This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library] On: 03 October 2013, At: 12:29 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK European Journal of Teacher Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20 Situated learning in the network society and the digitised school Rune Krumsvik a a Faculty of Psychology, Section for Teacher Education, University of Bergen, Norway Published online: 28 Mar 2009. To cite this article: Rune Krumsvik (2009) Situated learning in the network society and the digitised school, European Journal of Teacher Education, 32:2, 167-185, DOI: 10.1080/02619760802457224 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619760802457224 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 03 October 2013, At: 12:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20
Situated learning in the networksociety and the digitised schoolRune Krumsvik aa Faculty of Psychology, Section for Teacher Education, Universityof Bergen, NorwayPublished online: 28 Mar 2009.
To cite this article: Rune Krumsvik (2009) Situated learning in the network society and the digitisedschool, European Journal of Teacher Education, 32:2, 167-185, DOI: 10.1080/02619760802457224
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619760802457224
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
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. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Situated learning in the network society and the digitised school
Rune Krumsvik*
Faculty of Psychology, Section for Teacher Education, University of Bergen, Norway
There is a need to develop a broader view of knowledge to deal with the way inwhich new digital trends influence the underlying conditions for schools, teachingand subjects. This theoretical article will therefore examine whether a broaderview of knowledge, digital literacy and assessment forms can generate new waysof adapted education within Knowledge Promotion Reform and the digitisedschool. The article is particularly angled towards the implications this may havefor both teachers and pupils, but also for teacher education.
Keywords: ICT; assessment; digital literacy; digitised school
Introduction
There is general agreement that Norwegian schools face a number of challenges with
regard to upholding the traditional assessment forms in the 13 years of
comprehensive education (K06)1 (Kunnskapsdepartementet 2006a) and at the same
time handling adapted education2 and digital literacy3 in a proper manner. This
assessment field is, however, so complex that no short-term solutions are evident and
Norwegian pupils’ low achievements in international tests like PISA (2001, 2004,
2007), TIMMS (Kjærnsli and Lie 2006) and PIRLS (2003, 2007) make it even harder
to implement new assessment forms. At the same time, the curricular ambitions of an
even stronger focus on adapted education and digital literacy make this situation
more complex than ever. Meanwhile, the digital revolution and the ever-increasing
digitalisation of school life have altered some of the conditions under which schools
have operated since the previous curriculum was introduced 10 years ago. There is
therefore a need to develop new assessment forms and a broader view of adapted
education to encapsulate the impact of the latest digital trends on the underlying
conditions applicable to schools, teaching and subjects. This article sets out to
discuss whether – and, if so, how – a wider view of knowledge, situated learning
(Lave and Wenger 1991), digital literacy and adapted education can create new
approaches to how we view and perform assessment in relation to the Norwegian
# 2009 Association for Teacher Education in Europe
DOI: 10.1080/02619760802457224
http://www.informaworld.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
12:
29 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
013
ICT-based exams in which pupils can use their own laptops. Part of the reason for
this full-scale ICT implementation is based on the awareness that digitisation of
society and school has altered some of the conditions of contemporary schooling.
There is little doubt that the digital revolution has provided pupils with good access
to technology within and outside school, giving them a sense of self-confidence in
relation to digital media. The result is that formal and informal learning arenas are
blending together in both physical and virtual learning spaces. Teachers, however,
still lack the necessary digital literacy to manage ICT and the new learning spaces
central to Knowledge Promotion Reform (K06). This makes for a situation in which
digital trends, new learning spaces and K06 are paving the way for new educational
approaches and assessment forms, while a number of apparent obstacles prevent
these approaches from becoming a reality. I shall therefore try to clarify the
opportunities, challenges and dilemmas that arise in these new digital fields and at
the interface between situated learning, digital literacy, adapted education and
assessment forms. A focal point in the article will thus be the question of whether
situated learning and digital literacy can create new approaches in educational
practices to fulfil the adapted education, and where this is to be reflected in new
assessment forms. The main question posed in the article will therefore be: can the
matrix of situated learning, digital literacy and new assessment forms constitute a
new pathway for handling adapted education?
Background
The digital revolution has produced radical changes in Norwegian society since the
mid-1990s, and the school system too has been affected by these developments. A
British study, ‘Personalisation and digital technologies’ (Green et al. 2006), provides an
insight into the extent of this digital revolution. The study forecasts that today’s average
British school-aged child will, by the age of 21, have spent 15,000 hours in formal
education, 20,000 hours watching television and 50,000 hours in front of a computer
screen. Although this is merely a prediction, it nevertheless provides an indication of the
extent to which today’s ‘screenagers’ (Rushkoff 1996) use the media. Much of this
media use is entertainment-focused (which makes it difficult to distinguish between
entertainment and learning), but more and more, observers are asking themselves
whether any of it might be relevant to school activities. The basis of this notion is that
pupils are acquiring digital self-confidence through frequent use, and that aspects of
their transcontextual (that is, learning that takes place in and between multiple contexts
(Lave and Wenger 2003)) ICT use may represent a new form of knowledge-building
relevant in a school context, both for adapted education and for developing new
assessment forms (which have to reflect this new knowledge-building).
