This article was downloaded by: [University of Haifa Library]On: 13 May 2013, At: 07:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of In-Service EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie19

Digitally literate teachers in leadingedge schools in NorwayAslaug Grov Almås a & Rune Krumsvik ba Stord/Haugesund University College, Norwayb University of Bergen, NorwayPublished online: 23 May 2008.

To cite this article: Aslaug Grov Almås & Rune Krumsvik (2007): Digitally literate teachers inleading edge schools in Norway, Journal of In-Service Education, 33:4, 479-497

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13674580701687864

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of In-service EducationVol. 33, No. 4, December 2007, pp. 479–497

ISSN 1367–4587 (print)/ISSN 1747–5082 (online)/07/040479–19© 2007 International Professional Development Association (IPDA)DOI: 10.1080/13674580701687864

Digitally literate teachers in leading edge schools in NorwayAslaug Grov Almåsa* and Rune KrumsvikbaStord/Haugesund University College, Norway; bUniversity of Bergen, NorwayTaylor and Francis LtdRJIE_A_268652.sgm10.1080/13674580701687864Journal of In-Service Education1367-4587 (print)/1747-5082 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis3340000002007Aslaug GrovAlmasaslaug.almas@hsh.no

This paper highlights digitally literate, in-service teachers in leading edge1 schools in Norway andfocuses on how they, in their professional development, adapt digital literacy. Today we find aconsensus among policy-makers, researchers, teacher-educators and teachers that digital literacymust be given high priority and needs to be explored more deeply in our upper secondary schools.Therefore, digital literacy has become the fifth basic competence in the new curriculum and oblig-atory for all subjects at all stages. Despite this consensus and the increased status of information andcommunication technologies (ICT), previous ICT efforts have revealed that implementation of ICThas been more strongly anchored rhetorically and ideologically than in practice. Consequently, thispaper focuses on whether we, in the new educational reform The Knowledge Promotion (Undervisningsog forskningsdepartementet, 2006), are entering a time of upheaval within this area, at a time whenin-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge manages to integrate digital literacy as part oftheir professional development. The paper analyses how teachers have become digitally literate, whatthey actually do in their professional development and how the school organization manages (or not)to create a fertile ground to achieve mandatory ICT in the new curriculum. In this analysis, a newdeveloped digital literacy model is presented and used as a lens to examine teachers’ pedagogicalcontent knowledge.

Introduction

The focus in this paper is on digitally literate teachers in leading edge schools and howthey experience use of information and communications technologies (ICT) in theireveryday practice in school. In the new Norwegian educational reform, The KnowledgePromotion, digital literacy has been given important and historical status in thenational curriculum. It has become the fifth basic competence (literacy) together withreading, writing, arithmetic and oral skills, and has become mandatory in everysubject on every compulsory level of school (levels 1–132). This, together with hightechnology density, digitally literate students, large-scale implementation of learningmanagement systems (LMS3) and technology convergence, provides opportunities

*Corresponding author. Stord/Haugesund University College, Box 5000, 5409 Stord, Norway.Email: aslaug.almas@hsh.no

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

480 A. G. Almås and R. Krumsvik

for ICT use in school. The present paper examines if, and, eventually how, these newpromising streams are handled by digitally literate teachers in leading edge schools(Schofield, 1990). The main problem is, therefore: how is digital literacyimplemented in leading edge schools and by digitally literate teachers in the newcurriculum? This study is designed as a case study with interviews and documentanalysis as methodical entry points, and highlights what may be and what could be(Schofield, 1990) in these leading edge schools.

Background

Norwegian upper secondary schools are today strongly affected by the digital revolu-tion, which is tied to five particular aspects: the density of high technology in theschools, digital competence as the fifth basic competence in the curriculum, highlydigitally confident students, broadband and Web 2.04 technology, and a lack ofdigitally literate teachers. In summary, these five aspects provide several new possibil-ities, but at the same time present many challenges for the teachers who will cope withthis complexity in their everyday practice. One of the main challenges in uppersecondary school in Norway lies in the symbiotic relationship between a teacher’scontent knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Shulman (1987) has highlighted thisissue, and states that ‘… the key to distinguishing the knowledge base of teaching liesat the intersection of content and pedagogy’ (Shulman, 1987, p. 15). Too often thesecomponents live their own, separate lives, distinct from each other, in which pedagog-ical input comes from the educational field, while content knowledge is tied to adifferent subject. As Shulman (1987) has claimed, this has been a problem withineducation for decades. What makes this even more relevant today are the conse-quences of the digital revolution, as a result of which all upper secondary teachers inNorway are expected to integrate ICT and digital literacy into their subjects, whichcalls for a total rethinking of traditional ‘blackboard teaching’. This impliesprofessional development in which pedagogical content knowledge is highlighted andwhere teachers must integrate digital literacy ‘seamlessly’ into pedagogical contentknowledge. But is this possible, and are the decisive factors for such processes presentin the contemporary Norwegian society?

In recent years Norway has become one of the leading countries with regards toaccessibility of technology in schools, and in society in general (Castells, 2001;Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2003; Vaage, 2005). Inthe school year 2005/06, the technology density was 2.5 students per computer inupper secondary school (Kløvstad et al., 2005). If we examine the private access totechnology of Norwegian youngsters (13–15 years of age), 95% have access to homecomputers, 82% have Internet access at home and 96% have mobile telephones.These youngsters are the highest consumers of Internet services, and 73% use theInternet daily (for an average of 81 minutes: Statistisk Sentralbyrå, 2005). Norway isalso among those countries with the highest levels of digital literacy in the population(Eurostat, 2006), digital learning resources are used to a greater extent than textbooksfor homework (between the ages of 9 and 16 years: Safety, Awareness, Facts and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

Digitally literate teachers in Norway 481

Tools, 2006) and PCs are more popular than television among youngsters in general.This creates a situation in which the prognosis from the Futures of Learning Seminars(Green et al., 2006, p. 4) seems to be an important reminder for our contemporaryschool and teachers: ‘It has been suggested that by the age of 21 the average personwill have spent 15,000 hours in formal education, 20,000 hours in front of the TV,and 50,000 hours in front of a computer screen’. This prognosis has special relevancefor today’s Internet generation and screenagers.5

