Situated learning and teachers’ digital competence

Rune Johan Krumsvik

Published online: 24 September 2008# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract Computer literacy, media literacy, digital literacy and digital competenceare all concepts that highlight the need to handle technology in our digital age.However, when it comes to teachers’ digital literacy there is a need to develop amore pedagogic-didactic content for digital literacy in order to deal with the way inwhich new digital trends influence the underlying conditions for schools, pedagogyand subjects. This theoretical article will therefore examine whether a broader viewof knowledge (situated learning) can be a relevant theoretical underpinning for a newdigital competence model for teachers and the Scandinavian English perception ofthe term competence. The article is particularly angled towards how the complexityof teachers’ digital literacy makes it necessary to expand our traditional perception ofthis concept. The implications of the article indicate that five vital structures arefound to be essential to perceptions amongst teachers of the importance ofInformation- and Communication Technology (ICT) and achievement of digitalcompetence.

Keywords Digital competence . Situated learning . Teachers

1 Introduction

When the latest Norwegian educational reform was implemented in 2006, Norwaybecame the first country in the world with a national curriculum where digitalcompetence (in the Scandinavian English sense of the term) was one of the five basiccore competencies. This was a milestone in the educational system and waswelcomed in many different educational areas. However, there is general agreementthat Norwegian schools face a number of challenges in regard to this increased statusof digital competence in the curriculum and the massive implementation of ICT in

Educ Inf Technol (2008) 13:279–290DOI 10.1007/s10639-008-9069-5

R. J. Krumsvik (*)Department of Education & Health Promotion, University of Bergen, Christiesgate 13, Bergen,Norwaye-mail: Rune.krumsvik@iuh.uib.no

schools in the last decade. One of the main reasons for this is that the digitalrevolution and ever increasing digitalisation of school life have altered some of theconditions under which schools operate since the previous curriculum wasintroduced 10 years ago. Therefore, the main problem in Norway seems to be nolonger the technology density and infrastructure but teachers’ digital competence.The majority of Norwegian teachers’ level of digital competence is rather low, andambitions for an even stronger focus on digital competence within the Norwegiancurriculum are creating pressure for Norwegian teachers to become digitallycompetent as soon as possible. There is therefore a need to develop new modelsfor teachers’ digital competence which encapsulate the impact of the latest digitaltrends on the underlying conditions applicable to schools, pedagogy and subjects.This article sets out to discuss whether a wider view of knowledge, situated learningand communities of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998, 2001) cancreate new approaches towards how we view teachers’ digital competence in relationto the Norwegian government’s Knowledge Promotion Reform (KD 2006a)—and ifso, how. The article’s main question will therefore be: can situated learningconstitute a new pathway for how we view teachers’ digital competence in theKnowledge Promotion (K-06)?

2 Background

Computer literacy, media literacy, digital literacy and digital competence are allconcepts which highlight the need to handle technology in the digital age. Whiledigital literacy seems to be the most commonly used concept internationally, digitalcompetence is the most commonly used concept in the Scandinavian countries ineducational contexts. The main reason for this is that competence as a concept has abroader, more holistic meaning in Scandinavian English than in traditional English.In this sense, teachers’ digital competence incorporates a more complex and holisticproficiency in the use of ICT with pedagogical judgement in educational contexts.This means that the focus is directed towards pedagogy and subject matter, whiletechnical skills are only a part of this complex digital competence concept.Therefore, to avoid confusion about the content of such concepts, one has to bearin mind this distinction between the general perception of digital literacyinternationally and the more specific perception in Scandinavian countries tied toteachers’ digital competence. It is thus important for the reader to be aware of thisdistinction when I discuss this further later in the article.

Digital competence occupies a prominent position in the new reform package (K-06) (KD 2006a), and enshrining this area so clearly in the national curriculum putsNorway in a unique position internationally. It has become the fifth core competence(together with writing, reading, arithmetic and oral competence) and at every stagein every subject from year 1 to 13 there are clear competence aims which are tied tothe concept of digital competence. Meanwhile there is little doubt that the digitalrevolution has provided Norwegian pupils with good access to technology in andoutside 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 bothphysical and virtual learning spaces. However, teachers still lack the necessary