If we look more closely at the situation in Norway, there is little doubt that the
digital revolution has made its mark both on society and on the school system to an
even greater extent than in other countries. In recent years, Norway has been one of
the highest-ranking nations in respect of technology penetration in society (Castells
2001; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2001, 2003; Vaage
2005, 2007; Utdanningsdirektoratet 2007). According to the report ‘Broadband
coverage analysis 2007’ (Fornyings- og adminsitrasjonsdepartementet 2007), 98.3%
of Norwegians today have the chance to be connected to broadband and 60% of
Norwegian households were connected to broadband in 2007. Data for other societal
168 R. Krumsvik
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
12:
29 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
013
streams in Norway make it reasonable to assume that in 2009 over 90% of
households will be connected. A recent European study ranked Norway highest in
terms of digital literacy among the population and lowest in terms of those lacking
digital literacy (Eurostat 2005). In upper secondary school we find 1.7 pupils per
personal computer, and for the first time in Norwegian history the majority of the
pupils who started their upper secondary education in 2007 got their own laptop free
of charge from the counties and government (Utdanningsdirektoratet 2007). Of these
pupils, 41% are spending five hours or more every day in front of a screen in their
leisure time outside school (Vaage 2007). For the elementary pupils (aged 9–16
years), digital learning resources are increasingly replacing textbooks for homework
(Safety, Awareness, Facts and Tools 2006), and in school digital literacy has enjoyed
a historic rise in academic status, becoming the fifth core competence to be
incorporated in all subjects at all age levels under Knowledge Promotion Reform. As
a result, Norway has a particularly good starting-point, which presents opportu-
nities, challenges and dilemmas for the running of schools. The questions arising are
to what extent this has any impact on young people’s learning, and whether we really
know enough about what constitutes knowledge accumulation among young people
today. A number of previous studies have shown that ICT has had little
demonstrable effect on young people’s learning, so there is reason to be sceptical
of simple conclusions in this regard (Cuban 2001). At the same time, we are seeing
the digital revolution and the massive transcontextual use of media by young people
paving the way for different, more indirect approaches to learning than under the
previous curriculum (the 10-year comprehensive education curriculum) (L97)4
(Kirke-, undervisings- og forskingsdepartementet 1996). Although we can identify
only a vague outline of what this might imply, the aforementioned British report
mentions that schools must show ‘an awareness that many learners today are already
creating personalised environments for themselves outside school using digital
resources’(Green et al. 2006, 4). Looking at this in the context of the previous
curriculum (L97), we have to consider the extent to which schools should take more
account of the digital world inhabited by today’s screenagers outside of school. In
contrast with 1997, pupils in 2008 move in digital fields comprising a number of
digital and multimodal learning resources, networks, a user-friendly Web 2.0,5 online
communities, forms of communication and so on, which did not exist when the
previous curriculum was introduced (L97). We must also consider how teachers
should utilise any new means of knowledge-building for the purpose of adapted
education when many teachers themselves lack the necessary digital literacy. Several
studies indicate that because of teachers’ lack of the necessary digital literacy, ICT is
seldom used in the curriculum subjects (Kløvstad et al. 2005; Arnseth et al. 2008).
Despite several promising factors for the implementation of ICT, we therefore find a
discrepancy between the policymakers’ ambitious ICT vision and the actual use of
ICT in Norwegian secondary schools. This indicates that we face a number of
challenges and dilemmas in this new digital educational landscape, where both
adapted education and assessment forms may be important catalysts for alteration.
Adapted education
Adapted education is one of the main focus areas of Knowledge Promotion Reform,
intended to map out a new course for the educational ideal of a uniform curriculum
European Journal of Teacher Education 169
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
12:
29 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
013
encompassing inclusion and equality. The rationale is found partly in the fact that
teachers have, for many years, expressed frustration at their inadequacy in this field.
The Evaluation of the Reform 97 package states: ‘The scope of adapted education
enjoys broad support among teachers, but this is not reflected in practice’ (Haug
2004, 31). Adapted education is therefore an ideal for the Norwegian education
system, but what do we actually know about the situation in Norwegian schools
today? The Oxford Centre for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
studies ‘Understanding the digital divide’ (2001) and ‘Education at a glance’ (2003),
the Evaluation of Reform 97 (Haug 2004), the Differentiation Project (Dale and
Wærness 2003) and the PIRLS (2003, 2007) and PISA (2001, 2004, 2007) studies
show that Norwegian schools have a number of positive features but also face a great
many challenges. We find, for example, that many pupils drop out of upper
secondary education, many pupils show poor academic results and schools still
perpetuate social inequalities. We have not succeeded in implementing new learning
strategies and there is a great deal of discord and discontent in Norwegian education.
There is less follow-up of homework than in other countries, and we are performing
poorly in respect of adapted education. What is more, we see that Norway has good
access to ICT but it is still little used in schools (Arnseth et al. 2008).
Bachmann and Haug’s 2006 report ‘Forskning om tilpasset opplæring’
(‘Research into adapted education’) deals more systematically with the status of
adapted education and provides a comprehensive review of research in this field. The
authors found widespread agreement on the principle of providing education suited
to the individual pupil. The challenge is how this can or should be done in order to
provide the greatest possible benefit to the greatest number of pupils.
Does the K06 curriculum present any new trends with regard to the
understanding of adapted education? There are indications that Knowledge
Promotion Reform marks an ideological shift in attitudes to adapted education,
from community-oriented to more individual-oriented. In addition, the 25% of the
K06 curriculum freed up to be decided upon at a local level is aimed at adapting
the curriculum to the learning needs of individual pupils and not at increasing the
number of lessons in certain subjects or modifying the curriculum for the entire class.
There is also a shift away from the class concept, whereby the starting point is now
15 pupils (with one class teacher) per base group, in an attempt to uphold the
principle of adapted education rather better. The directives contained in Knowledge
Promotion Reform on expanding the scope of adapted education, with the focus on
competence aims for pupils, are the manifestation of a clear desire that more pupils
should perform better academically than do at present (Bachmann and Haug 2006).