The escalating use of the Internet over the past few years is due to the constantlyincreasing density of high-speed broadband in Norway, which allows people to usethe Internet around the clock at no extra expense. In addition, the nature of theInternet has changed from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, which has incorporated a moreuser-oriented design in today’s Internet. This digital revolution has already had aprofound impact on society and changed our relationship with established institu-tions of society. Internet banks have replaced traditional banks, Internet-basednewspapers have overtaken ordinary newspapers, email and SMS have replacedpaper-based communication, and society generally has ‘disappeared’ into cyber-space. Therefore, as an e-citizen in the network society it is necessary to becomecomputer literate in order to participate in society in general, as well as in school.Technology is becoming increasingly integrated into the way we communicate, andhas increased the transparency of our practices. Consequently, our traditionalperception of communication has changed, and those of the Internet generation(Tapscott, 1998) are in many respects the innovators in this area. This communi-cation transformation has benefits and disadvantages, and opens new pedagogicalterrain for teachers. It is therefore reasonable to claim that it challenges the teacherin many ways.

Previous ICT research from Norway

These decisive factors mentioned above provide a good setting for implementing ICTin school. However, despite these decisive factors, previous research revealed adiscrepancy between policy-makers’ ambitious ICT visions and the actual subject useof ICT in Norwegian upper secondary schools (Kløvstad et al., 2005). Thus we needto ask critical questions about these policy-makers’ ICT visions and the reality inschools. We cannot simply blame the policy-makers’ ambitious ICT visions. WhenNorway has such high standards of infrastructure, we must also ask how Norwegianupper secondary schools organize the use of the available technology and infrastruc-ture, which other countries lack. In addition, we must therefore ask: why haveNorwegian schools in general not succeeded in implementing ICT? The complexityin this area makes it impossible to provide easy answers. However, a number of earlierstudies have revealed that schools as organizations have adapted slowly to technolog-ical change, despite the fact that many attempts at implementation have been initiated(Cuban, 2001). Tyack and Cuban (1998) are critical of the rhetoric concerning theimplementation of technology in schools and education, and point to the discrepancybetween the arenas of formulation and realization in this field. Other Norwegian

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

482 A. G. Almås and R. Krumsvik

studies have documented the same tendency (Ludvigsen, 2000; Erstad, 2004a, b;Krumsvik, 2006a, b).

Against this backdrop, there is reason to believe that despite the government’s goodintentions, the ‘ICT pedagogy’ is more strongly anchored in rhetoric than in practice.Essentially, Norwegian teachers are doing what they have always done, and tradi-tional teaching methods and technology-free learning environments are dominant.How can a situation like this be altered? These are complex questions that we mustanswer because we find ourselves at an educational crossroad where the newNorwegian educational reform, The Knowledge Promotion (Undervisnings og Forskn-ingsdepartementet, 2006), demands that schools and teachers give digital literacy ahigh priority in all subjects (levels 1–13). In the new national curriculum, digitalliteracy is mandatory and has become one of the five basic competencies together withreading, writing, arithmetic and oral skills. This increased status is a historic event inNorway, and never before has ICT been so clearly implemented in all subjects thanin this new national curriculum. This implies an urgent need for teachers to becomedigitally competent in order to cope with this new teaching situation. This impliesalso the ability to understand how they can utilize their students’ computer literacy inthe processes of knowledge-building and learning in the subjects.

What are the schools and teachers that seem to succeed in the integration of ICTdoing that others do not do? There are still few studies of such serious challenges toteachers becoming digitally literate in Norway, but a case study from the NorwegianPILOT project (Krumsvik, 2006a) found that teachers must see the added value ofICT before they use it in teaching their subjects. The study revealed that achievingthis digital literacy is a complex process, but in-service training in digital literacy andaction learning and teachers participating in an ‘apprenticeship culture’ in their every-day practice seem to be necessary steps to increase teachers’ digital literacy and helpthem recognize the added value of ICT. These findings are interesting in light of VanEekelen et al.’s (2005) study of teachers, which revealed that learning in interactionand learning by doing were reported as the most important factors in theirprofessional development. In addition, Billett (2001) identified three key factors inworkplace learning that emphasize some of the same issues: engagement in everydaywork tasks, direct guidance from coworkers, and indirect guidance provided in theworkplace itself. To make such professional development processes possible forteachers, Krumsvik (2006a) found that schools have to make structural changeswithin their organizations as well as arrange the school day in a new way, based ondigitally literate teachers’ needs in this new digital terrain.

Another aspect of teachers’ professional development within the ICT area is thealteration of the focus and content of digital literacy. Previously digital literacy wasassociated with external ICT courses with a technical, rather than pedagogical, focusand was occurring on a ‘side-track’ and as an ‘add-on’ of the schools’ organizationalstructures. Today, as Erstad (2004a, b) and Kløvstad et al. (2005) argue, it is neces-sary to revitalize the term digital competence (or digital literacy) in school, decreasethe focus on skills and provide broader, more holistic, pedagogical content than hastraditionally been enjoyed, if we seek to capture teachers’ attention. In leading edge

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

Digitally literate teachers in Norway 483

schools it has been true in the past that the focus on digital literacy was directedtowards pedagogical–didactic issues rather than technical issues.

However, are we actually ‘retelling the same old stories from the past’ or presentingin this new educational reform an entirely new opportunity for implementing ICT inschool? One might say that the vital change in this educational reform is the clearanchoring of digital literacy in the national curriculum. Referring to the curriculum,Roschelle and Pea (1999, p. 23) say that ‘Since these documents guide efforts toimprove and reform schooling, it is very unlikely that technology can achieve a large-scale impact without tight coupling’. We have seen this dilemma in Norway recently,where (despite ICT becoming mandatory through the national action plan for ICTin schools from 2002/03; Kirke, Utdanning og Forskningsdepartementet, 1999)recent ICT studies (Kløvstad et al., 2005) show limited subject use of ICT comparedwith its accessibility in upper secondary school, and society in general. One sees thatthe action plans and the rapid development and accessibility of technology createcertain new possibilities for teachers, but these have not been clearly anchored in theprevious national curricula. Therefore, while some fiery spirits in some schools havemade ICT innovations, in general the average Norwegian teacher has not used ICTto any great extent. A lesson learnt from ICT research in Norway over the past10 years is that ICT must be clearly anchored in curricula, syllabus, assessment formsand in everyday practice in schools, if it is to become institutionalized in schools(Krumsvik, 2006a). This clear anchoring in curricula has happened for the first timein this new national curriculum, and in this area we find ourselves in a time ofupheaval. The most important factor is the fact that the teacher cannot anymoredefine him/herself without ICT and digital literacy. This is interesting with regard toteachers’ previous technophobia, which has been one of the most important obstaclesto the implementation of ICT in Norwegian schools (Krumsvik, 2006a). On the otherhand, Krumsvik (2006a) found that when this technophobia is reduced, the teacheris actually the key person in the implementation of ICT in Norway today.