280 Educ Inf Technol (2008) 13:279–290

digital competence to manage ICT and the new learning spaces central to theKnowledge Promotion Reform (K-06) (KD 2006a). This creates a situation in whichdigital trends, new learning spaces and K-06 (KD 2006a) are paving the way for newunderpinnings for teachers’ digital competence, while a number of apparentobstacles prevent teachers achieving the necessary digital competence. A mainreason for this is that digital competence is a new competence in the history ofschools and schooling, which creates quite new educational challenges that teachershave never before dealt with. At the same time the digital revolution has producedradical changes in Norwegian society since the mid 1990s, and teachers too havebeen affected by these developments. They have to deal with the fact that pupilshave become New Millennium Learners (Pedro 2006) who lives an online existencewith a swarm of accessible digital resources just a mouse click away. Many teachersrecognise that much of this media use is entertainment-focused and are frustrated bythis use in school. They perceive these activities as destructive in regard to learningand are not sufficiently digitally competent to utilise the “edutainment” function inschool settings. At the same time, more and more teachers are asking themselves if itmight be relevant to some school activities after all. The basis of this notion is thatpupils are acquiring digital self-confidence through frequent use which has trans-contextual aspects (learning that takes place in and between multiple contexts, Laveand Wenger 2003), and an increasing number of teachers are recognising thissituation. “Digitised” situated learning may represent a new form of knowledgebuilding that may be relevant in a school context, both as a theoretical lens tounderstand the underpinnings of this new knowledge building and regarding the kindof digital competence teachers need in order to handle this broader epistemology. Atthe same time this brings many challenges and responsibilities to teachers, andtherefore it is clearly stated in the new curriculum that teachers are expected to beprofessional in their occupation and that:

The total competence of teachers and instructors consists of a number ofcomponents where professional competence, the ability to teach the subject, theability to structure the learning activities and knowledge of assessment andguidance are central elements. Teachers and instructors must also havemulticultural competence and knowledge on the different points of departureand learning strategies their pupils have.

(K-06) (KD 2006b: 5)

The professional competences of teachers also include digital competence and inthe new curriculum this has become so important within subjects that teachers musthave this digital competence to handle their teaching, guidance and assessment.

3 Teachers’ digital competence and situated learning

Despite the hitherto disappointing findings of the studies on ICT in Norwegianschools, it is worth considering in more depth whether a high level of technologypenetration, multimodality, digitally self-assured pupils, Web 2.0, technologicalconvergence and the blurring of the distinction between formal and informal learning

Educ Inf Technol (2008) 13:279–290 281

arenas can reinvigorate the underlying premises for digital competence set out in theK-06 curriculum (KD 2006a, b). Many people are asking how this is to be achievedin 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 understandingof teachers’ digital competence in K-06 (KD 2006a, b) and how is this to bereflected in teachers’ practice? There are no easy solutions here, but to move forwardwe should envisage a trans-contextual design based on a wider view of knowledgeand focus on both informal and formal learning arenas. Situated learning (Lave andWenger 1991) can be such a theoretical lens through which to show that informaland formal learning arenas are merging in today’s digitised schooling in Norway.From a critical point of view one might ask how situated theories from the late 1980sand publications from the early 1990s (before the digital revolution) can contributeat all to today’s understanding of digitised schooling. For example, the traditionaltechnology Lave and Wenger discuss in their book Situated Learning (1991) iscompletely different from the digital technology of today. And, how can thetraditional apprenticeship cultures and communities of practice studied in this bookcontribute to our understanding of pedagogy and teaching in a digitised school?Much of this critique is relevant and one should be careful not to overestimate thevalue of situated learning in today’s digitised schooling in Norway.

Nevertheless, in exploring different theoretical positions I have found that situatedlearning makes some contributions which I have found useful as analytical tools inmy own research. For example, in my previous studies I examined potential new keyelements of a broad understanding of situated learning in the overall running ofschools and in relation to the structures that teachers have to work with in their day-to-day business (Krumsvik 2006, 2008). I found that ICT only has an impact onteachers’ practice and willingness to achieve better digital competence if it is clearlyattached to the vital structures of school: assessment and exams, curriculum andsyllabus. How then are these structures reflected in the new national curriculum?Firstly, digital competence is the fifth core competence in the new nationalcurriculum and strongly anchored in every subject and subject theme throughoutcompulsory and secondary school (years 1–13). This makes the use of ICTmandatory in every subject and for the first time in history teachers are now sayingthat “there is no way back—ICT is here to stay”.

Secondly, the implementation of digital learning resources as part of the syllabushas given ICT a higher status as a learning resource and requires teachers to use themin their teaching and for exams (together with textbooks).

