See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288078369

What Does Professional Digital Competence Mean in Teacher Education?

Article in Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy · December 2014

DOI: 10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2014-04-04

CITATIONS READS

144 3,435

4 authors:

Andreas Lund Anniken Furberg

University of Oslo University of Oslo
62 PUBLICATIONS 1,242 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 580 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jonas Bakken Kirsti Engelien

University of Oslo University of Oslo
17 PUBLICATIONS 222 CITATIONS 12 PUBLICATIONS 187 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Representation and participation in school science (REDE) View project

Centre for Professional learning in Teacher Education (ProTed) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andreas Lund on 29 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 What Does Professional
Digital Competence Mean
NORDIC JOURNAL OF
DIGITAL LITERACY
SPECIAL ISSUE
4
2014
9. ÅRGANG
in Teacher Education?
Andreas Lund
Professor, ProTed – Centre of Excellence in Education, and the Department of Teacher
Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Norway
[email protected]
© Universitetsforlaget
Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, Anniken Furberg
vol. 9, Nr. 4-2014 s. 281–299 Associate Professor, ProTed – Centre of Excellence in Education, and the Department of
ISSN Online: 1891-943X Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Norway
[email protected]
P E E R R E V I E W E D A R TI C L E

Jonas Bakken
Associate Professor, ProTed – Centre of Excellence in Education, and the Department of
Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Norway
[email protected]

Kirsti Lyngvær Engelien

Lecturer, ProTed – Centre of Excellence in Education, and the Department of Teacher
Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Norway
[email protected]

AB STRA CT
The focus of this position paper is on the conceptualization of professional
digital competence (PDC) in the teaching profession and its consequences for
teacher education. The aim is to establish a concept that captures, challenges,
and possibilities related to teaching and learning in technology-rich settings. By
using three school subjects as cases, we argue the necessity of viewing PDC as
comprising a deep understanding of technology, knowledge of students’
learning processes, and an understanding of the specific disciplinary practices
and features characterizing individual school subjects.

Keywords
professional digital competence, teacher education, integration of technologies,
didactics

INTRODUCTION: CHANGING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS,

CHANGING COMPETENCES
In an increasingly digitized and networked world, hardly anyone would dispute
the necessity for teachers to possess and execute digital competence. However,
exactly what such competence might look like and how it might be put to work

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
282 WHAT DOES PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL COMPETENCE MEAN IN TEACHER EDUCATION? | LUND, FURBERG, BAKKEN AND ENGELIEN

are questions that defy clear-cut answers. Let us take Norway, with its well-
developed digital infrastructure in education, as a point of departure. A number
of research projects involving the interplay among learners, teachers, technol-
ogies, individuals, groups, and institutions show that the conditions and ecol-
ogies for learning and teaching are slowly transforming. However, we also see
how digital technologies encounter an educational tradition that is both rich
and resistant to change and a mismatch between immature technologies and
well-established pedagogical practices (Hauge & Lund, 2012). This has
brought about a concern in teacher education with regard to helping students
develop a profession-based digital competence relevant to teaching. Inspired
by the term “profesjonsfaglig digital kompetanse,” coined by Norwegian Insti-
tute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU) (Tømte,
Kårstein, & Olsen, 2013), we will refer to this competence as: professional
digital competence (PDC) in the teaching profession. A concern for a stronger
focus on PDC has been fueled by recent reports showing that there is a mis-
match between the digital challenges that newly qualified teachers meet in
their profession and the preparations they have received during their teacher
education (Gudmundsdottir, Loftsgarden, & Ottestad, 2014).

Nevertheless, how can the problematic lack of PDC in teacher education be

addressed? Some indicators can be found by looking at international, research-
based, and future-oriented scenarios. For instance, the report Innovating Tech-
nology listed 10 innovative trends that will challenge teaching, learning, and
assessment in the coming years (Sharples et al., 2013). From these trends a pic-
ture of teachers’ digital competence emerges that includes the capacity to col-
lect and analyze data based on learners’ online learning activities (Learning
Analytics); connects learning experiences across contexts of time, place, and
technologies (Seamless Learning); and facilitates learning settings in which
learners learn from the experience and expertise of others (Crowd Learning).
Similarly, the report Technology Outlook on Norwegian Schools 2013–2018
presented “12 technologies to watch” and identified important implications for
teaching and learning (Johnson, Adams Becker, Cummins, & Estrada, 2013).
This report complements the Innovative Technology report and shows how
“more online, hybrid, and collaborative learning models” challenge co-located
and individually oriented teaching. Trends to support such claims are found in
phenomena such as learners bringing their own devices into education
(BYOD), use of social media, technologies suspending limitations in space
and time, and access to an abundance of information. Finally, the comprehen-
sive State of the Field Study on ICT in Education (Wasson & Ludvigsen,
2003), with its corpus of 680 scholarly articles, points to the dichotomy
between learners’ everyday digital lives and traditional schooling systems that
are resistant to change. The predicted growth areas identified in this study
include digital gaming, personal learning environments, mobile learning,
large-scale collaboration, educational data mining, and strategies for technol-
ogy-enhanced classroom teaching.

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
 © UNIVERSITETSFORLAGET | NORDIC JOURNAL OF DIGITAL LITERACY | VOL 9 | NR 4-2014 283

Together these three reports point to an emerging paradigm of teaching that is

characterized by complex learning environments and agency for modeling,
producing, and enacting innovative educational activities and, consequently,
for developing assessment criteria and practices that match this paradigm.
However, it remains a fact that teacher education does not sufficiently prepare
our student teachers for such learning environments and the opportunities and
pitfalls that follow. A recent report on ICT in teacher education from the Nor-
wegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU)
shows that there is low correlation between the integration of ICT in schools
and the integration of ICT in Norwegian teacher-education programs (Tømte,
Kårstein, & Olsen, 2013). The report questions whether Norwegian teachers
are progressing toward PDC. The answers given are overwhelmingly negative.
The report finds that the objectives of developing such competences among
student teachers are not firmly anchored in teacher-education programs, that
there is no coherent approach or well-developed professional profile, and that
competence among teacher-education staff varies considerably. The result is
that in settings where such competence has been developed, it is vulnerable
and dependent on individuals. There are thus few examples to show that
teacher-education programs formulate how PDC can be related to what good
teacher education actually is. Even though the NIFU’s report is based on data
from teacher education for grades 1–7 and 5–10, there is nothing to suggest
that the situation is different in the integrated, five-year teacher-education pro-
gram for grades 8–13 in the Norwegian educational system, which is the focus
of this article.