In general, we might say that technophobia is no longer the main problem inimplementation, but when some obstacles crumble, others emerge. To illustrate thenew dilemmas that have emerged from this reform, one must first recognize that thenew curriculum has relatively general aims regarding competence in subjects,considerable local freedom (25%) and high methodical freedom in schools’ localcurriculum activities. The main object for teachers will be to allow students reachcompetence goals for the subjects in the curriculum. As a starting point this createsfertile ground for teachers’ professional development in relation to digital literacy,and their autonomy in general. On the other hand, the government desires to imple-ment national tests that might decrease this local freedom for teachers. There is alsoreason to believe that the new textbooks developed for the reform will be given aneven stronger position than normal, because they seem set to function as ‘guidingstars’ for teachers in the first years of the reform. This is understandable so early inthe reform, but it presents a situation where a textbook will again be a ‘steeringinstrument’, and once more poses the question of how digital literacy will be handled.In some subjects we find that some newly developed textbooks hardly mention the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

484 A. G. Almås and R. Krumsvik

term digital literacy, and if they do they refer to the publishers’ own digital learningresources on the Internet (which are often poorly developed). This may give rise to asituation where digital literacy is accorded low priority in textbooks. We may find thattextbook authors and publishers steer some of the ICT use in school withouthighlighting digital literacy sufficiently (whether this is intentional is the subject ofdiscussion, but it is conspicuous that digital literacy was not given more attentionwhen the government demanded it so clearly in the new educational reform). Thissituation illustrates the need for textbook authors and publishers to give digitalliteracy higher priority and for the development of solid digital learning resources onthe Internet, which may be a catalyst for textbook authors to strengthen the low ICTuse in schools in a country with very high technology density. The first move to alterthis state of affairs is currently being debated in Norway. Teachers’ organizations aredemanding that journals review not only new textbooks, but also new digital learningresources being developed for the new educational reform. In this way, digitallearning resources can receive more attention and increase their status in relation totextbooks.

Another issue will arise when all the textbooks and paper-based encyclopaedias areavailable (in full version) online (e.g. Google’s work in this area): should we valueknowledge written on paper more favourably than the same content in digital formaton the Internet? These dilemmas give rise to a situation where actually ‘very few webresources are indexed to curricula, state frameworks or national standards’ (Roschelle& Pea, 1999, p. 23), and are therefore not considered as valuable as paper-basedtextbooks, encyclopaedias or dictionaries. This is interesting in light of some of thefindings from PILOT (Krumsvik, 2006a) that ordinary teachers developed their owndigital subject portals on the Internet and included them in the syllabus. Theseprocesses helped them in their professional development to expand their pedagogicalcontent knowledge (Gudmundsdottir & Shulman, 1987), contribute to transformingthe organizational structure of their schools and markedly increasing the status ofdigital learning resources.

Digital literacy in the new educational reform

So far we have discussed decisive factors that influence ICT use in school, but in thefollowing section we will examine digital literacy in greater depth. A general definitionof digital literacy in Norway is that digital literacy incorporates the skills, knowledge,creativity and attitudes which everyone needs when using digital media for learningand mastering the knowledge society’ (Kløvstad et al., 2005; Undervisnings og forskn-ingsdepartementet, 2003). This is a general definition, which only to a certain extentmanages to encompass digital literacy in school settings. Therefore, we found it neces-sary to develop a narrower definition that more directly focuses on in-service teachersand digital literacy in school settings: ‘Digital literacy for in-service teachers is the abil-ity to use digital artefacts as an integrated part of the their pedagogical content knowl-edge and be aware of what implications this has for teaching, learning strategies andBildung aspects’ (Krumsvik, 2007). In Figure 1 we have tried to develop a model that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

Digitally literate teachers in Norway 485

incorporates the different dimensions of teacher professional development and peda-gogical content knowledge with regards to development of digital literacy.Figure 1. Digital literacy model for in-service teachers (Krumsvik, 2007)The model consists of two axes; one represents the ‘craftwork’ aspect (horizontalaxis) and the other the teachers’ awareness of digital technology in their professionaldevelopment (vertical axis). At the same time the model underlines that there is noclear division between these axes—they are actually two central points with severalcommon elements.

If we start in the centre of the model we find that basic ICT skills, pedagogic–didactic ICT competence, learning strategies and metacognition and digital bildung6

are the cornerstones of the model and in the concept of digital literacy.Basic ICT skills means that every teacher has to be able to use a computer on a basic

level, which implies opening and saving, downloading, searching, communicating,and so on. What is remarkable in today’s basic skills is that there is no longer a focuson what is inside the computer. The computers, programs and applications are moreuser-friendly than previously. In addition, teachers of today (like other e-citizens) areusing ICT for many activities outside school (e.g. paying bills through Internet banks,sending/receiving email and text messages, booking journeys and tickets online, etc.),which through everyday practice makes them more digitally skilled than 10 years agowhen the previous curriculum was implemented.

Basic ICT skills for teachers are a premise and a starting point for acquiringpedagogical–didactic ICT competence. This cornerstone embodies teachers’ professionaldevelopment and pedagogical content knowledge, where pedagogic–didactic ICT

Figure 1. Digital literacy model for in-service teachers (Krumsvik, 2007)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

486 A. G. Almås and R. Krumsvik

competence is the main focus. This implies that teachers are able to use ICT in theirsubjects in a reflective and well-founded way. The abilities of in-service teachers tonavigate, evaluate and integrate in the digital-based and Internet-based environmentare important parts of this cornerstone, as well their awareness of the expandedpossibilities for collaboration and knowledge-building, but also ethical pitfalls in suchdigital terrain. Implicit in this dimension is the ability to see where ICT has addedvalue for the subjects and where it is limited.