At the same time the reform offers more local freedom for each school to develop
new assessment forms to capture how each pupil achieves the target goals. How this
is to be achieved is open to multiple interpretations, but the focus on pupils’ needs is
interesting in relation both to adapted education and to digital literacy as the fifth
core competence. We can now assume that the pupils who will follow the K06
curriculum have a completely different digital background than was the case when
the L97 curriculum was introduced over 10 years ago. Technology penetration in
schools is far higher, digital literacy is to be incorporated in all subjects, digital
learning resources are widely used (outside school), and the question is whether these
factors in combination can provide new opportunities to turn the principle of
adapted education into reality more effectively than before. In this context the
170 R. Krumsvik
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
12:
29 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
013
evaluation of Reform 97 points to the following factors as being particularly
important in realising the principle of adapted education: ‘factors such as making the
school day less rigorous, co-operation, new teaching materials and forms of learning
requiring active pupil participation’ (Haug 2004, 41; emphasis added). There is an
emphasis on teaching materials here, but if we look at the overall thrust of the
evaluation, teaching materials such as ICT fare badly: ‘The analysis of the teaching
and class work paints a somewhat traditional picture, as does much of the rest of the
evaluation. There is extensive use of textbooks, and the teaching is classroom-
centred and teacher-led. ICT is not used, and pupils do not look for information
outside the classroom’ (44). This shows that there is a gap between the intentions of
the L97 curriculum and the reality, and we may wonder whether a new reform
package will improve the situation, even though the status of digital literacy has been
markedly enhanced and adapted education and assessment forms are focus areas. In
the remainder of this article I shall therefore focus on these challenges, and on the
question of whether the interface between situated learning and digital literacy can
create new opportunities for better upholding the principle of adapted education in
the K06 curriculum than was the case in the L97 curriculum. This cannot be achieved
without considering what we perceive as valid knowledge in the network society and
how we assess knowledge and learning in the digitised school.
Assessment forms
Some of the findings in the evaluation of the former L97 curriculum can be explained
by the importance assessment forms have in the Norwegian school system. The
discouraging noises from this evaluation concerning adapted education, new
teaching and learning forms and ICT use have also to do with assessment forms
as steering instruments in our educational system. Even though the former
curriculum implemented several new mandatory structures for teachers to use, these
were not reflected in the assessment forms and traditional assessment forms kept
their position. This, together with the fact that both pupil assessment and final
assessment were based on paper and pencil (no e-assessment), produced a clear gap
between the national curriculum’s intentions in several areas (mentioned above) and
the practice among teachers in school. With this backdrop one can ask if the new
national curriculum, K06, can offer new possibilities to implement new assessment
forms which reflect other important structures in the curriculum (such as adapted
education and digital literacy) better than in the former reform (L97).
What we know from international research in this area of ICT and e-assessment
is still rather tentative, but some studies can cast light on the new situation we are
dealing with in Norway. Regarding the overall tendency within this area, Russell
(2002, 1) states: ‘Increasing use of computers in schools has led to a misalignment
between the way some pupils develop skills and how they are tested…Paper-based
tests…require students to produce written responses [that] underestimate the
achievement of students who are accustomed to writing on computer’. The surge
of media use by youngsters outside the school setting will of course give Russell’s
statements even more resonance in the society of 2008. Changing assessment forms
based on decades of traditions is, however, both controversial and difficult: ‘I think
computer-based tests can be useful but they have their place, and at the moment my
worry is that we’re going to miss the point by putting a lot of effort and resource into
European Journal of Teacher Education 171
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
12:
29 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
013
moving current paper-based tests onto the computer without really changing the
assessment criteria and the assessment frameworks, which frankly won’t get us any
further forward’ (McFarlane 2002, 2–3). One therefore has to reconsider what
constitutes valid knowledge today and how to assess this knowledge in school. This
means that one has to develop both formative and summative assessment forms
which encapsulate the new digital streams and knowledge-building. In this way we
might get closer to ‘measure what we think we are measuring’.
Can one assume, however, that pupils perform better with technology than
without? First, concerning provision of laptops for pupils in some subjects, Gulek
and Demirtas cast some light on this area:
The baseline data for all measures showed that there was no statistically significantdifference in English language arts, mathematics, writing, and overall grade pointaverage achievement between laptop and non-laptop students prior to enrolment in theprogram. However, laptop students showed significantly higher achievement in nearlyall measures after one year in the program. (Gulek and Demirtas 2005, 3)
Such short-term studies can give only us a snapshot of what the importance of
laptops has to do with pupils’ knowledge-building and therefore it is of high
importance to design new studies which incorporate how the different variables in
the complex area of learning actually influence each other. One of the variables one
has to consider is youngsters’ digital literacy:
Computer familiarity significantly predicted online writing test performance aftercontrolling for paper writing skill. These results suggest that, for any given individual, acomputer-based writing assessment may produce different results than a paper one,depending upon that individual’s level of computer familiarity. Further, for purposes ofestimating population performance, as long as substantial numbers of students writebetter on computer than on paper (or better on paper than on computer), conducting awriting assessment in either mode alone may underestimate the performance that wouldhave resulted if students had been tested using the mode in which they wrote best.(Horkay et al. 2006, 3)
The studies mentioned above give us some interesting ideas, but at the same time a
clear message; the huge scale of the digitisation of school and society makes it very
important to design new studies which study these ideas more longitudinally and in-
depth, and the findings from such studies have to be used to develop new assessment
forms in school.
If we have a closer look at part two of the new national curriculum in Norway,
the quality framework (Kunnskapsdepartementet 2006b) gives a more overarching
description of how assessment should be worked out by teachers in the new reform.