Against this backdrop, we discuss how PDC can be integrated in teacher edu-
cation on a general level as well as on a more discipline-specific level. How-
ever, this first requires a conceptual clarification of what PDC is and what it
entails. In the following section, we approach these issues.

THE SCOPE OF THE ARTICLE

The current article is a position paper that aims to contribute to the conceptu-
alization of PDC in the teaching profession and its consequences for teacher
education. Our point of departure is not a conceptual exegesis of the term PDC,
but rather links it to the disciplinary and situated practices for which student
teachers need to be prepared. The analysis and discussion is theory-based,
exploratory, and indicative, rather than definitive. We have sought to apply
insights from empirical studies as well as sociocultural and activity theoretical
perspectives (Engeström, 1987; Vygotsky, 1978, 1986; Wertsch, 1998) in order
to give direction to our line of argument. In the study, we build our argument
on three fundamental assertions. The first is that we need to move away from
understanding digital competence as a set of generic skills suitable for all sit-
uations, both personal and professional, and toward an understanding of PDC
that includes both generic and specific teaching-profession skills. In the case
of teacher education, PDC involves teachers not only appropriating technolo-

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
284 WHAT DOES PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL COMPETENCE MEAN IN TEACHER EDUCATION? | LUND, FURBERG, BAKKEN AND ENGELIEN

gies, but also making their learners appropriate them and put them to produc-
tive use. This is an extremely demanding, dual endeavor. The second assertion
is that technologies are understood, applied, and made relevant differently in
each school subject in which they are integrated. Every school subject encom-
passes and emphasizes specific conceptual content and accompanying epis-
temic methods (i.e., the didactics of each subject matter). As applied in the
study, didactics can be understood as the design of social practices in which
pupils, teachers, and available social and material resources are configured and
reconfigured in activities that shed light on subjects, subject areas, and knowl-
edge development and continuously create space for reflection on such activi-
ties (Lund & Hauge, 2011a). Therefore, the educational technologies, subject
matter, and epistemic skills must be seen as intertwined entities. The third
underlying assumption is that we need to educate student teachers that can
translate PDC into practices with an ecological validity in order to meet the
challenges and needed competences addressed by the reports referred to
above. By uniting a view of technology, dimensions of learning theory, and
educational science into a subject-specific context, we can see how PDC is
expressed both in and as different social practices.

In the current article, we will elaborate on the three assumptions that constitute
the underlying basis for our perspective on PDC. The article is divided into
three sections. In the next section, we position our perspective on PDC accord-
ing to a sociocultural perspective of how to understand learning and teaching
with technologies (Säljö, 2010; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1998). In the second
section, we account for the intertwined relationship between PDC and specific
conceptual and epistemic features of school subjects. In order to display this
intertwined relationship, some dimensions identified in three school sub-
jects—science education, language arts, and social studies—will be used as an
analytical point of departure. We emphasize that these are some dimensions
among many, but that the aim is to be indicative rather than comprehensive.
The third section concludes the article by discussing the implications of our
conceptualization of PDC for the practice-oriented dimensions of teacher edu-
cation. By using the notion of “design” for learning and teaching, we empha-
size that PDC constitutes a competence in modeling subject-specific learning
environments, learning activities, and learning trajectories conducive to the
students’ development. However, this entails a dialectic relationship between
teachers’ PDC and learners’ enactment of the intended design, thus making the
teaching and learning design a co-constructed effort. This is a fundamental
dimension of PDC as we pursue it in a later section in the study.

SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON
DIGITAL LEARNING RESOURCES
From a sociocultural perspective, digital technologies afford users to move
beyond existing practices and pave the way for new ones—not least in the field
of learning and teaching (Hauge, Lund, & Vestøl, 2007). In this respect digital

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
 © UNIVERSITETSFORLAGET | NORDIC JOURNAL OF DIGITAL LITERACY | VOL 9 | NR 4-2014 285

technology becomes what is often referred to as cultural tools or artifacts

(Säljö, 2010). Such artifacts function as both the gatekeepers to and the glue of
cultures, and they possess the potential to transform culture. This view is
related to a classic sociocultural perspective, where artifacts mediate cognitive
activity and development and are woven deeply into social practices (Vygot-
sky, 1978, 1986; Wertsch, 1998). Seen as cultural artifacts, digital learning
resources store the residue of knowledge and epistemic practices developed
over generations. First, this means that centuries of research, discoveries, and
scientific discussions are embedded within artifacts by means of different
types of textual and visual representations. Consequently, digital learning
resources provide potential opportunities for students and teachers to interact
with domain-specific knowledge and scientific discourses. Second, digital
resources designed for teaching and learning purposes most often embed the
residue of what can be seen as ideal epistemic practices. Such practices refer
to ways of developing knowledge or expert performances carried out by pro-
fessionals, experts, or researchers within each knowledge domain and, conse-
quently, its corresponding school subject. These ideal practices and how they
intend to support learning activities are often embedded explicitly or implicitly
in the design of the learning resources. For instance, in science education,
examples of ideal practices can consist of doing lab experiments or engaging
in inquiry methods involving activities such as hypothesis generation, evaluat-
ing evidence, and constructing explanations (Furberg, 2009). Seen from a soci-
ocultural perspective, this domain-specific knowledge and these epistemic
practices are what students and teachers interact with when they employ digital
learning resources for learning purposes (Säljö, 2010).

Seeing students’ and teachers’ interaction with and use of technology from this
perspective reinforces the need to move away from understanding digital com-
petence as a purely generic set of skills and toward understanding PDC as
something that also includes specific teaching-profession skills. Further, this
perspective supports the assumption that technologies are understood, applied,
and made relevant differently in each school subject. In light of the above-
mentioned perspective on technologies, the study examines PDC more closely
in relation to the professional disciplines, pedagogy (with a view to educa-
tional theory and the learning sciences), and subject didactics, before we turn
to the notion of design, to link PDC to practice. Historically, subject didactics
has had the weakest link to PDC, but at the same time it is in subject didactics
that a scientific discipline is transformed into an educational practice. In the
next section, this link will be discussed further.

PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL COMPETENCE IN

THE TEACHING PROFESSION
How is PDC in teacher education different from similar competences in other
professional fields of study, such as psychology, pharmacy, law, or engineer-
ing? One obvious difference is that, in teacher education, the aim is not solely

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
286 WHAT DOES PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL COMPETENCE MEAN IN TEACHER EDUCATION? | LUND, FURBERG, BAKKEN AND ENGELIEN

to educate student teachers as to how to understand and use various emerging

technologies that are relevant to the execution of a particular craft or profes-
sion. In addition, it involves being able to make their learners capable of using
technology and learning resources in productive ways. This represents a major
challenge, as it goes beyond the immediate needs of student teachers and
involves situations where their knowledge is transformed into discipline-spe-
cific didactics, classroom management, and assessment of how pupils make
productive use of available cultural resources. As Sandberg and Pinnington
(2009) show, professional competence and “distinct use of tools” should be
understood as ways of being, i.e., at the very heart of professionalism.

Against this perspective we need to establish a link between PDC and the more
comprehensive perspective on professionalism as articulated in the Norwegian
National Regulations for teacher education for grades 8–13. These state that
teacher education should:

. . . ensure the coherence between practical and aesthetic subject areas, ped-
agogy, subject didactics and practice. It shall also include scientific theory
and method. […] and shall give the students a common identity as school-
teachers. (Kunnskapsdepartementet/Ministry of Education, 2013, p. 3. Our
translation.)

This points to an integrated teacher education, where the scientific discipline,

the professional disciplines (pedagogy and subject didactics), and practice add
up to a coherent study program. In light of the citation from the National Reg-
ulations, PDC can be understood as something broader than a set of generic (or
instrumental) ICT skills, and that is intimately linked to the coherence of the
study program. This is completely in line with trends in research in recent
years, which show that digital technologies must be considered and appropri-
ated as cultural extensions, closely linked to how we both organize our social
lives and develop as humans (Castells, 1996; Gee, 2000; Ludvigsen & Mørch,
2010; Østerud & Skogseth, 2008).

However, in order to establish a link between professional competence and dig-

ital competence, we also need a principled view of technology, and must not just
resort to metaphors such as ‘tools’ or ‘devices’. In the following section, we
limit our approach by discussing what we see as three vital dimensions that can
make the conceptualization of PDC visible in the teaching professions: the rela-
tionship between digital technologies and learning; how such technologies also
bring about performative competence in education; and how structural aspects
of classroom management needs to be addressed in teacher education.

The first dimension concerns the relationship between digital technologies and
learning. Since the early 1980s, digital technologies have increasingly been
linked to theoretical analyses and discussions of learning. Researchers have
observed how the conceptualization of what knowledge is (ontology) changes,
as well as the assumptions of how knowledge can be acquired (epistemology)

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
 © UNIVERSITETSFORLAGET | NORDIC JOURNAL OF DIGITAL LITERACY | VOL 9 | NR 4-2014 287

(Crook, 2001; Lankshear, Peters, & Knobel, 2002). Along with the develop-
ment of digital technologies intended to support learning and teaching, various
learning paradigms (i.e. behavioristic, cognitive, and sociocultural paradigms)
have been influential when it concerns how to design and use digital resources
(Koschmann, 1996; Shaffer & Clinton, 2006). In addition, several scholars
have found strong correlations between teachers’ and student teachers’ funda-
mental assumptions about learning and ways of approaching technologies
(Aagaard & Lund, 2013; Jimoyannis & Komis, 2007; Sime & Priestly, 2005).
As Jimoyannis and Komis (2007, p. 152) summarize: “A series of independent
studies indicate that both teachers’ personal theories and perceptions about
teaching and learning processes and their level of competence with ICT play a
major role in how they implement ICT and how they motivate themselves to
use ICT tools in the classroom.” Also, the technological development can
make perspectives about learning visible that may otherwise remain abstract.
For example, we can consider the use of technologies in relation to behaviorist
drills and exercises, cognitive problem solving, collaborative learning, work
on simulations and models, or knowledge construction. Learning theories can
thus be made visible and become the subject of discussion. PDC can then be
directly linked to the teacher’s design of various types of assignments and
activities, as well as the learning resources that should be made available to the
pupils based on practical circumstances and theoretical validations. The con-
ditions for pupil learning outcomes thus become clearer.

The second dimension of PDC in the teaching profession concerns what Säljö
refers to as the “performative” nature of learning (Säljö, 2010). Säljö’s point
is that today learning is woven into the use of artifacts, to the extent where we
cannot only assess results or documentation of learning but must also include
how we arrive at knowledge through relevant, informed selection and use of
available cultural tools or artifacts. If we do not do this, both learning activities
and the assessment of them lose their ecological validity; they do not corre-
spond with how we in practice and in everyday situations organize ourselves
to learn, solve problems, and develop new insights. A challenge thus appears–
not only for teacher education, but also for the whole educational sector. The
implications of assessing “performative competence” are substantial and they
require discussion throughout the sector. However, a feature of competent
teachers and PDC for the knowledge society is precisely that of not merely
being socialized into existing practices but being able to contribute to the
development of new ones (Edwards, Gilroy, & Hartley, 2002; Kollar, 2010;
Lund & Hauge, 2011).

A third vital dimension of PDC in the teacher profession concerns issues that
arise when pedagogy meets technology in the classroom. One is classroom
management and a view of technologies as disruptive and detrimental to focus-
ing on learning objectives (Krumsvik, Egelandsdal, Sarastuen, Jones, & Eike-
land, 2013). Blikstad-Balas (2014) for instance shows that when pupils in the
final year of upper secondary school (in Norway) are given access to digital
technologies and the Internet, they spend a disproportionate amount of time on

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
288 WHAT DOES PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL COMPETENCE MEAN IN TEACHER EDUCATION? | LUND, FURBERG, BAKKEN AND ENGELIEN

non-scientific activities such as games, Facebook, online newspapers, and

aimless surfing. This is a question of classroom management, but there is strik-
ingly sparse literature on classroom management in complex, technology-rich
learning environments. One exception are the guidelines from the Norwegian
Centre for ICT in Education (IKT-senteret, 2013), but the many suggestions
and advice are not sufficiently linked to PDC or to a research-based knowledge
platform. Roughly speaking, two strategies can be used to address the problem
of deficient pupil attention: a technical or a social regime. The technical regime
can be practiced through software that can limits or blocks pupil uses of tech-
nology. In a world characterized by the pupils’ own mobile technologies, this
alone is not sufficient. A social regime must therefore also be established that
is exercised through common rules or conventions and that clearly distin-
guishes between irrelevant activities and assignments and activities that
require or are supported by digital technologies (Krumsvik et al., 2013).