The third cornerstone, learning strategies and metacognition, is a further step from theprevious two, and focuses more on teachers’ metacognition about their professionaldevelopment and pedagogical content knowledge, with a special focus on digitalcompetence. The main point in this cornerstone is to make teachers aware of howthey can develop new learning strategies in their own professional development, andat the same time focus on how ICT impacts students’ learning strategies andmetacognition. This cornerstone also focuses on how technology creates lowerthresholds for invention in teachers’ professional development and how they cancreate their own digital learning resources for use in everyday practice. Thecornerstone has common features with Schön’s (1983) ‘reflection on action’, both forteachers and students.

The fourth cornerstone is digital bildung, in which a strong ethical and moral aware-ness is highlighted (and in which all the other cornerstones are implicit). In-serviceteachers in their professional development must develop awareness of how the digitalrevolution impacts and (partly) transforms traditional forms of bildung journeys. Ifteachers are able to develop such digital bildung awareness, they can become arbitersof how ICT shall be used (and not used) in school, as well as in school–home collab-orations. The escalating ethical problems within this area creates a situation in whichthe teachers continue to be affected by such issues in their everyday practice, and tobe a digitally literate teacher of today means that one has to develop pedagogicalcontent knowledge of such issues as well. This also implies possibilities such ascommunication across cultural and geographical borders, students who are moreactive in the ‘digital classroom’ than in the ordinary classroom and bringing screen-agers’ lives further into the school context.

This digital literacy model also consists of stages related to in-service teachers’ inregard to the proficiency in how they are using digital artefacts in relation to the stagesthey are in (the horizontal axis). Here the dimensions adoption, adaptation, appropria-tion and invention are mentioned as cornerstones in the ‘practical proficiency journey’.

The model also underlines the importance of self-consciousness in teachers’professional development and the importance of being aware of their own pedagogi-cal content knowledge. The vertical axis shows the ‘consciousness journey’ andconsists of the dimensions digitally unconscious and incompetent, digitally conscious andincompetent and digitally conscious and competent.

In this way the model incorporates both the digital proficiency and self-conscious-ness cornerstones of teachers’ professional development and pedagogical contentknowledge within the ICT area. Therefore, by using such a model as a lens, we mightbe able to reveal teachers’ ‘tacit knowledge’, as well as appreciate them as key players

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

Digitally literate teachers in Norway 487

in this new educational reform. Moreover, as Tyack and Cuban remark: ‘… whetherteachers will embrace this new technology depends in good part on the ability oftechnologically minded reformers to understand the realities of the classroom and toenlist teachers as collaborators rather than regarding them as obstacles to progress’(1998, p. 126). In our study this implies that it is desirable to reveal what digitallyliterate teachers in leading edge schools are doing to achieve this mandatory digitalliteracy in their subjects.

Method

This research was designed as a case study (Yin, 1994; Merriam, 1998). Thetheoretical interpretation of the case will be in light of existing terms, theories andanalytical lenses within the tradition, while the case material can contribute to thedevelopment of new theoretical insights in the field. A distinctive research method-ological aspect of case studies like this is their focus on analytic generalization, incontrast to statistical generalization. Another aspect of this is that case studies oftenstudy what is (Schofield, 1990) in average schools. One of the main objectives in thisstudy was to detect and describe innovative practice concerning ICT use in school,and not simply to ‘tell old stories’ about technological pitfalls. Schofield makes animportant distinction in this area.

Studying what is refers to studying the typical, the common, and the ordinary … Studyingwhat may be refers to designing studies so that their fit with future trends and issues aremaximised … Studying what could be refers to locating situations that we know or expectto be ideal or exceptional on some a priori basis and studying them to see what is actuallygoing on there. (Schofield, 1990, p. 226)

With this and Schofield’s (1990) thoughts about research in technology settings inmind, we have considered it important to base this empirical case study mostly onwhat may be and what could be, as complementary entry points to what is (Schofield,1990). According to Schofield, this seems especially relevant in implementationstudies of ICT in school, where the technology’s rapid development poses certainchallenges to what can be captured by research. As Schofield expresses it:

Changes in both microcomputers and in individuals’ level of experience with computershave been so rapid in the past decade that a study of what is today could arguably be a studyof primarily historical interest by the time it gets conducted, written, and published.(Schofield, 1990, p. 215)

Thus one may claim that the interplay between what is, what may be and what couldbe (‘lighthouse schools’, leading edge) can be a constructive combination when oneseeks to reveal ICT-related, innovative practice in school, as well as point out somefuture traits based on this background (Schofield, 1990). Therefore, this case studywas designed to study what may be or what could be in leading edge schools (Schofield,1990), and therefore has a different focus to traditional case studies. Triangulationhas thus been used as a methodical entrance point, as well as in the examination ofthe empirical data.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

488 A. G. Almås and R. Krumsvik

The main methodical entrance point in this study was semi-structured, qualitativeinterviews (Kvale, 2001) of 13 teachers in four leading edge schools (general studies).The stratified selection of these teachers was done by us and the principals. The semi-structured interviews were carried out during the autumn of 2006 and were recordedon mini-discs and transcribed. The interviews were divided into themes: character-ization of the implemented ICT projects at school; current status; reflectionsconcerning the Norwegian situation; ICT in a didactic context; teacher–studentrelations; the teachers’ ICT education; and the new curriculum. Through theinterviews we identified some continuous factors that are discussed in the empiricalanalysis. There were four schools involved in this inquiry, and these are numberedone to four in the quotations from the teachers.

To obtain a broader picture of policy-makers’ intentions, goals of the newcurriculum and how it is perceived by the teachers in school, we analysed differentdocuments (curricula, local curriculum, study plans, syllabus material, assessmentcriteria, etc.) as well as documents on LMS that we considered relevant.

Empirical analysis

In this section we seek to carry out an empirical analysis of our study. This will behandled in regard to the following factors: approaches to enhance digital literacy,decisive factors from the teacher’s point of view, infrastructure, leadership, attitudes,LMS, teacher autonomy, some description of their pedagogical use in everydaysituations, assessment forms and implications.

