Mark Charles Baildon (National Institute of Education Singapore)
James Damico (Indiana University)

This study investigates what happened when a group of secondary social studies teachers in Singapore used a conception of social studies as new literacies and a web-based tool to create curriculum using online information sources. Findings suggest the value of understanding teachers in stages along a continuum to highlight the ways teachers respond to new ideas and technologies in the context of existing curricula. These findings demonstrate that greater attention must be given to the ways teachers strive to manage the array of demands made on them as part of their professional practice. Based on these findings, three facets of professional learning experiences with technology are highlighted.

Key words: teacher education; social studies; professional learning; technology integration; new literacies

New mediascapes, technoscapes, and ideoscapes (Appadurai, 1996) increasingly mediate our experience and the ways we understand the social world in the 21st century. In particular, new digital texts, with their complex and varied text structures and formats (consider YouTube videos, blogs, and social networking sites), intensify the challenge of reading, analyzing, and working with sources of information. Social studies teachers, as a result, need to be able to guide students to intelligently respond to this challenge. Social studies teacher educators, in turn, have similar work to do.

Using a teacher workshop in Singapore as a case study, we consider how teachers in four separate secondary schools used a web-based technology tool to begin envisioning and creating curricular resources better aligned with the literacy and inquiry practices necessary for living in new and emerging social and technological contexts. We explore the challenges they faced as they began the work of creating new curricular trajectories for their students. Findings suggest the value of understanding teachers in stages along a continuum to highlight the ways teachers respond to new ideas and technologies in the context of existing curricula. These findings demonstrate that greater attention must be given to the ways teachers strive to manage the array of demands made on them as part of their professional practice.

Technology alone has not changed classroom practice. There is a long history of the bold promises of technology integration in classrooms leading to unfulfilled expectations in social studies education (Berson, Lee, & Stuckhart, 2001). As Swan and Hofer argue, "technology use in instruction in both K-12 and higher education is sparse and, consequently, technology has had little impact on social studies education" (2009, p. 322).

However, Windschitl (2002), Saye and Brush (2006), and Swan and Hicks (2007) have found that teachers' pedagogical purposes and orientations can play a key role in determining the use of technology in classroom practice. This suggests the importance of helping teachers develop a strong sense of purpose for teaching and learning in new contexts (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005), especially the role new literacies play in new contexts (Valdes, et.al, 20005).

The framework that undergirds this study integrates social studies inquiry and new literacies. Two related aspects of social studies education are particularly salient: inquiry or a problem-based approach to teaching and learning and source work. Drawing on John Dewey's How We Think (1910), Walter Parker (2012) describes inquiry as a "method of intelligence" because "doing inquiry" requires that we "use the mind well... to read, write, and think critically about something" (p. 1). Levstik and Barton define inquiry in social studies as carefully and critically working with information to investigate important questions and build knowledge "within a community that establishes the goals, standards, and procedures of study" (2006, p. 13). Social studies inquiry, then, is a rigorous process of posing questions and constructing evidence-based responses, in the form of claims, explanations, theses, or theories, to these questions (Parker, 2012).

This view of inquiry in social studies also requires careful and systematic source work, what we define as strategies to successfully read and evaluate a range of information sources (primary and secondary sources, such as political cartoons, oral accounts, diaries/journals, essays, images, sound recordings, film, as well as textbook accounts). Doing source work, for example, involves asking important questions about the authorship of a source, evaluating its reliability and validity, examining its claims and evidence, determining its relative significance and value, and developing evidence-based interpretations.

A new literacies perspective (Gee, 2008; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro & Cammack, 2004; Miller & McVee, 2012) is central to our framework in two ways; it signals the importance of new texts and technologies in the 21st century and it highlights the need for a particular set of literacy practices (reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing) to best work with these new texts and technologies. The 21st century is marked by the rapid proliferation of new digital technologies, including mobile and Internet-based platforms and applications, as well as digital texts, such as instant messages, interactive web pages, online games, etc. Hence, there is a corresponding need for practices, ways of reading and responding, to these texts and technologies. This requires some degree of familiarity and facility with new technologies and engaging in the practices of analyzing, evaluating, interpreting, and synthesizing information presented in diverse formats and spaces (e.g., print, electronic, virtual).

Social studies inquiry with new literacies helps frame this study in several key ways. For starters, this framework encompasses a broad learning goal in social studies - that is, students learning to become careful, critical readers of all texts, from textbooks, trade books, magazines, and newspapers to maps, photographs, videos, music (Segall, 1999; Werner, 2002) and, most germane to our purposes, sources of information on the Web. Second, and more specifically, the teachers in this study were committed to adopting a more inquiry-based approach to their planning and instruction, and guiding students to do source work was central to this process. Third, the students had opportunity to read and evaluate different web-based information sources. While web pages were not "new" to the students, the chance to actually use computers and access online information in school for social studies was a new experience for most if not all of them (as well as the teachers).

Technology can provide important scaffolding tools to guide students' literacy work in social studies (Girard & Harris, 2012). Notions of tool use and mediation help us consider the potential for technology and curricular tools to scaffold learning for both students and teachers (Cole, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991, 1998; Remillard, 2005). Teachers benefit from opportunities to explore innovative ideas and classroom practices, engage in professional conversation around curriculum, and consider new approaches to teaching and learning, such as those required by using technology (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Chai, C.S. & Tan, S.C., 2009). This is especially true for reconceptualizing the goals of social education in a changing world and for learning how to strategically use new pedagogies and technologies to scaffold students' learning to develop the range of analytical, interpretive, and evaluative skills necessary with complex online information sources.