‘Assessment and guidance shall contribute to strengthening their [pupils] motivation
for further learning’ (2). Implicit in these formulations is the importance of learning
strategies:
The education shall contribute to making pupils aware of what they have learned andwhat they need to learn to satisfy the competence aims. The learning strategies thepupils use for their individual learning and learning together with others depend on theiraptitudes and the learning situation at hand. The education shall give the pupilsknowledge on the significance of their own efforts and on the informed use anddevelopment of learning strategies. (Kunnskapsdepartementet 2006b, 4)
As mentioned above, competence aims are strongly highlighted in the new
curriculum and are the ‘guiding star’ for both teachers and pupils of the different
subjects. These competence aims will be denoted by marks of high and low goal
172 R. Krumsvik
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
12:
29 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
013
achievement among the pupils: teachers, educators, researchers and policymakers
are invited to develop these marks. One model of this development work is
connected to the grade scale in the Norwegian school system and is especially
interesting because of the issue of grades as steering instruments, as mentioned
previously. A consequence of this model is that every competence aim will have
marks of high and low goal achievement and will relate to each grade in the grade
scale (grades 1–6, where 6 is the best). At the same time the teachers have great local
methodical freedom in how they plan and practise their teaching so that most of the
pupils reach the competence aims in the curriculum. This gives rise to a new situation
in Norwegian schools, where the use of ICT has reached a certain position and where
both formative and summative assessment operate under new conditions because
of these clearly stated competence aims and the great local freedom afforded to
teachers to expand their teaching methods and incorporate different learning
strategies. At the same time this gives a lot of responsibility to the teachers and it is
therefore clearly stated in the new curriculum that teachers are expected to be
professionals:
The total competence of teachers and instructors consists of a number of componentswhere professional competence, the ability to teach the subject, the ability to structurethe learning activities and knowledge of assessment and guidance are central elements.Teachers and instructors must also have multicultural competence and knowledge onthe different points of departure and learning strategies their pupils have.(Kunnskapsdepartementet 2006b, 5)
The professional competence of teachers also includes digital literacy, and in the new
curriculum this has become so important in all subjects that teachers have to have
this digital literacy to handle their teaching, guidance and assessment. At the same
time this affords a lot of opportunities to customise teaching and learning to the
different needs of the pupils because of the pupils’ digital competence, often acquired
through the host of ICT artefacts they use in their spare time outside school. This is
of special interest with regard to the fact that it is not how the pupils should reach the
competence aims which is the overt demand of the new curriculum, but the
importance of reaching them. In other words, the teachers and pupils can use
whatever learning strategies they want to reach these competence aims, and both
formal and informal learning contexts can be utilised. This suggests a renaissance of
the term ‘situated learning’, where there are no distinctive borders between formal
and informal learning contexts and where schools can incorporate the high ICT use
and personalised learning strategies which youngsters have acquired in their spare
time. It is clear, however, that this poses challenges to the teachers’ view of
knowledge and how one should assess this form of ‘digital learning’. It is therefore
quite clear that one needs to develop new assessment forms which manage both to
encapsulate this situated learning (and the wealth of ICT use) among youngsters
outside school and to attach it to the marks of high and low goal achievement in the
competence aims and the grade scale. The consequence of this situation is that one
has to consider the research findings on the digitisation of school, digital literacy and
new conditions for customised and situated learning as a whole when the new
assessment forms are developed. In this way we might be able to let the assessment
forms reflect the new form of knowledge-building, which the former curriculum
(L97) did not reflect in its traditional assessment forms, conducted with paper and
pencil, with no ICT use.
European Journal of Teacher Education 173
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
12:
29 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
013
Communities of practice and adapted education
Despite the hitherto disappointing findings of the studies on adapted education and
ICT in Norwegian schools, it is worth considering more closely whether a high level
of technology penetration, multimodal resources (learning resources which combine
text, picture, videos and animations), digitally self-confident pupils, Web 2.0,
technological convergence and the blurring of the distinction between formal and
informal learning arenas can reinvigorate the underlying premises for adapted
education set out in the K06 curriculum. The question that many people are asking is
how this is to be achieved in practice, given that most of them agree on the overall
principles. What kind of theoretical lenses or analytical tools can we use to achieve a
broad understanding of adapted education in K06 that should be reflected in the
assessment forms? There are no easy solutions here, but to move forward in this area
we should envisage a transcontextual design based on a wider view of knowledge and
with a focus on situated learning, digital literacy, adapted education and assessment
forms. This situated perspective on learning does not, however, go hand-in-hand
with the competence aims’ clear underpinning of Bloom’s taxonomy of learning
(1956). On the other hand, the great local, methodical freedom for teachers and the
different forms of learning strategies the pupils are allowed to use make it possible to
combine these quite different views of learning, but what should be the theoretical
starting-point for such a ‘controversial combination’ of learning views?
One possible approach to setting out a wider view of knowledge is to look more
closely at Lave and Wenger’s (1991) concept of situated learning in communities of
practice as ‘lenses’ for adapted education, digital literacy and assessment forms. Part
of the reason why their ideas are now being received with renewed enthusiasm is the
way in which the digital revolution has acted as a catalyst for the spread of online
communities and collective processes on cultural, local, national and global levels.
We are also seeing a move away from cognitive psychology to more sociocultural
perspectives on what constitutes learning in the new, virtual learning arenas (Barab
and Duffy 2000). The most common example of this is young people’s ‘online
existence’ and the digital world they inhabit, with its chat forums and online
communities such as MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, Second Life and so on. The
virtual learning platforms (Learning Management Systems (LMS))6 used in schools
also sometimes pave the way for more collective processes in new, virtual learning
arenas. Individual work by pupils may be supplemented by an expanded form of
knowledge-building in such virtual learning arenas, which has similarities to situated
learning. The most common example is pupils who communicate continuously via a
number of open chat windows while working individually on their homework. Much
of this is non-academic communication, but we also note that it is occasionally
relevant to knowledge-building. Knowledge-building of this kind is to an increasing
extent situated, that is,‘[l]earning relating to participation in various social
relationships in everyday life rather than solely to the teacher–pupil relationship.