Approaches to enhancing digital literacy

Reflection and descriptions of their own knowledge seems difficult for teachers. Wehave all tried to sit next to a teenager when he/she is using a computer, and askedhim/her to explain how to use the computer. ‘I’m just doing it’, he/she answers.How the knowledge is acquired is hard to articulate, and Polanyi (1967) named ittacit knowledge. The teachers have participated in different in-service courses butcannot easily remember the course content and name of the courses. The reasonsmay be various.

1. ‘Digital competence’, ‘digital literacy’ and ‘digital skills’ are diffuse concepts.2. Earlier courses are irrelevant to the ‘digital challenges’ the schools currently

face.3. The use and focus on ICT is a part of teachers’ professional development.

Simple technical courses exist to a lesser extent today. These courses are accom-plished by a limited group of users who have particular technical responsibilities.Technical inventions are known by simple user interfaces and functions. Teachers areinterested in how ICT can be embedded in teaching and learning. Our teachersparticipated in or had undergone earlier courses that were equivalent to TeacherICT.7

The following expression is repeated from several teachers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

Digitally literate teachers in Norway 489

It was all right. I didn’t learn anything new. We were 4 colleagues in a group and dividedthe tasks between us. Nobody needed to do everything. It was also important to find outwhat our tutor wanted us to do. This was the first code to break. (Teacher, E4)

In many ways, Teacher ICT was designed for teachers with very low basic ICTskills, who were digitally unconscious and illiterate, and this kind of knowledge willalways be of value to such teachers. The technical skills will be their first step onthe ladder, from digitally unconscious and illiterate to digitally conscious andliterate.

However, studies from Norway (Krumsvik, 2006a) reveal that these technical skillsneed to be practiced and developed in the teachers’ own practice and daily work. Theavailability of updated computers at school and an infrastructure with no downtimeare important. Teachers’ reflections on the use of ICT and its adaptation to their ownteaching cannot occur until the teachers themselves have experienced and been awareof the possibilities that ICT gives. This kind of experience is acquired through dailyuse. Teachers and pupils are e-citizens, who are concerned with technology in every-day duties (i.e. banking services, travel bookings, Internet shopping, news and privatecommunication). Teachers in our investigation have a range of media competenciesand are familiar with an expanding variety of pedagogical techniques, and are thusable to maximize the value of ICT learning in classrooms.

Participants in the interviews also have a relatively good overview of thecompetence of their colleagues. The most important initiative to competencedevelopment was when all the teachers received their own laptops. New challengesappear frequently, and a culture for learning among teachers, and thus a learningorganization, is important in a knowledge society. The ability to try and fail indaily work and other situations and a little help from other teachers or students areessential steps in the process of becoming a personal ICT user. To enhance teach-ers’ digital competence, better access and personal laptops for every teacher appearto be the most important factors. Most of their learning arises from interactions atthe workplace.

I am learning through my colleagues. Every day I learn something new. (Teacher, E3)

Internal courses, lectures by teachers in our school or another school. There is much tolearn by visiting other schools. (Teacher, L4)

The teachers we interviewed found it very difficult to give general proposals. However,it is notable that none of our informants explicitly said that universities and otherteacher-training institutions were important for their knowledge-building. They ques-tioned the academic community’s essential knowledge. Knowledge that includes theunderstanding of the school culture and holistic complexity is tied to the introductionof ICT in learning and teaching.

If there really is an academic community which may contribute to our level, we wouldbe happy to have them here. We would like them to visit us in our own organization,and for supervisors who could take part in our lessons and give advice during their visit.(Teacher, L4)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

490 A. G. Almås and R. Krumsvik

The teachers’ own practices and experiences over many years, the ‘inside’ infor-mation, must be taken into account in developing a new digital teaching practice.The ideas from supervisors, academic communities or coworkers in their ownschool may be the key to teachers’ growing pedagogical content knowledge. Thiscorresponds with Billett’s (2001) findings, in which three key contributors to thelearning of individuals through everyday work activities were identified: engage-ment in everyday work tasks, direct guidance from coworkers, and indirect guid-ance provided in the workplace itself. Another study (Koopmans et al., 2006),which focused on how teachers learn, indicates that learning in interaction wasreported most frequently, followed by learning by doing. This learning strategy alsocorresponds to a substantial literature concerned with professional development ingeneral, professional development of teachers, and the issue of educational change.The enduring work of scholars such as Michael Fullan and Andy Hargreaves mustbe mentioned in connection with effective professional development of teachers.Key amongst those principles are the necessarily long-term nature of in-serviceprogrammes that are to have a permanent effect on teaching practice, the centralrole of coaching work in schools and the interaction between individual teacherfactors and the department and school environment that encourages or discouragesprofessional development (Adey, 2004). In addition to competence building,teachers emphasized some other decisive factors for making effective use of ICT inteaching and learning.

Decisive factors from a teacher’s point of view

Teachers in this investigation were dependent on ICT in their ordinary school days.They ventured to say that the entire school was dependent on ICT, both as an admin-istrative tool and as a pedagogical remedy. The teachers had their own laptops andwireless networks, and nearly every classroom had a projector. The reason why ICTwas included to this extent will be further explained.

Infrastructure

Infrastructure has been a continuous problem; and even if the situation is much betterthan previously, it is still mentioned as a challenge. Teachers can neither teachcomputer skills nor integrate ICT into curricula without having functioning comput-ers at their disposal. A lack of appropriate material resources prohibits learning andcauses frustration and resistance in school communities. Teachers are tired of alwaysplanning their teaching with something up their sleeves. New technical challenges willalways emerge, which means that a part of teachers’ digital literacy is the ability tohandle unforeseen situations. Some upper secondary schools operate with separatecomputer laboratories, but the best solution seems to be the 1:1 dimension: onelaptop per student. Moreover, it is of vital importance that wireless Internet connec-tions always work satisfactorily. All interviewed teachers agree about this 1:1 dimen-sion, and one of the schools has already trialled it for four years. Computers will not

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

Digitally literate teachers in Norway 491

be a natural part of the learning environment if it is necessary to move to another,maybe reserved, classroom to use them.