In our work with teachers we have used the Critical Web Reader (CWR), a web-based tool that we designed to scaffold inquiry and literacy practices with online information sources. The CWR enables teachers to create inquiry-based activities that can be completed in a single lesson or be sustained for a longer period of time. These activities guide students to investigate an inquiry question set by the teacher and require students to work with several online information sources, such as YouTube videos, multimedia websites, social media sites, and visual sources. Teachers can also scan and digitize existing print sources for use in the activities they design. After working with the information sources selected by their teachers, students are expected to respond to the activity's inquiry question and develop their findings or conclusions based on evidence gleaned from their work with the sources. The CWR activity page provides a space for students to write their conclusions.

A key feature of the CWR tool is the analytical "lenses" that teachers can customize to guide or scaffold students' work with each online information source. A CWR lens is an interactive learning frame that takes each Web page selected by the teacher and provides guiding questions, tips, suggestions and other forms of scaffolding to support student learning. Each CWR lens also provides a special "Reader notes" section for students to type responses and document their thinking. After working with each source, students can review their "Reader notes" to help them develop their conclusions.

The CWR is a systematic yet flexible set of web-based tools that guide teachers and students to engage strategically with Internet information. Teachers use the CWR to create activities that guide students to explore one or more web sources through a series of lenses that typically guide students to critically evaluate, analyze, and interpret information. The questions and prompts in each lens vary, but most emphasize a particular analytical skill, such as making inferences, evaluating claims, evaluating reliability, analyzing the utility of information, and comparing and contrasting information sources. For example, the specific questions for the lens "evaluating claims" include: "What claims does the author make? What evidence is used to support these claims (e.g., statistics, anecdotes, testimony, analogy)? Does evidence support the claims? Explain." Additional scaffolding as a pop-up reference includes definitions and examples of key terms (e.g., claim, evidence, and different forms of evidence often used, such as statistics, anecdotes, testimony, and analogy). These definitions and examples help students think about the nature of the claims and evidence in the information sources they are reading.

Each lens also includes a rubric (that can also be customized by teachers) so students can gauge less and more developed answers to the lens questions. The writing tool for "Reader notes" is embedded within the lens or interactive frame for students to record and save all their work (i.e., their analyses, interpretations, and questions). As a technology tool, the CWR can act as a catalyst for teachers to become more aware of and willing to address problems of practice, such as those related to doing inquiry in classrooms and working with complex texts (Baildon & Damico, 2008). At the same time, the ways the CWR is used in classrooms depends on the contexts of its use, such as the purposes teachers have for using it, and existing curricular expectations or constraints. More information about the CWR can be found at http://www.delvelearning.com/wordpress/?page_id=47.

Singapore provides a compelling example of the complex ecologies of highly technological and globalized societies. Its educational system reflects the efforts many national education systems are making to better prepare students and teachers for 21st century contexts. For example, educational reform initiated by the Singapore government in 1997 under the theme of "Thinking Schools, Learning Nation" (TSLN) included reforms in national citizenship education, the increased use of information technology, an emphasis on creative and critical thinking skills, and greater options and choice for stakeholders. TSLN consisted of an Information Technology Masterplan to enhance linkages between schools and the world, encourage creative thinking and lifelong learning, stimulate innovation, and promote school excellence (Teo, 1997). Singaporean teachers were expected to be comfortable with and utilize new technologies in classrooms. The main goal of the initiative was to develop competencies required by the information age - the ability to access, analyze, and apply information, learn independently, and use IT in effective and innovative ways.

In 2001, Singapore's social studies curriculum was launched as a compulsory and examinable subject for upper secondary students (15-16 year olds). Key aims of social studies in Singapore are to prepare students for work in the knowledge-based global economy and develop a sense of "rootedness" to Singapore. While TSLN emphasizes critical and creative thinking to prepare students for post-industrial forms of labor and the knowledge-based global economy, social studies is also a vehicle for National Education to promote a notion of national citizenship favored by the government.

As a means to teach critical thinking skills, source work is a key feature of Singapore's social studies curriculum. On O-Level examinations (part of the General Certificate of Education, or GCE, requirements in the United Kingdom and many Commonwealth nations), students are tested on their ability to perform five source-based skills: making inferences, evaluating reliability and utility of information, evaluating claims, and comparing and contrasting sources. The paper and pencil exam tests students' ability to perform these skills with six different sources of information about a topic in the syllabus. On the examination and to prepare for the exam, students work with either a short excerpt of written text (typically 50-125 words) or a visual source, such as a photograph or political cartoon, typically photocopied in black and white. In most secondary schools, social studies is taught two to three times a week with each class lasting 35 minutes. Since the subject is examinable, teachers feel pressured to teach to the test and cover the syllabus (Baildon & Sim, 2009). Due to time constraints and the emphasis on examination preparation, technology is seldom used to support the development of source skills.