Learning is connected with the development of a personal aptitude for taking part in
various specific behavioural contexts in society in practice’ (Lave and Wenger 2003,
231). This situated learning is therefore independent of time, space and place, which
influences the underlying premises of schooling, teaching and subject. One
educational implication of this for teachers is that core didactic concepts such as
what, why and how must be supplemented by who, where and when. This is not
without its problems and presupposes that the teacher recognises that many of these
174 R. Krumsvik
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
12:
29 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
013
situated, collective processes bear the hallmarks of what we might term communities
of practice. Whereas the concept of fields of practice (Senge 1994) operates with
school and the ‘real world’ as two distinct fields, the concept of communities of
practice interweaves these fields and puts much greater emphasis on transcontextual,
collective processes (Barab and Duffy 2000). In many respects, today’s digital field
may be the ‘glue’ that makes communities of practice in a school context a more
realistic prospect than before the digital revolution (Barab and Duffy 2000). From a
critical perspective, however, one could ask what the technology can provide in
terms of new entry points for fostering and maintaining the communities of practice
over time. Barab and Duffy (2000) find that it is an established fact that often
schools don’t practise what they preach and that pupils have limited access to the
external communities outside school about which they are taught. The internet and
broadband technology provide new possibilities of bridging the gap within this area,
as well as establishing new communities in and out of school. Wenger (2001) states
that the design of LMS is very important, as it has to foster the basic ideas of such
communities of practice. This is an important premise for how teachers and pupils
use these learning platforms over time. Krumsvik (2006) found that if net-based
technology supports the teacher’s pedagogical practice, it will give better conditions
for developing and cultivating communities of practice over time among both
teachers and pupils. The ITU Monitor 2007 (Arnseth et al. 2008) shows, however,
that despite all upper secondary schools in Norway having implemented LMS that
should foster such communities of practice, the majority of these are still used only
for administration purposes (e.g., information, plans and timetables). The main
reason for this situation seems to be the lack of teachers’ digital literacy, the design of
the technology and traditional pedagogy in schools.
What, however, are the schools which succeed in this area doing and how is
meaningful participation achieved and maintained in these schools? Krumsvik (2006)
found that the schools which tend to manage this have good strategies for school
development, the teachers are familiar with the technology, their pupils’ digital
confidence is valued and assessment forms are attached to their overall ICT thinking.
In this way both teachers and pupils have established new trajectories of
participation which foster communities of practice-thinking and the possibility for
individuals to act as both ‘masters’ and ‘novices’ in different school projects (with
clear links to the local community ‘outside’ school). Krumsvik (2006) found that
such communities of practice-thinking could represent a sort of collective erection of
scaffolding around the pupils where their digital confidence is considered as a new
entry point for knowledge-building and adapted education. This refers to Vygotsky’s
‘scaffolding’ concept (1934/1986), often associated with teacher–pupil interaction. A
collective erection of scaffolding goes further and is characterised by the fact that the
participants (teachers, pupils, classmates, parents/guardians, siblings and so on) are
‘novices’ individually but ‘experts’ collectively, contributing support, guidance,
opinions and questions to such communities of practice. In Krumsvik’s (2005)
article, ‘ICT and community of practice’, he describes how a secondary school on an
island in Norway manages (despite arguments and tensions among the teaching
staff) to establish such collective scaffolding and communities of practice over time.
Although the term ‘communities of practice’ was not developed with a school
context in mind, it is clear that the concept is relevant to the ways in which schools
operate. This appears to have been reinforced further in the wake of the digital
European Journal of Teacher Education 175
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
12:
29 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
013
revolution, whereby an increase in digital communities of practice and new learning
spaces has injected new ‘energy’ into collective behavioural patterns. Could this,
however, contribute to developing adapted education with regard to new assessment
forms? There is good reason to be critical both of theory and of abstract terminology
as frameworks for adapted education and new assessment forms. When I choose to
use some of Lave and Wenger’s ideas as a guideline it is because they can prompt
teachers to reflect upon how the massive digitisation of society and schools can alter
how we perceive and assess knowledge-building among screenagers in their
communities of practice.
Barab and Duffy (2000) have identified a few key elements in maintaining the
ideal community of practice at a superior level in schools. These are common cultural
and historical heritage, interdependent system and reproduction cycle. A central point
in the first element is that schools should be upholders of equality, inclusion and
tolerance as the cultural heritage on which our society is based. This implies making
provisions for an increasingly multicultural society and being able to protect ‘local
interests within global interest’ in local curriculum planning. The relatively extensive
local and method-related freedoms granted by K06 make this more realistic today
compared with the management by objectives dictated in L97. The pedagogic
implications for teachers include long-term local curriculum planning to determine
how inclusion, equality and adapted education can be achieved locally in an
increasingly digitalised school system.
The second element focuses on how local curriculum planning allows for an
increased intertwining of formal and informal arenas. The pedagogic implications of
this concept for teachers may be that schools increasingly have to take into account
the fact that the formatting of knowledge by pupils takes place in a situated context,
cross-contextually and in both a physical and digital classroom/space in a ‘24-hour
school’ (LMS). To achieve this, one must incorporate differentiation models that
take into account the digital world of pupils inside and outside the four walls of the
school.
The third element stresses that a community of practice assumes a reproduction
cycle of collective processes. This implies that the norms, values and rules that
constitute a community of practice are maintained over time and become a cultural
habit of the participants. Pedagogic implications for teachers include the realisation
that local curriculum planning cannot rely solely on the enthusiastic involvement of
a few individuals. Dependency on individuals will quickly create dilemmas when
these individuals leave the school. It is therefore important that this type of local
curriculum planning is collectively and firmly based in the organisation in order that
continuity can be maintained by those teachers who have to carry the work forward
even after the enthusiasts have left.