The first year we used PCs in mathematics, we had to go to the data lab. The pupils asked:‘are you going to teach mathematics or are we going to the data lab?’ Consequently, thesewere two different things for them, and ICT was not integrated as a natural part. I thinkthese practical technical hindrances are crucial. (Teacher, E4)

Leadership

Previous ICT projects have often been initiated by overzealous spirits. The schoolleadership in our schools has been of vital importance in avoiding this pitfall. ICTengagement was established and based in the entire school and was not an initiativethat involved only two or three teachers. It is difficult to achieve a common under-standing of how and why changing the school. The school’s ability to be prepared fornew projects is dependent on engaged principals. A project leader said the following.

We have experienced how hard it can be to find ‘the right track’. You become the focus ofattention, for better or worse. (Teacher, L4)

An involved headmaster is important for a sustainable integration. He/she forcesprogress and needs to be engaged in the teachers’ practice.

The leadership is responsible for introducing and accomplishing common routinesfor information flow. It is necessary to avoid double communication. A time-consum-ing task for teachers is to control student attendance at lessons. This task must beperformed on the Internet, and only there. It is an integrated part of the LMS. Thishas forced the use of the Internet, which influences their daily work.

We had a teacher who left last year. He is not working here anymore. At the first planningsession, he understood that some tasks only could be done on the internet, and he decidedto go. (Teacher, R4)

Encouragement and backing from leaders and colleagues have an invaluable effectin connection to enhancing teachers’ digital competence. It seems that there is noeasy way to achieve the ‘invention level’ of digital literacy. Learning new methodsof teaching is no different from any other learning. If knowledge and learning areindeed situated, then the most effective in-service education will be constructive infocus and situated in authentic classroom practice. Computer literacy increases bydaily use. The leadership must prepare for ICT as the preferred tool for communi-cation and collaboration. Learning takes time, it must be done in a familiar contextand the leadership can prepare this setting. This argument is frequently mentionedby teachers.

All messages, important information, schedules, attendance reports, schedules and annualplans are distributed by the LMS. The teachers themselves realize the obvious advantages.(Teacher, V1)

Even if these work routines are of an administrative character, they enhance teachers’digital literacy and ability to use ICT as a pedagogical tool.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

492 A. G. Almås and R. Krumsvik

Attitude

The emergence of an individual teacher’s interest in ICT may defy precise identifica-tion. One teacher puts it as follows:

Actually, computers and gadgets have always fascinated me. (Teacher, R4)

Teachers’ attitudes and their way of seeing possibilities are factors that affect theirchoice to utilize ICT in teaching methods. It is described by the majority of ourinformants as the most crucial factor. A positive attitude reflects the way in which theseteachers meet the challenges posed by media, their openness to students’ competencesand common development processes in which the teachers themselves also learn.

Learning management systems

The integration of LMS has been a focus area in all Norwegian upper secondaryschools. Its use is varied, and the producers’ great ambitions of its influence on theentire school system do not seem to have been realized. Our teachers’ arguments forusing LMS are to differentiate teaching, to support the assessment process, topromote interaction between pupils and teachers, and to exchange information.Results from the interviews strongly confirm the ‘information’ argument, but thereare also elements from the ‘interaction’ argument. The use of LMS depends onteachers. They strive to use LMS as a way to interact with pupils (in addition to theclassroom), to deliver exercises and as a tool for marks and assessment.

The LMS is undoubtedly a catalyst in proportion to the integration of ICT in school.(Teacher, D2)

Teachers and students use LMS as an archive for assessments and documents in progress.Students create project areas and have common access to different files and documents.They divide tasks in project work, and the LMS is an area where project participants mayfollow the milestones. (Teacher, Y1)

The LMS function as a collaborative area for teachers. In upper secondary schoolall teachers have their own subjects in a closed area or ‘rooms’. Colleagues invite eachother to these ‘rooms’. They copy documents and ideas, and the collaborative workis an essential part of their development of digital literacy. Discussions across subject‘rooms’ in this closed area enhance their pedagogic and didactic ICT literacy. Theindividual teacher determines who gets access to each area. This may cause a situa-tion where non-contributing teachers are left outside any collaboration teams. Thecollaboration is rarely observed between schools. It is an internal activity, even if thetechnology allows an extended collaboration. There have been a few experimentswith open web sites but the culture of sharing is still limited. The arguments for notsharing are that extra work is entailed, teachers do not think their ideas are goodenough and some admit that they are tired of sharing with other teachers, non-payingpassengers who never give anything back.

Here you can take a look at my subjects. It is my page for English. Here is another Englishpage with another teacher. It is very labour saving when we are dealing with our resources:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

Digitally literate teachers in Norway 493

Copy, import and export. The students may insert resources, but it is mainly done by me.(Teacher, T4)

The expression acknowledges that the use of LMS is principally managed by teachersand the teacher defines how the digital tools are a part of the syllabus and forms ofassessment.

Teacher autonomy

A characteristic of the interviewed teachers is their degree of autonomy. They haveworked as teachers for several years and have thus increased their ability to be auton-omous. Implementation of ICT has been an agent for improving students’ autonomy,but our investigation emphasizes the importance of teacher autonomy. These teach-ers are able to make decisions about how they teach and why. Making studentsresponsible for their own learning has been a slogan for many years, but an impressionis that in the age of the Internet we have confirmed that this slogan over-rates ourstudents. The information jungle and information overload make teachers more thanever dependent on a competent guide towards professional skills. We need teachersas guides, with pedagogical content knowledge that enables them to see the largerpicture several times and to have the flexibility to select a teaching method that doesjustice to the topic (Gudmundsdottir & Shulman, 1987).

I am a very clear and strict teacher, stricter than before. I have control over my students,and utilize the possibilities the system allows me. Marks, evaluation of the process,conduct marks and project work that my students have completed. The capabilities to bestructured and to be good organizers are very important teacher qualities in the digitalinformation society. (Teacher, V1)

Teachers are responsible for organizing a learning environment. ICT is a tool formanaging this organization. These statements from the informants are in tune withThe Knowledge Promotion (Undervisnings og Forskningsdepartementet, 2006), whichstates that teachers are now intended to have a professional and emphasized role.Teachers were expected to reach their goals through their own solutions andmethods, instead of carrying out nationally developed proposals. ICT is intended toplay a role in that process.