The tradition of teacher education in Singapore emphasizes providing teachers with a body of pedagogical skills and knowledge, content upgrading, instructional techniques, and practicum experience in schools (Deng, 2004). This long-standing training model of teacher education views teacher educators as "teacher trainers" (Deng & Gopinathan, 2003). Structural, organizational, and curricular issues are typically cast as technocratic issues that require training teachers to develop the necessary knowledge, techniques, and procedures for effective and efficient instruction. Deng and Gopinathan (2003) note the inadequacy of the training model for new contexts and for Singapore's TSLN reforms and argue that effective implementation of recent reform instead requires

a sea change in teachers' beliefs and perceptions... they need to recognise that knowledge is available from a variety of sources and is subject to renewal and revision. They need to rediscover knowledge as something that is constructed and contestable, rather than handed down by authorities. They need to realise that students learn best, in terms of conceptual understanding and higher-order thinking, when they are actively engaged in the search for meanings, solving problems, questioning, sharing and communicating their understanding. They need to re-conceptualise their roles to encompass those of being a co-learner, a learning guide, and a facilitator. (p. 60)

Recently, the National Institute of Education, the main teacher education institute in Singapore, has responded to this call and implemented TE 21, a teacher education program designed for 21st century contexts. The model outlines new skills, values, knowledge, and competencies necessary for 21st century teachers. These include developing teachers' 21st century literacies (e.g., information literacies and knowledge building capacities, media literacies, and multicultural literacy) and their ability to enact 21st century learning environments and curriculum and instruction that places greater emphasis on working with information, new media and technologies, and critical and creative thinking skills (NIE Report, 2009).

While TE21 provides a broad vision of teacher education, these shifts do not necessarily happen easily. Ben-Peretz (2001) argues that teacher education in 21st century contexts is a "nearly impossible endeavour because what one is supposed to be doing as a teacher is vague, ambiguous, and fraught with uncertainties" (p. 48). There are varied and often conflicting demands that teachers and teacher educators must address, such as mandates for curriculum coverage and exam preparation combined with greater use of new technologies and the development of new skills. Hargreaves (1994) also highlights "the sheer cumulative impact of the multiple, complex, non-negotiable innovations on teachers' time, energy, motivation, opportunities to reflect, and their very capacity to cope" (p. 6). New educational practices, such as those accompanying the use of new technologies, are difficult to implement and require time to learn and be able to put into practice. Implementing new initiatives may compete with existing priorities, curriculum, and practices as well as other initiatives that are being implemented. Although the use of new technologies has undergirded many calls for educational reform, teachers may have difficulty connecting technology use with existing curriculum standards and classroom practices (Swan & Hofer, 2009).

This qualitative study investigates what happened when a group of Singapore social studies teachers participated in a two-day workshop using the Critical Web Reader (CWR) to create activities and lenses for use in their classrooms. We investigated two research questions:

1. What happened during the two-day workshop when nine Singapore social studies teachers designed curricular activities using the web-based tool with inquiry and new literacies in mind?

2. What happened when the teachers implemented these curricular activities in their classrooms with students?

There were two sets of primary data sources in the study. The first set was collected during the two-day workshop and included videotape transcripts of each day (three hours each) and the activities and lenses the teachers created using the CWR. After the teachers implemented their CWR activities and lenses in their classrooms we conducted semi-structured interviews to discuss their reasoning for designing particular activities and lenses as well as their reflections on classroom implementation. The interviews were conducted with the teachers at each of the four schools in the study. Two teachers from one school co-designed and co-taught a CWR activity; groups of three teachers from two different schools collaboratively planned their CWR activities but taught the activities separately in each of their classrooms; and a sole teacher at the fourth school designed and taught the CWR activity on his own. This second data set of teacher interviews included teachers' reflections on their curriculum work, their identification of problems or issues with the activities and lenses they created, and their considerations about what it meant to use the CWR in their classrooms and the extent to which it supported students' work with online sources and development of students' skills.

The CWR infrastructure saved all teacher work to facilitate data collection and management. This allowed us to develop a matrix to record activity titles, the types of sources used in each activity, and descriptions of the activities, lenses, and scaffolds teachers created. Using a constant comparative method of analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), we coded data sources to discern initial patterns, which were then refined and modified during the analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

As part of a funded project at the National Institute of Education in Singapore, we (the two authors) conducted a two-day professional development workshop with nine social studies teachers in Singapore. During the workshop we utilized the Critical Web Reader (CWR) to guide the teachers in the design of learning activities and scaffolds that would support the secondary social studies curriculum. On Day 1 of the workshop the teachers first assumed the role of their students so they could experience the challenging work of analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating digital sources. They then shifted back to their teacher roles and used the CWR to design an initial activity with a focus on digital source work and the existing target skills in the national curriculum.

As we launched the workshop, the teachers noted that since the high stakes exam is a paper and pencil examination, they seldom used online sources or emphasized new literacies in their classrooms. The only exceptions were online videos, which they sometimes used as hooks or prompts for student learning.

The teachers then assumed the role of students to complete a CWR activity we designed called "Managing Transnational Terrorism in Singapore." In this activity the teachers critically analyzed and evaluated an online political cartoon about a terrorist who had escaped from Singapore, an online "total defense" poster illustrating the need for all citizens to be vigilant in Singapore, and a web page that highlighted a Deputy Prime Minister's statement that Singapore was still a prime target for terrorists. The CWR lenses (i.e., questions, tips, suggestions) guided them to make inferences, evaluate reliability, evaluate utility, and compare and contrast two sources. Each lens was designed to support the source-based skills in the Singapore social studies curriculum. After analyzing these sources, the activity instructed the teachers to "consider the roles and responsibilities of citizens and government to manage transnational terrorism as part of Singapore's system of total defense."