These three key elements are all capable of contributing to a community of
practice-inspired and broad understanding of adapted education, which must go
hand-in-hand with the narrower definition of the principle. The problem posed by
such a meta-perspective on adapted education is that the greatest difficulties faced by
teachers occur when they try to put such well-meant visions into practice. This is
often linked to the school culture and the willingness to change, and could prove
testing for teaching staff. It shows that local curriculum planning is difficult, and a
source of conflict, but still absolutely necessary if one really wants to make structural
changes to the organisation in the light of an increasingly digitalised school. I would
176 R. Krumsvik
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
12:
29 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
013
therefore like to stress that teachers must examine specific structures such as
assessment forms in a new light in relation to views of knowledge and adapted
education. This type of curriculum planning is both time-consuming and complex,
but it is the implementation of those wide-reaching structural changes that will
eventually allow this necessary and innovative work from being carried out parallel
to, but not incorporated in, the everyday running of the school.
Teachers’ digital literacy and situated learning
I have been examining new, potential key elements of a broad understanding of
adapted education in the overall running of schools and in relation to the structures
that teachers have to work with in their day-to-day business. It is evident that the
extended view of knowledge in the digital school that we have examined so far makes
one very important assumption: that the teacher has the necessary digital literacy.
When we approach the narrower definition of adapted education, the need for
digitally competent teachers becomes even more apparent. I would therefore like to
look more closely at the digital literacy required by teachers in order to cope with
this new pedagogic landscape.
Internationally, a number of important contributions have been made to the
definition of digital literacy in recent years. Tyner (1998), Knobel (1999) and
Buckingham (2003) have contributed significantly to the concepts of digital literacy
and media literacy. Despite the importance of these international contributions in
providing a conceptual understanding of the terms, it is clear that not all of them can
be easily transferred to a Norwegian school context and digital literacy among
Norwegian teachers. It is therefore important that attempts have been made to create
a Norwegian understanding of digital literacy. In this country, Ola Erstad (2005,
2007) and the Network for IT Research and Competence in Education (2005) have
been the most important contributors to the development of the term digital literacy.
Although the addition of the use of digital tools as the fifth core competence in the
K06 curriculum could be described as a historic event, disagreement remains over the
use of terminology in the new curriculum and over whether the curriculum fully
captures the essence of digital literacy (Erstad 2007).
The ITU defines digital literacy as ‘skills, knowledge, creativity and attitudes
required to use digital media for learning and comprehension in a knowledge society’
(Network for IT Research and Competence in Education 2005, 7). This is a broad
definition which focuses on the general role of the e-citizen in today’s society. In an
attempt to incorporate the implications this will have for the individual teacher, I
have developed a definition aimed at the digital literacy of the teacher: ‘Digital
literacy is the teacher’s ability to use ICT in a professional context with good
pedagogic-didactic judgement and his/her awareness of its implications on learning
strategies and on the digital Bildung of pupils’ (Krumsvik 2007). This definition
builds on the fact that technological development in society in the last 10 years has
been enormous and this has functioned as a catalyst for teachers to develop their
digital literacy in the digitised school. The fact that teachers are using the technology
outside school (net bank, e-mail, mobile phones, etc.) gives a far better starting-point
for achieving a digital literacy for school purposes than when the former curriculum
(L97) was implemented 10 years ago. The problem with such definitions, however, is
that they lack functionality in practice unless they are operationalised in a teaching
European Journal of Teacher Education 177
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
12:
29 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
013
context. I would therefore like to discuss briefly how to prompt teachers to reflect on
their own digital literacy on the basis of a digital literacy model (Figure 1) which
takes on board the various key elements contained in this concept.
The definition and the model put the spotlight on four core components: basic
ICT skills, didactic ICT competence, learning strategies, and digital Bildung. The first
(basic ICT skills, located in the left corner in Figure 1) indicates that ICT – just like
any other cultural tool – must be ‘transparent’ in order for us to understand how to
use it (Lave and Wenger 1991). Modern user-friendly technology and the teacher’s
use of technology outside school (e.g. internet banking, email, etc.) are making it
easier for the teacher to obtain basic technical skills. The digital self-assurance of
pupils (as ‘guides’) can also be of benefit to the teacher in terms of acquiring basic
ICT skills.
The second core component (didactic ICT competence, located in the middle), is
closely linked to Lee Shulman’s (1987) concept of pedagogic content knowledge and
Mishra and Koehler’s technological pedagogical content knowledge (2006). What
makes their ideas particularly relevant in relation to Knowledge Promotion Reform
is their clear emphasis on digital literacy, which requires extended competence on the
part of the teacher in terms of seamlessly incorporating subject, pedagogy and digital
literacy. Particularly important in this context is the ‘mental literacy journey’, which
begins with the teacher being rather unaware (digitally unaware and incompetent
versus highly digitally aware and competent, vertical axis) of what s/he can or cannot
do in relation to ICT. Teachers therefore need support and guidance from colleagues
and further training in order to raise their awareness of what is required of them to
become more digitally literate. As the teacher starts to realise this, a long journey
Figure 1. Digital literacy model (Krumsvik 2007).
178 R. Krumsvik
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
12:
29 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
013
begins in order to make him/her more self-aware and literate. Krumsvik’s (2006)
study showed that it is only when the teacher has become aware of, and competent
in, this ‘mental literacy journey’ that s/he will see the value of an extended view of
knowledge, adapted education and new assessment forms for capturing screenagers’
digital knowledge-building.