LMS give principals an opportunity to control teachers’ schedule, content andassessment of the students. None of the teachers felt this was a monitoring inspection.On the contrary, they enjoyed the principals’, or researchers’, engagement. Discus-sions and reflections on their own actions, in action, are a part of teachers’ professionaldevelopment. The lack of follow-up for teaching staff with conversations anddiscourses are bad for principals’ consciences (Almås, 2004).

Some descriptions of pedagogical use in everyday situations

In upper secondary schools, each subject and each teacher seems to find their ownway to organize and orchestrate the learning environment. The teacher autonomy is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

494 A. G. Almås and R. Krumsvik

radical. They take into account the context and framework for items in the classroom(e.g. curriculum, educational plans, school culture, school code, rules and routines,technological infrastructure). The following examples from the teachers indicate thatICT seems to be increasingly being included in assessments, curricula and learningmaterials. Explicit ICT discussion is diminishing. The teachers have built up a peda-gogical content knowledge that enables them to see a larger picture several times, andthey have the flexibility to select a teaching method that does justice to the topic. Thisresults in more focus on subjects. It is also a recommendation for teacher-traininginstitutions about how ICT is expected to be a part of pedagogy and didactic contentin initial teacher-training.

Assessment forms

There is not yet a content and form of final examination that incorporates computers.However, teachers state explicitly that process evaluation, digital folders and assess-ments are decisive for the final marks. In this investigation it has become clear thatevery teacher finds his or her own way of performing these activities and thesestrategies seem to be increasingly fair in the respective schools. The three followingcomments corroborate this.

My students were ready for a ticking-off. They publish one task on LMS every week. Icannot evaluate all of them, but I read them. Only five students get an evaluation eachweek. During a month everyone gets thorough feedback. This is a strategy that works well.(Teacher, T4)

When my students write reports in nature study, they start very badly. In the first sixmonths I give lots of feedback. In the following months I give no feedback. In May, theyhave to choose five reports which they are satisfied with. It is a kind of process-orientedwriting. These five reports are crucial for the final mark. (Teacher, L4)

In my subject, 3Bi, students will be asked about data logs at the exam. What are they andhow do you use them? (Teacher, R3)

These three teachers found their own ways of including ICT in teaching and evalua-tion. Their choices were built on many years as lecturing, knowledge about curricula,ICT and, not least, being acquainted with student needs and abilities.

Implications

The focus in this paper has been directed towards digitally literate teachers in leadingedge schools and how they experience their ICT use in their everyday practice inschool. The main problem has been: how is digital literacy implemented in leadingedge schools and by digitally literate teachers in the new curriculum? Statements fromteachers and their descriptions of their daily work suggest that digital literacy is acombination of several competences that are realized/appropriated during their teach-ing practice. The basic level of ICT skills (Figure 1) can be learned by externalcourses, but the second, third and fourth cornerstones must be an integral part of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

Digitally literate teachers in Norway 495

their pedagogical content knowledge. Their self-consciousness (Figure 1, verticalaxis) has gradually developed through ‘reflection on action’, discussions withcolleagues and student feedback. Their skills in digital literacy (Figure 1, horizontalaxis) have gradually developed through trial and error, appropriation and pedagogicalcontent knowledge. However, this could not have occurred without good infrastruc-ture, high PC density, LMS, innovative leadership and a general high status of digitallearning resources and ICT at these leading edge schools. Against this backdrop thestudy has shown that these digitally literate in-service teachers develop their peda-gogic content knowledge in their everyday practice in school as part of their profes-sional development. This has given them ‘digital ballast’ throughout the past years,which has prepared them for mandatory digital literacy under the new curriculum.Therefore, these digitally literate teachers and leading edge schools can focus on thepedagogical content knowledge, and to a lesser extent on the traditional obstacles toICT implementation.

Notes

1. Leading edge schools are upper secondary schools that have worked continuously andsystematically with ICT implementation over several years. All the teachers have their ownlaptops, as do a large proportion of the students. These are connected to the Internet via awireless connection.

2. The Norwegian School system (levels 1–13) consist of primary and lower secondary education(from the age of 6 to 15), and then upper secondary education and training (from the age of16 to 19). Every Norwegian pupil spends 13 years in school.

3. LMS are software packages that enable the management and delivery of online content tolearners. Most LMS are web based to facilitate ‘anytime, any place, any pace’ access to learningcontent and administration. Typically LMS allow for learner registration, delivery of learningactivities and learner assessment in an online environment. More comprehensive LMS ofteninclude tools such as competency management, skills-gap analysis, succession planning,certification and resource allocation (venues, rooms, textbooks, instructors, etc.). (Wikipedia,The Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_management_system).

4. Web 2.0 is a term often applied to a perceived ongoing transition of the World Wide Web froma collection of web sites to a full-fledged computing platform serving web applications to endusers. Ultimately, Web 2.0 services are expected to replace desktop computing applications formany purposes (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0).

5. ‘Screenagers are techno-savvy young people. They are the first generation to grow up withtelevision and computers at home, and to use music downloads, instant messaging and cellularphones. Douglas Rushkoff first coined the term in his 1997 book Playing the Future. Rushkoffargued that young people will have many advantages processing information and coping withchange when they reach adulthood because they have used computers at home since earlychildhood. Their short attention span may be an advantage in coping with the huge mass ofinformation that also bombards their elders’ (Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screenager).

6. ‘… digital bildung suggests an integrated, holistic approach that enables reflection on the ef-fects that ICT has on different aspects of human development: communicative competence,critical thinking skills, and enculturation processes, among others. Through greater focus onthe integrated use of ICT in all subjects, teachers, and students will develop competence innavigation and the critical use of sources, as well as a sense of the social implications of digitaltechnology’ (Søby, 2003, p. 8).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

496 A. G. Almås and R. Krumsvik

7. The national Norwegian programme, TeacherICT, was developed for the purpose of allNorwegian teachers. The main goal for TeacherICT was to inspire teachers to use ICT bothin their own teaching and as an administrative tool in their daily work. Essentially, TeacherICTis ‘the double didactical perspective’. It contains an expectation that the participants changetheir attitudes concerning ICT, and participants increase their knowledge and skills related tothe use of ICT while using it in their own teaching.

