreign Language, Computer-Assisted Language Learning Electric Journal (CALL-EJ), 12 (1), pp. 26042.
• Soo Jung Moon & Sang Y. Bai. (2020), ‘Components of Digital Literacy as Predictors of Youth Civic Engagement and the Role of Social Media News Attention: The Case of Korea,’ Journal of Children and Media, DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2020.1728700.
• Sternberg, RJ. (2003), ‘Contemporary Theories of Intelligence,’ In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology(Vol. 7, pp. 23–45). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• Uerz, D, Volman, M, & Kral, M. (2018), ‘Teacher Educators’ Competences in Fostering Student Teachers’ Proficiency in Teaching and Learning with Technology: An Overview of Relevant Research Literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 12–23. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.005.
• (2011). UNESCO Competency Framework for Teachers (ICT CFT). CI-2011/WS/5 – 2547.11.
• UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2018). Education: Percentage of female teachers by teaching level of education. Retrieved from http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=178
• United Nations. (2017). Report of the Secretary-General, “Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals,” E/2017/66. Retrieved from http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg4
• Van Laar, E, Van Deursen, AJAM, Van Dijk, JAGM, & De Haan, J. (2017), ‘The Relation Between 21st-Century Skills and Digital Skills: A Systematic Literature Review,’ Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588.
• Voogt, J & Roblin, N. (2012), ‘A Comparative Analysis of International Frameworks for 21^st-Century Competences: Implications for National Curriculum Policies, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44:3, 299-321
• Walinga, J & Stangor, C. (2014), ‘Defining and Measuring Intelligence. Introduction to Psychology – 1^st Canadian Edition,’ Pressbooks, [Online], [Retrieved August 30, 2020],  https://bit.ly/33TAe7A
• Yaghoob, RA, & Hossein, ZP. (2016), ‘The Correlation of Multiple Intelligences for the Achievements of Secondary Students,’ Educational Research and Reviews, 11(4), 141–145.
• Yazon, A, Ang-Manaig, K, Buama, C & Tesoro, J. (2019), ‘Digital Literacy, Digital Competence, and Research Productivity of Educators,’ Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7. 1734-1743.
• Yu, T-K, Lin, M-L, & Liao, Y-K. (2017), ‘Understanding Factors Influencing Information Communication Technology Adoption Behavior: The Moderators of Information Literacy and Digital Skills,’ Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 196–208.