Our examination of PDC in pedagogy and the teaching profession has focused
on three vital dimensions. First, we have linked connections between views of
technology and learning with the implications this has for a scientific basis for
PDC. Second, we have drawn attention to the problem of how the performative
nature of learning makes it difficult for teachers to use traditional forms of
assessment and assessment criteria. Third, we have emphasized how PDC
must allow space for the how PDC must allow space for the development of
structural aspects of classroom management in technology-rich learning
environments, and how access to both information and entertainment can erase
the boundaries between these and threaten the learning object. This is in no
way an exhaustive analysis of what PDC entails in pedagogy, but we argue that
it shows how we can make this dimension of PDC more specific in integrated
teacher education.

SUBJECT DIDACTICS
Although the aspects of ICT and PDC that have been highlighted previously
may appear generic to the teaching profession, they are also expressed in var-
ious ways in the various subjects. In the current Norwegian national curricu-
lum, digital literacy is considered a fundamental competence on par with read-
ing, writing, speaking, and numeracy, and in the various subject-specific
syllabi we find certain competence goals connected with digital literacy. How-
ever, these are mostly broad and do not capture what exactly digital literacy
entails in the particular subject. This is why in the following we take a closer
look at how subject didactics for the networked society involves insights into
how digitalization affects knowledge concepts and knowledge practices in the
relevant school subject. Research has for many years produced classroom
studies in which the axis of the analyses has often been between technology
and activities or learning outcome, irrespective of the characteristics, tradi-
tions, and purposes of the subjects. In recent years, a growing number of stud-
ies have been produced that also include the subject’s special features and how

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
 © UNIVERSITETSFORLAGET | NORDIC JOURNAL OF DIGITAL LITERACY | VOL 9 | NR 4-2014 289

digital technologies are linked to these (Kelly, Luke, & Green, 2008). When
we address three knowledge domains, below, it is not to give an exhaustive
account of the opportunities and constraints technologies represent, but to give
some indications of subject-specific features that together suggest that ICT in
school subjects cannot be approached from a merely generic position.

Also, contemporary students increasingly assume the role of knowledge pro-

ducers rather than simply consumers (also referred to as ‘prosumers’) of text-
books and the material conveyed by teachers. In science education, we can see
a larger repertoire of knowledge representations through models, simulations,
and virtual experiments (Furberg, Kluge, & Ludvigsen, 2013; Linn & Eylon,
2011). In language, we encounter an extended concept of text in the form of
multimodality and web-based environments that make it possible to commu-
nicate regardless of time and space, and in a number of different contexts
(Bakken, 2007; Lund & Rasmussen, 2008). Social studies encounter chal-
lenges in the form of unlimited access to information, which can at the same
time be fragmented and even contradictory (Furberg & Rasmussen, 2012). By
using three subjects—science education, languages, and social science—as an
analytical point of departure, we will illustrate how the dimensions of subject
didactics can be linked to PDC.

Science Education
Among the implications that technological development has for learning and
teaching practices in science education, we call attention to two central learn-
ing aspects. The first concerns how technology has made it possible to present
scientific concepts and phenomena in new and diverse ways. Complex and
abstract scientific concepts that were only accessible to highly science-literate
people have become more accessible for laypeople, including students (Linn
& Eylon, 2011). A common feature of digital knowledge representations is that
they display abstract and complex scientific concepts by means of visual rep-
resentations, such as interactive animations, models, and simulations, as well
as offering supplementary text-based sources that enable new combinations of
depictive and symbolic representations (diSessa, 2004; Furberg, Kluge, &
Ludvigsen, 2013). In this sense, digital resources have qualities that can con-
tribute to making abstract scientific concepts more tangible to students (Furb-
erg et al., 2013; Linn & Eylon, 2011).

The second learning-related aspect concerns how technology provides oppor-

tunities for students to develop an understanding of, as well as skills in engag-
ing in, scientific methods. Many studies have shown how various forms of
technology can support students in inquiry learning settings. Inquiry is defined
as the scientific process of generating hypotheses, collecting data through sys-
tematic investigations or experimentation, interpreting data, and drawing con-
clusions (De Jong, 2006; Linn & Eylon, 2011). Numerous computer-based
learning environments have been developed with the aim of engaging and sup-

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
290 WHAT DOES PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL COMPETENCE MEAN IN TEACHER EDUCATION? | LUND, FURBERG, BAKKEN AND ENGELIEN

porting conceptual and epistemic understanding (Bell, Urhahne, Schanze, &

Ploetzner, 2010; Linn & Eylon, 2011; Quintana et al., 2004).

Several studies have reported positive effects of students’ engagement with

various types of digital learning resources, such as simulations (Rutten, van
Joolingen, & van der Veen, 2012; Smetana & Bell, 2012), multiple represen-
tations (Ainsworth, 2006), and virtual labs (Baltzis & Koukias, 2009; Kozma,
2003; Zacharia, 2007). Studies also show the effects of students’ use of digital
learning tools or environments aimed at supporting their inquiry skills and
understanding (van Joolingen, de Jong, & Dimitrakopoulou, 2007). There are
also studies reporting findings that are more challenging, for instance that stu-
dents tend to focus more on the surface features of digital representations than
the underlying scientific principles (Ainsworth, 2006). In addition, even when
supported by digital tools, students struggle with, for instance, in testing
hypotheses, connecting procedural skills with conceptual knowledge and
transferring inquiry skills from one setting to another (van Joolingen et al.,
2007). As well as highlighting the potential of student engagement with digital
resources in science education, the more challenging findings underline the
need for science teachers with a PDC that provides conceptual as well as struc-
tural support in computer-supported learning settings (Furberg, in progress;
Strømme & Furberg, in review).