After we debriefed the activity, the teachers then worked in school-based groups to design CWR activities they could envision using in their classrooms. The teachers were shown the teacher interface and given a "tip sheet" on how to login to the tool, create an activity (by adding a purpose, student directions, etc.), select online resources that could be used during the activity, and use existing lenses or create their own lenses. We guided the teachers as they worked with their curriculum to decide the content focus of their activity, select their sources, and determine the lenses they wanted students to use. The teachers found the instructor interface easy to use to create activities and lenses and to upload online sources.

On Day 2, the teachers designed their activities using inquiry and new literacies as guiding concepts. After working for roughly two hours on their activities, the teachers shared their work and discussed plans for implementation in their classrooms.

At the end of the two-day workshop, teachers shared the activities and lenses they designed and received feedback from their peers. As a whole group we discussed to what extent the source skills developed with 50-125 word paper sources would transfer to digital and more complex sources of information found on the Web. This conversation was especially critical for the teachers as they viewed the range of activities created and listened to their peers address key challenges about guiding students to work with more complex web-based information sources. These challenges included helping students learn to skillfully skim and scan information to decide if it is useful, "breaking the text down" into more manageable parts and then helping them focus on parts of the text most relevant or useful for one's needs, and helping students work with videos as sources. A lingering question for many of the teachers was to what extent this work would prepare their students for paper and pencil examinations with traditional sources of information (50-125 words).

At the end of the two-day workshop, teachers completed an implementation template to identify planned dates for using the CWR. This included a brief narrative describing their plans. We also asked them to identify any challenges they foresaw in using the CWR and what kinds of support they wanted from the CWR team in their classrooms.

Scheduling days and times for implementing CWR activities in their classrooms was a lingering challenge for the teachers. One teacher noted in an email, "I am not sure [when] we are using [CWR]... because examinations are in 3 weeks time, but it would be good to use it as a holiday assignment for the classes." Another apologized "for the late reply and no news for such a long time, school has been very busy and a mad rush, especially with all the mid-year exam preparations, SYF [Singapore Youth Festival - an annual event held by schools to showcase and celebrate co-curricular activities], etc etc..." Another teacher wrote, "I may have to postpone the [CWR] if possible to the 25 & 26th August because...we may need 11th and 12th to help them review for the common test [school exams held at the end of terms to prepare students for O-Level exams] the following week... Really sorry for this shift again as we need to make up for lost lessons." These email excerpts provide some sense of the challenges teachers faced in trying to use the CWR in regularly scheduled classes.

After the teachers in each school implemented their CWR activities (classroom observation notes and transcribed videotape of each class were also collected), we conducted semi-structured interviews with the teachers at each school. These interviews allowed us to talk with them about the activities they created, how this work was similar to or different from previous experiences designing lessons, the extent to which the CWR supported their teaching and student learning, and what the teachers learned about their activities from classroom implementation.

The types of CWR activities the teachers designed across the two day workshop and implemented in their classrooms varied. We categorize these variations as three stages along a continuum. These stages mark a transition from teacher work tied more closely to their existing practices (Stage 1) to a focus on working with more complex online sources (Stage 2) to a greater emphasis on inquiry (Stage 3). Findings are summarized below and in Table 1. However, before proceeding it is essential to note that we are using "stages" to highlight differences in the teachers' practice, what they were able to accomplish with their CWR activities. We are not suggesting a particular stage corresponds to an ability level or degree of instructional or professional competence. As with all teachers, a range of factors or forces shaped what each of these teachers were able to do with their curriculum (e.g., time, examination pressures, etc.).

Four of the nine teachers used the source-based skills approach they typically used in their classrooms. They took the same sources they had used for paper and pencil activities (e.g., a visual source, such as a photograph or political cartoon, typically photocopied in black and white; 50-125 word sources), digitized them, and then used the CWR to design activities and lenses that would support students working with these sources to support one or more of the target skills. For example, one teacher used ImageShack to upload print sources he had previously used to teach about conflict in Sri Lanka, including a scanned excerpt of 87 words from a Scottish online newspaper article about the Tamil Tigers. Similarly, a group of teachers in another school digitally scanned and uploaded a print source excerpt of 89 words, published in The Daily Star (British newspaper), which critiqued globalization. The primary reason teachers worked within Stage 1 stemmed from their concern that it would be difficult for their students to manage more complicated sources, such as websites which often contain more than a single image and 50-125 words.

During the interview with Wee Han, the only teacher in one school, he noted that his preparation for the activity wasn't that different from what he usually does to develop lesson plans. He commented that the CWR lenses he designed were similar to what he does to prepare students for exams and that he had simply moved "pen and paper exercise into the portal." He, however, noted that students responded "differently." He said that they wrote more for their answers, were "more on task," and were in "auto mode" where "they log on and they start doing." He also believed that his role as a teacher changed to "more like, I'm just facilitating the work process."

During a group interview with three teachers in another school, Hibiscus Secondary School, the teachers shared that students were already familiar with source-based work but that being in the computer lab made the lesson "different" for students. These teachers felt the CWR "helped to scaffold [students'] understanding of source-based questions" but that students were "not used to the idea of breaking each step down into so much detail and typing [their work] out as a form of answer." The teachers felt that the process-structured questions (Beyer, 2008) they devised to scaffold students in making inferences confused their students because the first question asked students to pay "attention to [source] detail," the second question had them talk about their "background knowledge," and when they answered "the last question [asking them to make the inference]... they lost track of what they had already done."