The ‘practical literacy journey’ consists of adoption, adaptation, appropriation
and innovation (located in the horizontal axis) and often becomes the explicit part of
the tacit knowledge, know-how and awareness acquired throughout the ‘mental
literacy journey’. In the first part of this process the teachers are mostly occupied
with the basic ICT skills, but 10 years ago these technological thresholds were
considerably lower than for the teachers of today. This situation is tied to more user-
friendly technology and the fact that teachers (as private individuals) are using ICT a
great deal outside the school context. The main challenge for teachers of today is
first of all with regard to the appropriation phase (second phase, horizontal axis) and
the development of didactic ICT competence (in the centre of the model). This
particular part of didactic ICT competence assumes that the teacher has basic ICT
skills as a premise to actually recognise the value of ICT in subjects: ‘Invisibility of
mediating technologies is necessary for allowing focus on, and thus supporting
visibility of, the subject matter. Conversely, visibility of the significance of the
technology is necessary for allowing its unproblematic – invisible – use’ (Lave and
Wenger 1991, 103). In the digitised Norwegian school of today, such transparent
technology (which has a subject content focus) is available with a click of the mouse
and gives teachers new possibilities of using multimodal animations to complement
the textbook when they are teaching, for example, physics (Fendt 2002). The
pedagogic implications are simply that the teacher is permitted to use his/her
professional competence and authority in a way that is not interrupted by technical
obstacles of form over content. A case study shows that when teachers reach the
point where the ICT is transparent to them, they more easily recognise the potential
to acquire a broader view of knowledge (Krumsvik 2006). The same case study also
showed that it was when teachers were willing to embrace change and acquire
didactic ICT competence that they managed to develop new, local, digital teaching
materials, which generated new approaches to adapted education and assessment
forms for pupils (Krumsvik 2006). The interesting part of such findings is that
digitally literate teachers do not isolate the technology, but use it as a gateway to
change structures (e.g., assessment forms) which need to go hand-in-hand with the
alteration of the pedagogical terrain of in- and out-of-school learning.
The third core component, learning strategies (top right in the model), assumes a
meta-perspective on the first two (inside the model), but places more emphasis on the
pedagogic implications that an extended view of knowledge will have on adapted
education and assessment forms in a new pedagogic landscape. Lave and Wenger’s
(1991) terms access, transparency and affordances (Wenger 1998) could be relevant
markers in attempts to focus on this issue.
Access means the teacher has to ensure that the pupil has access to a community
of practice both in and outside school. Essential to such a narrow understanding of
adapted education is the collective erection of scaffolding around the pupil’s learning
process and the quality assurance of the pupil’s access to support in the various
learning spaces. The symbiosis between the pupil’s access to digital learning
resources/net-based support being only a click away at any time and his/her physical
European Journal of Teacher Education 179
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
12:
29 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
013
access to support could inject new energy into the collective erection of scaffolding
around the pupil. Yrjo Engestrom (1987) captures some of the essence of such
collective scaffolding by further developing Vygotsky’s metaphor about the zone of
proximal development. Engestrom takes a collective view of this zone of proximal
development, and Krumsvik’s (2006) study showed that it is often ‘communities’ and
the collective scaffolding that provide energy for the zone of proximal development
and new learning strategies among screenagers today. The multimodal format,
digital teaching material and Web 2.0 do indeed invite more flexible learning
strategies than the L97 curriculum did when it was introduced. This could provide
teachers with new approaches in relation to adapted education, but assumes that
systematic planning, meetings with pupils, differentiation models and school–home
cooperation all contribute towards capturing the pupil’s aptitude and needs within
the framework of a community of practice.
Transparency assumes that the combination of pupils’ digital self-assurance and
the transparency of the multimodal format of current technology allow teachers to
find new ways to differentiate. An array of multimodal learning resources – such as
dictionaries, internet encyclopaedia, spell-checking programs, email and chat, all
only a click away – act as ‘intellectual prostheses’ for the pupils, and a digitally
literate teacher can exploit this when generating adapted education for pupils.
Affordances are linked to the previous concept but place more emphasis on the
need for the subject content and subject expectations to be made clear to the pupil.
K06 put emphasis on the competence aims pupils are expected to reach, but it is clear
that, in a digital school, form is often given more weight than content. Again, a need
is identified for digitally literate teachers, who maintain a clear subject focus in such
learning environments and who realise that these competence aims can be reached by
means of very different learning strategies among pupils. The symbiosis between
pupil meetings, working plans and classroom teaching is therefore an important tool
in maintaining subject focus, and also in taking into account different aptitudes,
needs and learning strategies within K06.
The fourth core component, digital Bildung (‘digital danning’ in Norwegian),
stresses that the teacher should acquire a meta-perspective on the first three
components, and focuses on how the Bildung aspect is influenced by ICT. Digital
Bildung focuses on how pupil participation, multi-membership of different
communities and identity development in the digital era are influenced by the
digitisation of society. This implies ethical and moral reflection around
technology’s role in human development. In school settings it implies the need
for both teachers and pupils to develop competence in the critical use of sources, as
well as an ethical awareness of the social implications of being in the digitised
society – and school.
On the whole one can see how important it is that pedagogy, subject and digital
literacy melt together in order that the teacher can exploit new trends in adapted
education.
Summing-up and conclusion
This theoretical article has outlined a framework for both a possible design and for
analytical tools to capture an increasingly digital reality in today’s schools, in which
new digital trends influence the underlying premises for schools, pedagogy and
180 R. Krumsvik
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
12:
29 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
013
subjects. The main question posed in the article has been: can the matrix of situated
learning, digital literacy and new assessment forms constitute a new pathway for
handling adapted education? The article has highlighted whether – and if so, how –
an extended view of knowledge (situated learning), digital literacy and new
assessment forms can provide new approaches to handling adapted education in
Knowledge Promotion Reform. It has also pointed to some of the many challenges
and dilemmas that have arisen in the digital world of young people, some of which
have been identified by Green and colleagues:
The logic of education systems should be reversed so that it is the system that conformsto the learner, rather than the learner to the system. This is the essence ofpersonalisation. It demands a system capable of offering bespoke support for eachindividual that recognises and builds upon their diverse strengths, interests, abilities andneeds in order to foster engaged and independent learners able to reach their fullpotential. (Green et al. 2006, 3)
The article has consequently attempted to communicate the view that one should
show more consideration for the digital self-assurance and for the digital world of
screenagers in local curriculum planning. The extensive method-related and local
freedoms granted by the K06 curriculum allow for this, but assume some
innovative work is done in relation to established structures within the school
system. Schools and teachers must, for example, ensure that there is a community
perspective in both broad and narrow approaches to adapted education, while also
ensuring that there is scaffolding and a community of practice for every pupil both
in and outside school. At the same time it is very important to examine
technology’s ability to foster a community of practice-thinking, and consider
critically what kind of LMS is needed in the long term to tailor teacher and pupil
needs for participation in and out of school. This is both time-consuming and
difficult and requires systematic local curriculum planning. The focus in K06 on
adapted education, digital literacy and school–home cooperation, along with the
government’s Prosjekt leksehjelp (Project homework help)7 could, however, provide
a broader platform for achieving this than was the case with the previous
curriculum (L97).