Even though there is a fair consensus of the significance of teacher involve-

ment in technology-rich learning settings, several researchers point to a lack of
studies that analyze its specific role. However, the studies that focus on teacher
intervention in computer-based learning settings find that teacher intervention
in the form of conceptual elaborations (Furberg, in progress), eliciting of intu-
itive ideas (Strømme & Furberg, in review), and teacher-led consolidation
activities, such as plenary introductions of new tasks, evaluations, and class-
room discussions (Mäkitalo-Siegl, Kohnle, & Fischer, 2011) have positive
impacts on learning processes.

Taking the conceptual and learning-specific issues characterizing science edu-

cation into account, displays how PDC is higly interwoven with the concepts
and epistemic methods belonging to the school subject. In science education
this can be exemplified by a competence in designing learning activities,
which involve the introduction of complex scientific concepts by means of
digital knowledge representations, and productive use of digital tools designed
for supporting inquiry learning processes. Most importantly, however, PDC in
science didactics involves understanding the specific concepts and scientific
processes that students struggle with, as well as how digital tools can provide
productive support for students, an understanding that emerges as a highly sub-
ject-specific competence.

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
 © UNIVERSITETSFORLAGET | NORDIC JOURNAL OF DIGITAL LITERACY | VOL 9 | NR 4-2014 291

Languages
In languages digital and networked technologies have transformed both the
subject matter and the literacy practices in which students take part (Blikstad-
Balas, 2014). First, technologies affect language itself, its lexico-grammatical
structures and emerging genres, outputs, or conventions (SMS, e-mail, blogs,
many-to-many forums, digital storytelling, etc.) (Lie, 2011; Schwebs & Otnes,
2006). David Crystal considers “Netspeak” a third mode of expression besides
spoken and written language (Crystal, 2001). Moreover, he introduces “Inter-
net linguistics” as a new research field (Crystal, 2011). Add to this that the
many modes and varieties of a language are accessible (text or audio) through
a couple of keystrokes, and we have a situation in which the phrase “authentic
language” needs to be redefined. We also increasingly communicate in face-
less modes or via digital video. In sum, we see new communicative spaces and
a new communication ecology (Friedland & Kim, 2014). Another challenge is
how to deal with language that does not adhere to traditional standards (Lie,
2011). The difference between a mistake and unorthodox spelling, between
registers and conventions, puts linguistic competence among teachers to a seri-
ous test.

Second, the ways we create and interpret texts are greatly affected by digital
technologies. Although, by now, word processing seems mundane and trivial,
it has been instrumental in changing how we understand and practice writing.
In his early but exhaustive analysis, Heim (1987) demonstrated how word
processing took writing out of the sequential paradigm and turned it into a
cyclical and perpetual process of rewriting and revising, or “sculpting” a text.
This is, of course, of utmost importance for a language teacher in to know.
Additionally, creating texts in modern language arts subjects is not restricted
to speaking or writing alone. Today’s learners and teachers can choose from
and combine different modalities, such as drawings, photographs, animations,
and music, to create a great variety of multimodal texts. Thus, language teach-
ers need a theoretical understanding of multimodality and insight into different
kinds of multimodal digital genres and media in order to guide and assess their
learners’ language production (Løvland, 2007).

Faced with the expanding volume and complexity of multimodal hypertext on

the Internet, students also need to develop a new set of reading strategies (Roe,
2011; Strømsø & Bråten, 2006). As pointed out in the reports from the PISA
Digital Reading Assessment in 2009, digital reading demands highly devel-
oped strategies for navigation, selecting relevant information and comparing
information from different sources (Frønes, Narvhus, & Jetne, 2011).
Although these are competences relevant to all school subjects, the systematic
development of reading strategies traditionally falls within the domain of the
language arts. In conclusion, PDC in language arts didactics involves an
understanding of how digital technologies are shaping language and texts in
today’s society and an ability to design learning activities that help students
find their place in this digitalized textual culture.

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
292 WHAT DOES PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL COMPETENCE MEAN IN TEACHER EDUCATION? | LUND, FURBERG, BAKKEN AND ENGELIEN

For the aspiring teacher, there are important implications for exerting PDC,
including communicative expertise. Student teachers need to be exposed to
and assess a vast variety of linguistic and communicative conventions that
have emerged. What is more important, they need to assess such conventions
in their learners’ work; what amounts to successful multimodal expressions,
when are they within relevant register and discourse, and where do we cross
the threshold for acceptable language use? As recent research shows, such
questions represent an extension of the classical Vygotskyan theory (1986) of
how doing language, “languaging,” is a key process that allows the shaping
and organizing of higher mental processes through language (Swain, 2011).

Social Studies
Within the field of social studies, educators differentiate between two main
types of learning: the acquisition of content knowledge and the development
of historical thinking and understanding. The former is often connected to
direct instruction and the attainment of substantive knowledge, while the latter
is connected to inquiry-based learning and the development of skills that make
the pupil able to act and think like a historian (Stearns, Seixas, & Wineburg,
2000; VanSledright, 2004). With the advent of the World Wide Web, teachers
and teacher educators have elaborated on the opportunities that technologies
bring to enhance learning in social studies (Debele & Plevyak, 2012). Access
to the Internet meant access to information in general, and primary sources in
particular. The use of historical evidence has been a part of established teach-
ing practices for a long time (Barnes, 1896), but the growth of online multime-
dia databases (Bull, Hammond, & Ferster, 2008), “Digital history” or sourc-
ing, made new and other types of evidence easily available. Through the
development of structured, themed “packages,” digitalized photographs, films,
and primary documents made their way into social studies classrooms (Bis-
land, 2010; Clarke & Lee, 2004). Researchers have undertaken to assess
whether the use of these new technologies, in combination with different
instructional scaffolding strategies, were effective in developing content
knowledge and/or their historical thinking among pupils (Davis, Fernekes, &
Hladky, 1999; Lee & Molebash, 2004). At the same time, technologies devel-
oped to present information rapidly became mainstream technology. The use
of search engines such as Google and online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia
to find information or evidence has become a common strategy for most
pupils, one that perhaps challenges the notion of the teacher as a “gatekeeper”
of content knowledge (Blikstad-Balas, 2014). These technologies, designed to
search the web and gather information and then present it to others, are still
very much in use today, and also in structured approaches such as WebQuest’s
(Kurt, 2012; Li & Lim, 2008).