Although these teachers simply used the source-based skills approach they were most comfortable with, they noticed some key differences in their classrooms. All of these teachers agreed that students preferred working on their computers to paper and pen exercises, that students were more on task and self-directed, and that the quality of their work improved. They identified challenges related to scaffolding students using the CWR lenses including the fact that source work in a computer lab provided a "different" learning experience for students and changed their roles as teachers. One teacher noted that the CWR lens questions made student work more "systematic" but that the questions created "more steps" which caused students "to forget what they're doing... Because they are too caught up with answering the sub-questions rather than the main question." During the interview, the group of three teachers saw this as an indication that they needed to think more carefully about lens design so that students could better understand "the link between one question to the other."

Two teachers focused on the source-based skills but selected authentic web sources for their CWR activities. These two teachers selected a diverse range of sources on healthcare in Singapore: a Ministry of Health YouTube video titled "Singapore Healthcare: Building a Healthy Singapore"; the Facebook posting of Nicole Seah, a 25-year old member of the opposition National Solidarity Party, titled "Is Healthcare Affordable in Singapore? Here is My Take"; the American politician Ron Paul's webpage titled "Why I Always Praise Singapore's Health Care System"; and a blog published on The Online Citizen, titled "High Cost of Medical Care in Singapore".

Similar to teachers in Stage 1, the two teachers used or designed lenses that focused on the target skills of making inferences, evaluating reliability, and evaluating usefulness. Yet, unlike the teachers in Stage 1, they began to consider the ways the lenses could be designed to more strategically scaffold students' work with the authentic web sources of information they selected. With the Ron Paul website, for example, they provided background about Paul by noting that "He thinks that the American government spends too much on healthcare. In the graph, he is showing the amount of money different countries spend on their healthcare..." With the Nicole Seah Facebook page, the evaluating reliability lens included questions about the provenance and purpose of the source with tips to examine who created it, when it was created, and why it was created, with a reminder to consider possible biases and points of view that the author might have. Another lens question asked, "Is the content reliable?" with directions to identify if claims were supported with evidence and if the information was consistent with other sources.

The teachers also developed a lens that had students analyze the purpose of a YouTube video produced by Singapore's Ministry of Health. When asked if the students had difficulty analyzing the video, the teachers said most students understood the video's purpose "because the video is from MOH [Ministry of Health] and... they actually knew what the motive was so it's just a matter of picking up what relevant information they want to actually show it." They also explored ways to scaffold students to manage a core challenge of working with more comprehensive sources of information like websites (rather than short excerpts): focusing student attention on key passages in the source. For example, this pair of teachers instructed students to focus on the first ten paragraphs of the Facebook page to discern the provenance and purpose of the source and the evidence used to support claims.

During the interview, the two teachers identified challenges and tensions when implementing their activities with more complex sources. One issue was that they felt more uncertain about the lenses they created to scaffold students' work with these more complex information sources. They generally felt like they needed more time to create these lenses and to consider the kinds of questions and scaffolds that could skilfully guide students with these sources. From examining student work in the CWR, the two teachers believed students struggled with the Ron Paul website because they had less contextual or background knowledge to help them understand the information on the site because it came from an American perspective. They believed students had more contextual knowledge to help them understand the "local sources" - the local politician's Facebook page, the Ministry of Health's video, and the information posted on The Online Citizen website. They identified the importance of providing necessary contextual knowledge as a form of scaffolding. The two teachers also noted that they preferred a single lens question (e.g., their evaluating usefulness lens used the question, "How useful is the source in helping you to understand the people's reaction toward Singapore's healthcare?") with a procedural checklist rather than process-structured questions (as the teachers in Stage 1 had developed) because "these are the kind of questions that we ask in school... What we actually adopt in our school on paper is a checklist" using the acronym of MAARS to remind students to check the message, action, audience, reaction, and situation (context) of a source. Since students were already familiar with this approach in their school, they used it for the CWR activity.

Similar to Stage 1 teachers, the teachers in Stage 2 saw student work as "more authentic" with these information sources. They said they were "happy" with students' engagement but also identified a tension between teaching critical thinking skills and preparing students for exams: "We can talk about...different factors [for reliability] forever, you know. But the fact is you kind of don't have time to do that. You have to make a decision." For these two teachers this highlighted the need for students to be time-efficient in determining reliability and that a checklist like MAARS can help students consider key factors to perform this target skill on the exam.

The group of teachers in Stage 3 collaboratively revised their activity to include more complex web sources along with specific reading suggestions and scaffolds to evaluate these texts. They selected web sources that were more comprehensive and challenging in terms of content. This group scaffolded students in reading these more complex web sources by moving from simpler or "easier" websites (the first and second sources in their activity) to more complex and lengthier websites (the third and fourth sources). This group of teachers, for example, began by guiding students in making inferences with a straightforward political cartoon titled, "ASEAN Ministers Working Hand in Hand". Next, they guided students to read a section of a short news item titled "1st ASEAN - US Leaders' Meeting Underlines Important Role of ASEAN" at the official ASEAN website (link no longer available). They then directed students to selected sections of a more complicated article from the Economist that focused on "messy bilateral squabbles" at the 2009 ASEAN meeting. This was followed by an East Asia Forum article by the ASEAN Secretary-General that talked about the importance of ASEAN in the region's future.

In terms of conceptualizing content, teachers in this group selected information sources to provide different views about ASEAN. They used the CWR to scaffold students' abilities to handle more complex information sources by directing them to specific sections (e.g., 3-4 paragraphs) of websites and by creating links in the activity to provide students with background knowledge about ASEAN (e.g., the Wikipedia ASEAN page and the official website of ASEAN). These teachers also culminated the CWR activity by having students write a mini-essay answering the overarching activity question about ASEAN.