With these presumptions, an extended view of knowledge (situated learning),
digital literacy and new assessment forms can create some new approaches to the
principle of adapted education. One key element to success is that teachers are given
support and space to acquire the necessary digital and method-related competences
that are a prerequisite to carrying out this form of local curriculum planning in a
digitised school. Another key element is the teacher education, which has to mirror
this educational reform to be able to bridge the gap between teacher education and
the digitised practice field. Therefore, it is quite clear that there is an urgent need to
revise the General Plan for Teacher Education (Utdannings- og forskingsdeparte-
mentet 2003) in line with the new educational reform in the practice field. It is also
important that digital literacy must be given a special focus in this revision, so that
teacher education can prepare future teacher students for the pedagogical- and
didactical challenges they will meet in the digitised practice field. At the same time
there is a need for teacher educators to initiate longitudinal action research project
on this digitisation of schools (and teacher education), to be able to develop new
assessment forms which reflect the broader knowledge building of today’s
screenagers.
European Journal of Teacher Education 181
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
12:
29 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
013
Acknowledgement
This study is supported by grants from the Norwegian Research Council.
Notes
1. K06 is the abbreviation for the new national curriculum in Norway.
2. Adapted education is one of the main areas in the new educational reform in Norway:
adapted education within the community of pupils is a basic premise of the comprehensive
school for all. The education shall be adapted so that the pupils can contribute to the
community and also experience the joy of mastering tasks and reaching their goals…The
diversity of pupil backgrounds, aptitudes, interests and talents shall be matched with a
diversity of challenges in the education. Regardless of gender, age, social, geographical,
cultural or language background, all pupils shall have equally good opportunities to
develop through working with their subjects in an inclusive learning environment. Adapted
teaching for each and every pupil is characterised by variation in the use of subject
materials, ways of working and teaching aids, as well as variation in the structure and
intensity of the education. Pupils have different points of departure, use different learning
strategies and differ in their progress in relation to the nationally stipulated competence
aims. (Kunnskapsdepartementet 2006b, 4)
3. In this article no clear distinction is made between digital literacy and digital competence (it
means more or less the same), but in Scandinavian English the term competence has a
broader meaning than in traditional English, and therefore it is the term digital competence
which is most commonly used in the Norwegian context.
4. L97 is the abbreviation for the former national curriculum in Norway (implemented in
1996–1997).
5. The term Web 2.0 describes the transition of the internet as we know it (Web 1.0) into a
more interactive and user-defined internet. In practice this means that while Web 1.0
allowed users to be passive recipients of one-way information, Web 2.0 encompasses
interactivity, social network building and users who distribute and supply information,
knowledge and so on (via blogs, internet communities and similar).
6. These learning platforms are increasingly being used by schools, providing new
opportunities for cooperation, communication and access. (One could say they allow
schools to stay open around the clock in the sense that pupils and parents/guardians have
unlimited access, day and night.)
7. See http://odin.dep.no/kd/norsk/aktuelt/taler/minister/070021-090037/dok-bn.html.
Notes on contributor
Rune Krumsvik is associate professor at the Department of Education at the University of
Bergen, Norway.
References
Arnseth, H.C., O. Hatlevik, V. Kløvstad, T. Kristiansen, and G. Ottestad. 2008. ITU Monitor
2007 Skolens digitale tilstand 2007 [ITU Monitor: The digital conditions in school 2007].
Oslo: Forsknings- og kompetansenettverk for IT i utdanning.
Bachmann, K., and P. Haug. 2006. Forskning om tilpasset opplæring [Research on adapted
education]. Forskingsrapport nr. 62. Volda University College and Møre Research.
Volda, Norway: Egset Trykk.
Barab, S., and T. Duffy, T. 2000. From practice field to communities of practice. In
Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments, ed. I.D. Jonassen and S. Land, 25–55.
New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
182 R. Krumsvik
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
12:
29 0
3 O
ctob
er 2
013
Bloom, B.S. ed. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals
– Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
Buckingham, D. 2003. Media education. Literacy, learning and contemporary culture.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
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.
Dale, E.L., and J.I. Wærness. 2003. Differensiering og tilpasning i grunnopplæringen
[Differentiation and adaptation in elementary school]. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk
Forlag.
Engestrom, Y. 1987. Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Erstad, O. 2005. Digital kompetanse [Digital literacy]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Erstad, O. 2007. Den femte grunnleggende ferdighet. Noen grunnlagsproblemer [The fifth
basic competence. Some foundational problems]. Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift 1: 43–55.
Eurostat. 2005. The digital divide in Europe. Report 38/2005 Luxembourg: Eurostat.
Fendt, W. 2002. Newton’s second law experiment. Simulation applet Stadtbergen:
Contemporary College Physics Simulation Library. http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/
n2law.htm.
Fornyings- og adminsitrasjonsdepartementet [Ministry of Government Administration and