With the development of Web 2.0 technologies, teachers and teacher educators
discovered the potential in letting pupils create their own historical representa-
tions through wikis, blogs, podcasts, or video documentaries (Manfra & Lee,
2011; Yang, Chen, & Chen, 2002); travel through virtual time and place (Comp-

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
 © UNIVERSITETSFORLAGET | NORDIC JOURNAL OF DIGITAL LITERACY | VOL 9 | NR 4-2014 293

ton, Davis, & Mackey, 2009); or participate in simulations and game-based

learning (Squire & Barab, 2004). Through the use of inquiry-based strategies
(Hernández-Ramos & De La Paz, 2009) and technologies that enhance collab-
oration and collective knowledge building, pupils are encouraged to challenge
the notion of transfer of knowledge that is often represented in textbooks.

For student teachers, the advent of digital and networked technologies opens
up new horizons for “doing” history and thinking like a historian. At the same
time, technologies in social studies open up a vast array of complex issues con-
nected to surveillance, manipulation of information, citizenship, democracy,
and freedom of speech. The teacher’s role is thus partly transformed, partly
challenged by the abundance of available but often questionable or downright
faulty information. This is a major task for teacher-education programs that
need to prepare students for coaching learners in a networked world.

PDC IN PRACTICE: AN INTEGRATED CONCEPTUALIZATION

The rapid digitalization of information has resulted in changes to the concept
of knowledge, its representations and knowledge practices, as learning
increasingly involves the use of cultural resources (Säljö, 2010). Hence our
notion of design as the design of social practices involves configuring and re-
configuring resources (cf. our definition in the section on the scope of the arti-
cle). In addition, an abundance of information can readily be located in vast
digital archives (Säljö, 2010). There is, therefore, no doubt that through their
education, teachers must become familiar with research-based knowledge
about this development and must themselves be given the opportunity to
develop teaching practices in and for technology-rich learning environments.
In order to design productive learning activities that involve ICT, we have
argued that, in teacher education, it is not enough to recognize certain peda-
gogical attributes of the technologies; it is important to acknowledge that dif-
ferent activities within different subject domains bring forth certain qualities
in them that can be conducive to learning.

The implications are that teacher education on the one hand needs to focus on
the aspects of digital technologies that are generic to the teaching profession,
as we have discussed in the section on PDC and pedagogy: how they are linked
to fundamental assumptions about learning and teaching, how they have epis-
temological consequences, and how they might disrupt existing practices. Of
equal importance though, is that teacher education also must be sensitive to the
more specific disciplinary practices and features characterizing each individ-
ual school subject. When these two dimensions are combined and used to
design and enact learning activities, we arrive at a truly integrated approach to
PDC, where the scientific disciplines, the professional disciplines (pedagogy
and subject didactics), and practices add up to a coherent whole. The integra-
tion of these dimensions is central to the design of learning environments and
learning trajectories (Hauge et al., 2007; Lund & Hauge, 2011). It is in the

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
294 WHAT DOES PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL COMPETENCE MEAN IN TEACHER EDUCATION? | LUND, FURBERG, BAKKEN AND ENGELIEN

design that generic and subject-specific aspects of the technologies merge and
are operationalized in educational practice.

From a pedagogical perspective, the design concept was introduced by Donald

Schön (1987) who, inspired by John Dewey, linked it to professional practice
and reflection on practice. Schön applies the concept of design to professions
that transform existing situations and practices into desired and future-oriented
practices. From the design perspective, there is thus the wish to find the best
possible alternatives when faced with a problem or a challenge—what Schön
calls “reflection-in-action.” In the past two decades, we have seen how the
design concept has been linked not only to the development of both software
and user interfaces but also to learning and teaching environments (Laurillard,
2012; Lund & Hauge, 2011; Selander, 2007). Facilitation of design activities
in teacher education can be conducted as a combination of lectures, seminars,
and workshops. The lectures and seminars might focus on the pedagogic and
didactic dimensions of PDC, whereas the workshops could be actual design
activities within specific or cross-disciplinary domains. In such design activi-
ties, a typical approach might consist of:

– Defining a learning object and discussing how learners and teachers should
approach such an object.

– Selecting and employing cultural resources (material as well as human)

conducive to working toward the learning object and producing results.

– Addressing the conditions under which the activities unfold: institutional

rules and regulations; the total learning community (individual, class, and
beyond); division of labor between those involved and the duration of the
activity (Engeström, 1987; Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006; Lund & Rasmussen,
2008).

– Testing the intended design as developed by student teachers in actual prac-

tice to see how it is picked up and enacted by learners in schools.

– Sharing experiences that show how intended designs related to enacted

designs (online, e.g. in a wiki or LMS, or as debriefing sessions on campus
in order to foster collaborative approaches to the teaching profession).

Obviously, this is a very simplified framework for quite demanding professional

work involving all the aspects of PDC discussed. Also, such efforts to develop
and cultivate PDC are fruitless unless they are matched by exams and assign-
ments that display similar features. Therefore, important and challenging work
remains to be done with assessment criteria that include PDC (e.g., how student
teachers display performative competence, design competence, and integrative
competence). Let us end with an example where this is sought and operational-
ized. At the Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University
of Oslo, exams have been digitized in recent years. This does not mean merely

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
 © UNIVERSITETSFORLAGET | NORDIC JOURNAL OF DIGITAL LITERACY | VOL 9 | NR 4-2014 295

that pen and paper have been replaced by keyboard and screen. During exams,
student teachers are allowed to collaborate and choose whether they want to
work from home or from campus. All resources are available, including use of
the Internet. The exam task takes as a point of departure a digital video clip
showing a situation from a classroom. Student teachers are then asked to draw
on their knowledge of pedagogy and the learning sciences, subject didactics and
experiences from practice, in order to develop a problem statement and discuss
it. Thus, there is an integrated approach to the exam, which increases its ecolog-
ical validity; the exam setting mirrors typical opportunities and challenges that
add up to the everyday enactment of the teaching profession. In sum, this partic-
ular type of exam is a result of a design approach where the intended design was
constructed by the university teachers but enacted as a learning design by the stu-
dent teachers as they responded to the task in various ways.