Stage 3 teachers also moved toward more of an inquiry approach in their efforts to support source work. The teachers, for example, revised their activity to embed a question for students to investigate (inquiry) rather than just listing tasks for them to complete. For example, the group of teachers in Stage 3 developed what they considered a "provocative" inquiry question about whether or not the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was a failure as an international organization in Southeast Asia. They thought the question "Is ASEAN Useless?" would be more engaging for students because it would invite different perspectives about the effectiveness of ASEAN in dealing with regional problems. The culminating mini-essay required students to consider the range of perspectives provided by the sources and then take a position in answering the question.

Similar to the Stage 2 teachers, the teachers at this stage noted some key tensions about scaffolding students with more complex information sources. For example, they weren't sure about the best way to scaffold students with web sources that included different perspectives. They noted the need to consider to what extent the target skills in the curriculum supported students' work with websites and the need for more time to carefully develop the kinds of lenses, lens questions, and scaffolds necessary to guide students with these information sources.

They also noted that designing more inquiry-based activities was new terrain for them. They commented that "we are so used to like teaching this chapter, just go in, and ah, these are the things that I'm going to teach." The "structure" of activities and lenses was a "problem" because it required them to design good inquiry questions, think about lenses, and consider the end product of student learning, "so there's always constantly going back to the question and seeing whether the things fit nicely or not." Besides the challenge of designing a good inquiry question for the activity, this group struggled with identifying a suitable end product. They noted that they decided on a mini-essay as the end product but hoped for a more "ideal end product" that would be of greater value for students and enable them to apply their learning "to the world, to daily life, for example."

They noted that there was increased student autonomy working in the CWR platform, that there was a shifting locus of control that required the teachers to "let go." Initially seeing their students as "passive" and needing a lot of "hand holding," the teachers started to view their students as more independent and resourceful. Their students started using different web resources to help them work with complex sources. These resources included using Google searches to find information they needed, Dictionary.com to help them understand key terms, and online Chinese translation software to help them understand information in their primary language. They were impressed by how their students managed the more complex information sources they gave them.

As we look across this group of teachers, there is some contextual information about the teachers that may account for their being in these different stages. The Stage 1 teachers were relatively the youngest teachers of the workshop group, with Wee Han only in his second year of teaching when he used the CWR. Since these teachers were still in the early stages of their teaching (2-4 years of classroom practice) they may have had less experience to draw upon which resulted in their hewing fairly closely to what they had previously done in teaching source work. The Stage 2 teachers, Jamilah and Margaret, were more veteran teachers and Jamilah, especially, was characterized as a team leader among her peers at Binjai Secondary School. Her colleagues noted that she tried teaching approaches that they didn't dare to use, especially in terms of going "beyond" the prescribed curriculum and textbook issued by the Ministry of Education. Her colleagues saw her as a confident and innovative practitioner, which may have accounted for the use of the YouTube videos, a blog, and the Facebook posting on healthcare by the opposition candidate as sources in the activity they designed. The Stage 3 teachers were also more veteran teachers and had experience using lesson study as a team. Their school's use of lesson study as a form of professional development meant they had experience collaboratively designing and implementing lessons and then using data on student learning to revise their lessons. These collaborative professional development experiences likely supported their design of a more fully developed inquiry activity (that included efforts to develop a good inquiry question and authentic end product of the inquiry).

There is incipient evidence of the teachers beginning to engage in social studies inquiry and new literacies across the two-day workshop and, more importantly, in their classrooms. For starters, it was the first time all the teachers required their students to use computers and a technology tool in social studies to work with online sources. All the teachers created online activities that invited students to do the source work required by Singapore's social studies curriculum (i.e., make inferences, evaluate the reliability and usefulness of sources, and evaluate claims and evidence). The activity design template of the Critical Web Reader (CWR) also required the teachers to formulate inquiry questions for their activities and led some of them to consider the role a "provocative" inquiry question and culminating activity or product might play in supporting student learning.

In terms of new literacies, some of the teachers in this study (Stages 2 and 3) designed CWR activities that required students to work with authentic online information sources (e.g., websites, YouTube videos, Facebook page, blog). They also used the CWR to scaffold students' work with these sources – that is, carefully read and evaluate each source of information. The teachers identified particular challenges in guiding students to do this work. Some teachers identified insufficient background knowledge about some sources as a concern, as well as the challenges of focusing students' attention with larger sources, such as websites, that well-exceeded the 50-125 word limit that students were accustomed to.

More generally, all the teachers in this study saw their students as more autonomous, resourceful, and engaged in more authentic work. They noted that students prefer typing over writing, the screen over paper, and online source work over paper and pen exercises. Based on teacher observations, student responses were lengthier using the CWR than for paper and pencil source work, students appeared to be more on task throughout the activity, and some students independently used online resources (e.g., Google searches, Dictionary.com, Chinese translation software) to find information that helped them better understand source information. Perhaps this was because of the novelty of using the CWR and computers (for most classes it was their first time using the computer lab for social studies class), but the teachers believed working with online sources was more engaging for students and enabled them to work with information in ways they typically would outside of classrooms (e.g., use Web resources to look up information).

Although the teachers used the web-based tool to seek new approaches to make learning more meaningful and relevant for students, they remained aware of the constraints posed by schooling in Singapore and the prescribed curriculum and examination system. They noted the lack of time in their curriculum for deep engagement with more complex information sources and as professionals to more fully consider the ways to guide students in doing this work (i.e., scaffolding students and providing timely and appropriate feedback on student work, etc.).

