Skip to main content

Embracing the Power of Digital in Literacy Education: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Digital Activities


This mixed methods program evaluation explores the perceptions of students and teachers who participated in digital activities at a university-sponsored literacy festival. The goal of the digital activities was to introduce a diverse student population to digital tools that may be used to assist in understanding, evaluating, and creating literature. Thoughtfully planned and executed digital activities have the potential to increase student motivation, collaboration, and creativity, which may lead to an improvement in student achievement. Incorporating technology in instruction empowers students and promotes opportunities for authentic learning. The purpose of this evaluation was to examine the efficacy of the digital activities to provide formative feedback to guide enhancements of the digital workshop at future annual literacy festivals and contribute to the discussion of digital learning activities on student literacy achievement.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  • 3Doodler the world’s first and best 3D pen. (2018). Retrieved from

  • Argelagós, E., & Pifarré, M. (2017). Unravelling secondary students’ challenges in digital literacy: a gender perspective. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(1), 42–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biancarosa, G., & Griffiths, G. G. (2012). Technology tools to support reading in the digital age. The Future of Children, 22(2), 139–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013a). Steps in conducting a scholarly mixed methods study. DBER Speaker Series, 48. Retrieved from

  • English, J. A. (2016). A digital literacy initiative in honors: perceptions of students and instructors about its impact on learning and pedagogy. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 17(2), 125–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida Department of Education. (2017). Florida Standards Assessments Results. Retrieved from

  • Hanson, K. (2013). Promoting the benefits of digital literacy [Web log post]. Retrieved from

  • Jose, K. (2016). Digital literacy matters: Increasing workforce productivity through blended English language programs. Higher Learning Research Communication, 6(4).

  • Kena, G., Hussar, W., & McFarland, J. (2016). The condition of education 2016 (NCES 2016-144). Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics website:

  • Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2017). New literacies: a dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Education, 197(2), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeVasseur, J. J. (2003). The problem of bracketing in phenomenology. Qualitative Health Research, 13(3), 408–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, D. A., Bates, C. H., & So, J. (2009). Young children’s learning with digital media. Computers in the Schools, 26(4), 271–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2017). Explaining technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a multilevel path analysis model. Education Technology Research Development, 65(4), 795–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClintock, C. (1984). Toward a theory of formative program evaluation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1984(24), 77–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGovern, E. F., Cuauhtemoc, L., & Baruca, A. (2017). Utilizing mobile devices to enrich the learning style of students. Journal of Education for Business, 92(2), 89–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murnane, R., Sawhill, I., & Snow, C. (2012). Literacy challenges for the twenty-first century: introducing the issue. The Future of Children, 22(2), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quiver 3D augmented reality coloring apps. (2018). Retrieved from

  • Reardon, S. F., Valentino, R. A., & Shores, K. A. (2012). Patterns of literacy among U.S. students. The Future of Children, 22(2), 17–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, N., Ford, W., & Manzo, C. (2017). Engaging digital natives through social learning. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 15(2), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawang, S., O’Connor, P., & Ali, M. (2017). Using technology to enhance students’ engagement in a large classroom. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), 11–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seechaliao, T. (2017). Instructional strategies to support creativity and innovation in education. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(4), 201–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tingir, S., Cavlazoglu, B., Caliskan, O., Koklu, O., & Intepe-Tingir, S. (2017). Effects of mobile devices on K-12 students’ achievement: a meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33, 355–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education, National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform: a report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education (Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O. distributor).

  • Virtanen, S., Räikkönen, E., & Ikonen, P. (2014). Gender-based motivational differences in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(2), 197–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser, M. (2012). Digital literacy definition. Retrieved from American Library Association website:

  • Warner-Griffin, C., Liu, H., Tadler, C., Herget, D., & Dalton, B. (2017). Reading achievement of US fourth-grade students in an international context: first look at the progress in international reading literacy study (PIRLS) 2016 and ePIRLS 2016 (NCES 2018-017). Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics website:

  • Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: learning in the wireless classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zehra, R., & Bilwani, A. (2016). Perceptions of teachers regarding technology integration in classrooms: a comparative analysis of elite and mediocre schools. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 3(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michele Garabedian Stork.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


Appendix A: Student Survey

figure a

Appendix B: Teacher Interview Questions

Literacy festival digital activities interview questions

  1. 1.

    What was your reason for attending the digital activities at the festival?

  2. 2.

    Did the digital activities meet your needs? How so?

  3. 3.

    What could be added to the digital sessions to increase motivation to read?

  4. 4.

    Are there any activities that could be deleted from the digital sessions to make room for other activities?

  5. 5.

    Were the digital sessions impactful? How so?

  6. 6.

    How could the digital activities be transformed to meet the demands of a larger audience?

  7. 7.

    What did you learn while attending the digital activities?

  8. 8.

    How will you use this new knowledge in your daily life?

  9. 9.

    Any other information that you would like to share to make the digital activities an even bigger success next year?

Appendix C: Systematic Direct Observation Document

figure bfigure bfigure b

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stork, M.G., Goode, H., Jeter, R. et al. Embracing the Power of Digital in Literacy Education: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Digital Activities. J Form Des Learn 2, 82–101 (2018).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Technology
  • Integration
  • Digital activities
  • Literacy
  • Motivation
  • Student achievement