CONCLUSION
The overall aim of the current article has been to contribute to the conceptual-
ization of professional digital competence in the teaching profession, and its
consequences for teacher education. Initially, we identified some trends that
add up to what our student teachers will encounter in their current and future
practices, and how this calls for a principled view of technologies as artifacts
that have transformational potential. Next, we linked PDC to the professional
disciplines (i.e. pedagogy and subject didactics). By doing this, we have seen
how PDC emerges as something much more than a skills-based competence, a
complex competence that requires theoretical as well as practical approaches
in the form of designs. We have also discussed the implications for teacher
education. Instead of exemplifying what might add up to certain modules or
workshops, we have advocated the notion of design as a way to integrate and
enact the many dimensions of PDC. In both cases, it has not been our intention
to suggest that this is the definition or demarcation of PDC. However, we have
wanted to raise a discussion of what PDC involves, what is at stake, and how
teacher education can be sensitized as to what fostering PDC requires. Hope-
fully, this and similar attempts can operationalize a sorely missed dimension in
teacher education become and prepare our student teachers to develop future-
oriented designs for teaching and learning.

REFERENCES
Aagaard, T. & Lund, A. (2013). Mind the Gap: Divergent Objects of Assessment in Technology-
rich Learning Environments. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 8(4), 225–243.
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with
multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.
Bakken, J. (2007). Digitale verktøy i norskfaget. Norsklæreren. Tidsskrift for språk og
litteratur, 7(1), 19–25.
Baltzis, K. B. & Koukias, K. D. (2009). Using laboratory experiments and circuit simulation
IT tools in an undergraduate course in analog electronics. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 18(6), 546–555.

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
296 WHAT DOES PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL COMPETENCE MEAN IN TEACHER EDUCATION? | LUND, FURBERG, BAKKEN AND ENGELIEN

Barnes, M. S. (1896). Studies in Historical Method. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co.

Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning:
Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349–
377.
Bisland, B. M. (2010). Another Way of Knowing: Visualizing the Ancient Silk Routes. The
Social Studies, 101(2), 80–86.
Blikstad-Balas, M. (2014). Redefining School Literacy. Prominent literacy practices across
subjects in upper secondary school. PhD thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo.
Bull, G., Hammond, T., & Ferster, B. (2008). Developing Web 2.0 tools for support of
historical inquiry in social studies. Computers in the Schools, 25(3–4), 275–287.
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Publishers.
Clarke, W. G. & Lee, J. K. (2004). The Promise of Digital History in the Teaching of Local
History. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas,
78(2), 84–87.
Compton, L. K. L., Davis, N., & Mackey, J. (2009). Field Experience in Virtual Schools—
To Be There Virtually. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 459–477.
Crook, C. (2001). The Social Character of Knowing and Learning: implications of cultural
psychology for educational technology. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher
Education, 10(1&2), 19–36.
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2011). Internet Linguistics: A Student Guide. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Davis, H. B., Fernekes, W. R., & Hladky, C. R. (1999). Using Internet Resources to Study
the Holocaust: Reflections from the Field. The Social Studies, 90(1), 34–41.
De Jong, T. (2006). Technological Advances in Inquiry Learning. Science.
Debele, M. & Plevyak, L. (2012). Conditions for Successful Use of Technology in Social
Studies Classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 29(3), 285–299. doi: 10.1080/
07380569.2012.703602
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction.
Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.
Edwards, A., Gilroy, P., & Hartley, D. (2002). Rethinking Teacher Education:
Collaborative Responses to Uncertainty. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An Activity—Theoretical Approach to
Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit.
Friedland, L. A. & Kim, N. (2014). Communication Ecology: A Brief Review of Theory.
Paper presented at the The International Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ.
Frønes, T. S., Narvhus, E. K., & Jetne, Ø. (2011). Elever på nett – Digital lesing i PISA
2009. Oslo: UiO.
Furberg, A. (2009). Socio-cultural aspects of prompting student reflection in web-based
inquiry learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4), 397–409.
Furberg, A. (in progress). Exploring students’ teacher-directed help seeking in computer-
supported inquiry learning.
Furberg, A., Kluge, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2013). Student sensemaking with science
diagrams in a computer-based setting. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 41–64.
Furberg, A. & Rasmussen, I. (2012). Faktaorientering og forståelsesorientering i elevers
bruk av nettbaserte læringsomgivelser. In T. E. Hauge & A. Lund (Eds.), Små skritt eller
store sprang? Om digitale tilstander i skolen. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Gee, J. P. (2000). New People in New Worlds: Networks, the new capitalism and schools.
In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of
social futures (pp. 43–68). London and New York: Routledge.

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
 © UNIVERSITETSFORLAGET | NORDIC JOURNAL OF DIGITAL LITERACY | VOL 9 | NR 4-2014 297

Gudmundsdottir, G. B., Loftsgarden, M., & Ottestad, G. (2014). Nyutdannede lærer.