There was also not much evidence of a more developed enactment of social studies inquiry with new literacies. There was little evidence of teachers fully moving toward activities that might be described as inquiry-based. Although some teachers designed their activities with potentially good inquiry questions (e.g., "Is ASEAN Useless?" "Is the Formation of the IRA Largely Responsible for the Cause of the Northern Ireland Conflict?" "Globalization: Good or Bad?"), one of the constraints of the CWR tool is that it is not currently designed to support students to formulate their own questions or find their own information sources. Moreover, the questions and prompts used in the CWR to guide students were more constrained than open-ended. The teachers designed questions similar to those used in the curriculum and on exams. Also, the CWR does not enable students to collaborate online to consider a range of responses to lens questions and prompts.

Similarly, the contexts of social studies education in Singapore make it difficult to do longer, in-depth inquiry investigations into topics or issues. The problem noted by the teachers of scheduling times to implement the CWR activities in their classrooms due to examinations was a very real problem for the teachers in the study and points to the challenges of implementing new technologies and teaching approaches in high-stakes examination systems.

To fully help teachers make use of technology to support inquiry and the development of new literacies requires sustained work in curriculum. In their review of research on professional development to support teachers' use of technology interventions in science education, Gerard, et al. (2011) found that for technology to be effectively utilized "professional development must be long term, be individualized, and involve evidence-based instructional refinement" (p. 439). The workshop and the teachers' use of the CWR and online information sources to support inquiry and new literacies in their existing curriculum marks a beginning step. Our workshop with the teachers was premised on the idea that teachers are curriculum creators (rather than deliverers of curriculum), but we recognize that the competing demands of school schedules and classroom practice make sustained work in curriculum difficult. The teachers in this study had 8 hours to discuss and deliberate ideas about social studies and new literacies with several hours dedicated to actual curriculum design and development. They also had opportunities to voice ideas in their teams and in interviews. For this group of teachers, and for teachers in Singapore, this is not insignificant given the exam pressures and time constraints, such as those noted by the teachers earlier in this article (e.g., exam preparation, school schedules, co-curricular activities, etc.). Sustained work that focuses on using technology to scaffold students' literacy work with complex online information sources is an important next step but one that will remain challenging unless more time and space is allotted for curriculum creation as an integral part of teachers' work.

This sustained work means teachers would have ongoing opportunities to work collaboratively with each other to more fully consider 21st century contexts, texts, and technologies and their implications for curriculum and classroom practice. It means giving teachers more time and space to think about, try, and reflect on the use of new technology tools, new literacies instruction in their content area, and inquiry-based approaches in the design of curriculum that fits into their existing practice and classroom contexts. Sustained professional conversation and deliberation about curriculum and the integration of new tools and approaches is important but teachers need opportunities to explore and implement these new technologies and curricular approaches in their classroom practice. They need opportunities to try different things in ways that make sense to them depending on their comfort level, experience, and the contexts of their practice. They also need to be able to come back together again after implementing their curriculum to engage in further deliberation about student learning as well as their own learning. Professional development leaders must work closely with policy officials and school leaders to help them understand this sustained work as integral to teachers' professional learning, and that more time for these sustained efforts must be carved into teachers' work environments.

Although the teachers in this study designed and implemented different activities (represented by the three different stages), these different examples of curriculum design and implementation highlight that teachers will likely have different starting points in their curriculum design and professional learning. And they will likely have different professional learning needs depending on these starting points. For the design of future professional development, we need to more carefully consider what these different starting points or stages mean for ongoing professional development. Although these teachers are at different stages in their design of inquiry-based curriculum using the CWR and online information sources, we need to more fully consider how the teachers at each stage can be encouraged to take the next step, to further extend their repertoire of practice in ways that can best support their students' learning. The CWR, like any new technology, takes time for teachers to explore in order to fully utilize its potential. Again, more time and space is necessary for teachers to fully understand and implement curricular or technological interventions.

Nonetheless, we believe three facets of this work, in particular, offer guidance for those committed to designing professional learning experiences for teachers: 1.) experience the technology tool (or curricular intervention) first as students; 2.) work collaboratively in small groups with existing curricula to deliberate ways to re-design learning activities that more fully support inquiry and new literacies; and 3.) use a clear conceptual framework, such as social studies inquiry and new literacies, to guide all facets of the work.

On Day 1 of the workshop teachers first used the CWR as students. The activity and the lenses guided the teachers to analyze, interpret, and evaluate web-based sources and invited them to consider the challenges of working with digital information sources from their students' perspectives. The activity and lenses teachers used as students provided models for how the tool might be used in classrooms, allowing them to question or imagine to what extent the tool could be used to support their curriculum.

When the teachers began designing activities and lessons at the end of Day 1 and for most of Day 2, they grounded their work in existing curriculum. Working in small groups also fostered essential deliberation, as the teachers discussed the ways curriculum objectives, such as the target skills, could be met, how to engage students (through the use of hooks, prompts, and the kinds of sources selected), the challenges students might face (especially in performing the target skills with complex digital sources), and ways to support or scaffold student learning by designing CWR activities and lenses. The CWR tool focused teacher work on curriculum design and problems of practice related to helping students work with complex sources of information and ways to scaffold and support students in meeting these challenges.