References

Adey, P. (2004) The professional development of teachers: practice and theory (Hingham, MA, KluwerAcademic Publishers).

Almås, A. G. (2004) Innovasjon, IKT og læringssyn. PILOT [Innovation, ICT, and learningperspectives. PILOT. Partial report Rogaland and Hordaland]. ITU Series Number 26 (Oslo,Unipub).

Billett, S. (2001) Learning through work: workplace affordances and individual engagement,Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(5), 209–214.

Castells, M. (2001) The Internet galaxy (New York, Oxford University Press).Cuban, L. (2001) Oversold and underused. Computers in the classroom (Cambridge, MA, Harvard

University Press).Erstad, O. (2004a) På sporet av den digitale kompetanse [On the trail of digital competence], in:

H. Sigmundsson & F. Bolstad (Eds) Læring. Grunnbok i Læring, Teknologi og Samfunn [Learn-ing. Basic book in learning, technology and society] (Oslo, Universitetsforlaget) pp. 81–110.

Erstad, O. (2004b) PILOTER for skoleutvikling. Samlerapport fra forskningen 2000–2003 [PILOTSfor school development. Final report from the research-period 2000–2003]. ITU Skriftserie. Rapport28 (Oslo, Unipub).

Eurostat (2006) The digital divide in Europe. Report 38/2005 (Luxembourg, EuropeanCommunities).

Green, H., Facer, K., Rudd, T., Dillon, P. & Humphreys, P. (2006) Personalisation and digitaltechnologies (London, Futurelab).

Gudmundsdottir, S. & Shulman, L. (1987) Pedagogical content knowledge in social studies,Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 31, 59–70.

Kirke, Utdanning og Forskningsdepartementet [Norwegian Ministry of Education, Researchand Church Affairs] (1999) IKT i utdanningen. Plan for 2000–2003. Prinsipper og oppbyg-ging [ICT in education. Plan for 2000–2003. Principles and construction] (Oslo, StatensForvaltningsteneste).

Kløvstad, V., Erstad, O., Kristiansen, T. & Søby, M. (2005) ITU Monitor 2005. På vei mot digitalkompetanse i grunnoplæringen [ITU Monitor. On the way towards digital literacy in compulsoryeducation]. Rapport 2/2005 (Oslo, Universitetsforlaget).

Koopmans, H., Doornbos, A. J. & van Eekelen, I. M. (2006) Learning in interactive work situa-tions: it takes two to tango; why not invite both partners to dance?, Human Resource Quarterly,17(2), 135–158.

Krumsvik, R. (2006a) ICT in lower secondary school. ICT-initiated school development in lowersecondary school. Degree doctor philosophiae (dr.philos) doctoral thesis, The University ofBergen, Allkopi.

Krumsvik, R. (2006b) The digital challenges of school and teacher education in Norway—someurgent questions and the search for answers, Education and Information Technologies, 11(3–4),239–256.

Krumsvik, R. (2007) Developing a new model of digital literacy for in-service teachers. Unpublishedmanuscript, University of Bergen.

Kvale, S. (2001) Det kvalitative forskningsintervju [The qualitative research interview] (Oslo, AdNotam Gyldendal).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013

Digitally literate teachers in Norway 497

Ludvigsen, S. (2000) Læring av og med teknologi [Learning by and with technology], in: S.Ludvigsen & S. Østerud (Eds) Ny teknologi—nye praksisformer [New technology—new forms ofpractice] (Oslo, Unipub), 107–124.

Merriam, S. (1998) Qualitative research and case study applications in education (San Francisco, Ca,Jossey-Bass Publishers).

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003) Education at a glance 2003.Available online at: http://www.oecd.org/document/52/0,2340,en_2649_34515_13634484_1_1_1_1,00.html (accessed 20 August 2005).

Polanyi, M. (1967) The tacit dimension (New York, Anchor Books).Roschelle, J. & Pea, R. (1999) Trajectories from today’s WWW to powerful educational infrastruc-

ture, Educational Researcher, 8(5), 22–25.Safety, Awareness, Facts and Tools (2006) SAFT Barneundersøkelse 2006 [SAFT children’s survey

2006] (Oslo, SAFT). Available online at: http://www.saftonline.no/vedlegg/2875/Sammen-drag%20resultater%20SAFT%20Barneunders?kelse%202006.pdf (accessed 25 May 2006).

Schofield, J. (1990) Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research, in: E. Eisner & A.Peshkin (Eds) Quality inquiry in education (New York, Teachers College Press), 201–232.

Schön, D. A. (1983) The reflective practitioner (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).Shulman, L. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform, Harvard Educational

Review, 57, 1–22.Søby, M. (2003) Digital competence—from ICT-skills to digital ‘bildung’ (Oslo, ITU).Statistisk Sentralbyrå [The Central Bureau of Statistics] (2005) Utdanningstatistikk. Elevar i

grunnskolen. Førebelse tal [Educational statistics. Students in primary school. Preliminary results](Oslo, SSB).

Tapscott, D. (1998) Growing up digital. The rise of the net generation (New York, McGraw-Hill).Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (1998) Tinkering toward Utopia (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University

Press).Undervisnings og Forskningsdepartementet [Ministry of Education and Research] (2003) Program

for digital kompetanse 2004–2008 [Program for digital competence, 2004–2008] (Oslo, StatensForvaltningsteneste).

Undervisnings og Forskningsdepartementet [Ministry of Education and Research (2006) Læreplanfor den 13-årige grunnopplæringen [The National Curriculum for Primary Education] (Oslo,Statens Forvaltningsteneste).

Vaage, O. F. (2005) Norsk Mediebarometer 2004 [The Norwegian Mediabarometer 2004] [electronicversion] (Oslo, Statistisk Sentralbyrå). Available online at: http://www.ssb.no/emner/07/02/30/medie/arkiv/sa68 (accessed 09 February 2007).

Van Eekelen, I. M., Boshuizen, H. P. A. & Vermunt, J. D. (2005) Self-regulation in highereducation teacher learning, Higher Education, 50, 447–471.

Wikipedia Foundation (2005) Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available online at: http://en.wikipe-dia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikipedia.org (accessed 20 January 2007).

Yin, R. K. (1994) Case study research: design and methods (Beverly Hills, CA, Sage).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

07:

38 1

3 M

ay 2

013