Profesjonsfaglig digital kompetanse og erfaringer med IKT i lærerutdanningen. Oslo:
Senter for IKT i utdanningen.
Hauge, T. E. & Lund, A. (Eds.). (2012). Små skritt eller store sprang? Om digitale
tilstander i skolen. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Hauge, T. E., Lund, A., & Vestøl, J. M. (2007). Undervisning i endring: IKT, aktivitet,
design [Teaching in transformation: ICT, activity, design]. Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.
Heim, M. (1987). Electric Language. A Philosophical Study of Word Processing. Second
Edition with a Foreword by David Gelernter (second ed.). New Haven & London: Yale
University Press.
Hernández-Ramos, P. & De La Paz, S. (2009). Learning History in Middle School by
Designing Multimedia in a Project-Based Learning Experience. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42(2).
IKT-senteret. (2013). Veileder for klasseledelse i teknologirike omgivelser. Oslo og
Tromsø.
Jimoyannis, A., & Komis, V. (2007). Examining teachers’ beliefs about ICT in education:
Implications of a teacher preparation programme. Teacher Development, 11(2), 149–173.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., & Estrada, V. (2013). Technology Outlook
for Norwegian Schools 2013–2018: An NMC Horizon Project Regional Analysis. Austin,
TX: The New Media Consortium.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: activity theory and
interaction design. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press.
Kelly, G. J., Luke, A., & Green, J. (2008). Introduction: What counts as knowledge in
educational settings: Disciplinary knowledge, assessment, and curriculum. In G. J. Kelly,
A. Luke & J. Green (Eds.), Review of Research in Education, 32, vii–x. Thousand Oaks,
Ca: SAGE.
Kollar, I. (2010). Turning the Classroom of the Future into the Classroom of the Present. In
K. Mäkitalo-Siegl, J. Zottmann, F. Kaplan, & F. Fischer (Eds.), Classroom of the Future:
Orchestrating Collaborative Spaces (pp. 245–255). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Koschmann, T. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and
social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205–226.
Krumsvik, R., Egelandsdal, K., Sarastuen, N. K., Jones, L. Ø., & Eikeland, O. J. (2013).
Sammenhengen mellom IKT-bruk og læringsutbytte (SMIL) i videregående opplæring.
Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen.
Kurt, S. (2012). Issues to Consider in Designing WebQuests: A Literature Review.
Computers in the Schools, 29(3), 300–314. doi: 10.1080/07380569.2012.704770
Lankshear, C., Peters, M., & Knobel, M. (2002). Information, knowledge and learning.
Some issues facing epistemology and education in a digital age. In M. R. Lea & K. Nicoll
(Eds.), Distributed Learning. Social and cultural approaches to practice (pp. 16–37).
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science. Building Pedagogical Patterns for
Learning and Technology. New York and London: Routledge.
Lee, J. K. & Molebash, P. E. (2004). Outcomes of various scaffolding strategies on student
teachers' digital historical inquiries. Journal of Social Studies Research, 28(2).
Li, D. D. & Lim, C. P. (2008). Scaffolding online historical inquiry tasks: A case study of
two secondary school classrooms. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1394–1410.
Lie, S. (2011). Det digitale språket. Oslo: Ling forlag.
Linn, M. C. & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science Learning and Instruction: Taking advantage of
technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
298 WHAT DOES PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL COMPETENCE MEAN IN TEACHER EDUCATION? | LUND, FURBERG, BAKKEN AND ENGELIEN

Ludvigsen, S. R. & Mørch, A. I. (2010). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Basic

Concepts, Multiple Perspectives, and Emerging Trends. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B.
McGaw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, 5, 290–296. Oxford: Elsevier.
Lund, A. & Hauge, T. E. (2011). Designs for Teaching and Learning in Technology Rich
Learning Environments. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy (4), 258–271.
Lund, A. & Rasmussen, I. (2008). The right tool for the wrong task? Match and mismatch
between first and second stimulus in double stimulation. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4), 25–51.
Løvland, A. (2007). På mange måtar. Samansette tekstar i skolen. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget/
LNU.
Manfra, M. M. & Lee, J. K. (2011). Leveraging the Affordances of Educational Blogs to
Teach Low-Achieving Students United States History. Social Studies Research &
Practice, 6(2).
Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). Computer-supported collaborative
inquiry learning and classroom scripts: Effects on help-seeking processes and learning
outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 257–266.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., . . . Soloway,
E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.
Roe, A. (2011). Lesedidaktikk: etter den første leseopplæringen (Vol. 2). Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of
computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58, 136–153.
Sandberg, J. & Pinnington, A. H. (2009). Professional Competence as Ways of Being: An
Existential Ontological Perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 46(7), 1138–1170.
Schwebs, T. & Otnes, H. (2006). Tekst.no: strukturer og sjangrer i digitale medier. Oslo:
LNU/Cappelen.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-
Bass.
Selander, S. (2007). Didaktisk design: den dubbla utmaningen. Digital Kompetanse |
Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 2(3), 162–172
Shaffer, D. W. & Clinton, K. A. (2006). Toolforthoughts: Reexamining Thinking in the
Digital Age. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(4), 283–300.
Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., & Gaved,
M. (2013). Innovating Pedagogy 2013. Exploring new forms of teaching, learning and
assessment, to guide educators and policy makers. Open University Innovation Report 2.
Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Sime, D. & Priestly, M. (2005). Student teachers’ first reflections on information and
communications technology and classroom learning: implications for initial teacher
education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 130–142.
Smetana, L. K. & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer Simulations to Suppoert Science Instruction
and Learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science
Education, 34(9), 1337–1370.
Squire, K. & Barab, S. (2004). Replaying history: Engaging urban underserved students in
learning world history through computer simulation games. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on learning sciences.
Stearns, P. N., Seixas, P., & Wineburg, S. (Eds.). (2000). Knowing Teaching & Learning
History. National and International Perspectives (1 ed.). New York, London: New York
University Press.
Strømme, T. A. & Furberg, A. (in review). The complexity of students’ conceptual sense-
making: Exploring learning in the intersection of digital resourses, peer collaboration,
instructional design, and teacher intervention.

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.
 © UNIVERSITETSFORLAGET | NORDIC JOURNAL OF DIGITAL LITERACY | VOL 9 | NR 4-2014 299

Strømsø, H. & Bråten, I. (2006). Lesing av Web-tekster. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift,

90(04), 332–341.
Swain, M. (2010). Talking it through: Languaging as a source of learning. In R. Batstone
(Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on second language learning and use (pp. 112–130).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning:
technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning (26), 53–64.
Tømte, C., Kårstein, A., & Olsen, D. S. (2013). IKT i lærerutdanningen. På vei mot
profesjonsfaglig digital kompetanse? Oslo: NIFU.
van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., & Dimitrakopoulou, A. (2007). Issues in computer
supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2),
111–119.
VanSledright, B. A. (2004). What does it mean to think historically… and how do you teach
it. Social Education, 68(3), 230–233.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Wasson, B. & Ludvigsen, S. (2003). Designing for knowledge building (No. 19). Oslo:
Forsknings- og kompetansesenteret for IT i utdanning. Universitet i Oslo.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind As Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yang, S. C., Chen, N. S., & Chen, A. (2002). A student?generated web?based oral history
project. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 272–281.
Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an
effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 120–132.
Østerud, S., & Skogseth, E. G. (Eds.). (2008). Å være på nett. Kommunikasjon, identitets-
og kompetanseutvikling med digitale medier. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.

This article is downloaded from www.idunn.no. Any reproduction or systematic distribution

in any form is forbidden without clarification from the copyright holder.

View publication stats