Implementing the activities they designed in the workshop allowed these problems of practice to surface in concrete ways. During the interviews, the teachers were able to specify problems of practice that are central to authentic inquiry-based instruction with the kinds of complex information sources found online. Teachers need more time to thoughtfully design inquiry-based activities (e.g., authentic inquiry questions and end products), they need more time to consider the kinds of questions and scaffolds that can productively guide student work with websites and video, and they need more time in their curriculum and classrooms to help students develop key inquiry and literacy skills.

Teacher education in social studies must make strategic use of digital technologies in ways that guide prospective and experienced teachers to engage critically with web-based information sources. Teachers need to experience this work in order to learn how they might support their own students to make sense of the world through the analysis, interpretation, and deliberation of complex digital sources. Yet, while it is important to offer new conceptions of teaching and learning in the 21st century, the new practices and skills required to succeed in a changing world need to be contextualized in the existing curricula with which teachers work. Moreover, teachers need opportunities to meaningfully integrate technology with a wide degree of latitude for them to learn and develop at their own pace.

Source work in the Singapore social studies curriculum can be leveraged to support professional development that more directly focuses on social studies inquiry, new literacies, and the integration of technology and the Internet in classroom practice. Teachers need opportunities to develop pedagogical orientations that support new approaches to teaching and learning in new contexts (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Saye & Brush, 2006; Swan & Hicks, 2007; Windschitl, 2002). Sustained professional focus (Gerard, et al., 2011) to consider the role of technology, inquiry and new literacies in new contexts and the ways these can be scaffolded and supported in classrooms holds promise for education in the 21st century.

Appadurai, A. (1996), Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Baildon, M., & Damico, J. (2008). Negotiating epistemological tensions in thinking and practice: A case study of a literacy and inquiry tool as a mediator of professional conversation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (6), 1645-1657.

Baildon, M., & Sim, J.B.-Y. (2009). Notions of criticality: Singaporean teachers' perspectives of critical thinking in social studies. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39 (4), 407-422.

Ben-Peretz, M. (2001). The impossible role of teacher educators in a changing world. Journal of Teacher Education, 52 (1), 48-56.

Berson, M. J., Lee, J. K., & Stuckart, D. W. (2001). Promise and practice of computer technologies in the social studies: A critical analysis. In W. B. Stanley (Ed.), Critical issues in social studies research for the 21st century (pp. 209-229). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Beyer, B. (2008). How to teach thinking skills in social studies and history. The Social Studies, September/October, 2008, 196-201.

Chai, C.S., & Tan, S.C. (2009). Professional development of teachers for computer-supported collaborative learning: Knowledge-building approach. Teachers College Record, 111 (5), 1296-1327.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in community. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005) (Eds.). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Deng, Z. (2004). Beyond teacher training: Singaporean teacher preparation in the era of new educational initiatives. Teaching Education, 15 (2), 159-173.

Deng, Z., & Gopinathan, S. (2003). Continuity and change in conceptual orientations for teacher preparation in Singapore: Challenging teacher preparation as training. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 31 (1), 51-64.

Dewey, J. (1910/1985). How we think, and selected essays (Vol. 6). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Freire, P., & Macedo, D.P. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Gee, J. (2008). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. B., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Professional development for technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81 (3), 408-448.

Girard, B., & Harris, L. M. (2012). Striving for disciplinary literacy instruction: Cognitive tools in a World History course. Theory & Research in Social Education, 40 (3), 230-259.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Leu, D.J., Jr., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell, & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Levstik, L. & Barton, K. (2006). Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary and middle schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.

Luke, A. & Woods, A. (2009). Critical literacy in schools: A primer. Voices in the Middle, 17 (2), 9–18.

Miller, S.M. & McVee, M. (Eds.). (2012). Multimodal composing in classrooms: Learning and teaching in the digital world. New York: Routledge.

National Institute of Education. (2009). NIE Report, TE 21: A teacher education model for the 21st century. Available: http://www.nie.edu.sg/files/TE21_Executive%20Summary_14052010.pdf.

Parker, W. (2012). "Their minds must be improved to a certain degree": A learning cycles approach to inquiry. HSSE Online: Research and Practice in Humanities and Social Studies Education. 1 (1), 1-6. Accessible at: http://www.hsseonline.edu.sg/journal/volume-2-issue-1-2013/how-help-all-students-evidence-based-reading-and-writing-during/page/0/6#sthash.De2dOIkw.dpuf

Remillard, J. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, Summer 2005, 75(2), 211-246.

Saye, J.W., & Brush, T. (2006). Comparing teachers' strategies for supporting student inquiry in a problem-based multimedia-enhanced history unit. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34 (2), 183–212.

Straus, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Swan, K.O., & Hicks, D. (2007). Through the democratic lens: The role of purpose in leveraging technology to support historical inquiry in the social studies classroom. International Journal of Social Education, 21 (2), 142–168.

Swan, K. O., & Hofer, M. (2009). Technology in the social studies. In L. Levstik, & C. Tyson, (Eds.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 307-326). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishing.

Teo, C.H. (1997). Singapore as best home: From scenarios to strategies. Speech at the opening ceremony of the 1997 pre-university seminar, 3 June 1997 at National University of Singapore @ 9 am. Available: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/1997/030697.htm.

Valdes, G., Bunch, G., Snow, C., Lee, C., & Matos, L. (2005). Enhancing the development of students' language(s). In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 126-168). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as action. NY: Oxford University Press.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72 (2), 131–175.

Attachments:

Table 1 (image format), 56 K.