Thirdly, learning platforms have become very common in Norwegian schools andform a new “digital classroom” and important structure which require teachers tocommunicate and collaborate with pupils and through which formative assessmentof pupils must be conducted.

Fourthly, the majority of teachers now have their own laptop provided by theschool and together with good PC-density and infrastructure this is a catalyst forteachers’ ICT use.

Fifthly, the most important steering instrument for advancing the use of ICT byteachers is that Norway has now implemented ICT-based exams. This means thatpupils can use their own laptops in exams in both lower- and upper secondaryschools. This is a milestone in the Norwegian school system and it is clear that it has

282 Educ Inf Technol (2008) 13:279–290

increased the status of ICT considerably. However, the content of the assessmentforms for these ICT-based exams is still in its infancy and needs to be furtherdeveloped to mirror a broader view of knowledge-building occurring in pupils’everyday practice.

It is evident that the five structures examined so far carry one very importantassumption: that the teacher has the necessary digital competence. When weapproach the narrower content of digital competence and what this means forsituated learning in both physical and digital classrooms, the need for digitallycompetent teachers becomes even more apparent. I would therefore like to lookmore closely at the digital competence that teachers require to cope with this newpedagogic landscape in the digitised school.

Internationally a number of important contributions have been made towards thedefinition of digital literacy in recent years. Particularly Lanham (1995), Gilster(1997), Tyner (1998), Knobel (1999) Lankshear and Knobel (2006) and Buckingham(2003, 2006) have contributed towards the different concepts of digital literacy.Despite the importance of these international contributions in obtaining a conceptualunderstanding of the terms, it is clear that not all of them can be easily transferred tothe context of Norwegian schools and digital competence among Norwegianteachers under the new national curriculum. It is therefore important that attemptshave been made to create a Norwegian understanding of complex digital competencein the light of the circumstances in Norway. Erstad (2005, 2007), the ITU (2005) andKrumsvik (2007a, b; 2008) have been the most important contributors to thedevelopment of the term digital competence in the Norwegian setting.1 The ITUdefines digital competence as “skills, knowledge, creativity and attitudes required touse digital media for learning and comprehension in a knowledge society” (ITU2005:7). This is a broad definition which focuses on the general role of the e-citizenin today’s society. In an attempt to incorporate its implications for the individualteacher I have developed a definition aimed at describing the digital competence ofthe teacher: “Digital competence is the teacher’s proficiency in using ICT in aprofessional context with good pedagogic-didactic judgement and his or herawareness of its implications for learning strategies and the digital bildung ofpupils” (Krumsvik 2007a, b). This definition implies that teachers distinguishthemselves from other technology users by their focus on education and instruction—not entertainment, social communication and habits. Therefore, the double dimension isa part of teachers’ digital competence. This means that teachers will in some way oranother be role models for pupils’ subject use of ICT. To “teach as they preach” will bean important guiding star in digitised learning environments for pupils and presumes adigitally confident teacher. At the same time teachers must continually makepedagogic-didactic judgements which focus on how ICT can expand the learningpossibilities for pupils in subjects. The double dimension constitutes a digitalcompetence for teachers with a greater complexity than citizens’ everyday digitalliteracy which often only entails using ICT for personal purposes (internet banking, e-

1 Although the addition of the use of digital artefacts as the fifth core competence in the K-06 curriculum(KD 2006a, b) could be described as a historic event, disagreement remains over the use of terminology inthe new curriculum and over whether the curriculum fully captures the essence of digital competence(Erstad 2007).

Educ Inf Technol (2008) 13:279–290 283

mail, SMS, etc.). Therefore, it is necessary to establish a pedagogic framework anddidactic content related to teachers’ practices in school if one wishes to incorporatethis complex digital competence requirement in the digitised school. The problem withsuch frameworks, definitions and descriptions is that they lack functionality in practiceunless they are operationalised in a teaching context. I would therefore like to presentbelow a framework and model for teachers’ digital competence in greater depth anddiscuss how to prompt teachers to reflect on their own digital competence based on adigital competence model (Fig. 1) which takes onboard the various key elementscontained in this concept.

It is reasonable to claim that teachers’ complex digital competence presumes (at afundamental level) the intersection of both cognition, perception, metacognition,motor skills, learning strategies, self-efficacy and pedagogic-didactic aspects. Theholistic underpinning of such a perception of digital competence is much more thanmerely technical skills and underlines the need for the teacher to acquire suchcompetence. How can this be done? The model below shows in many ways thiscomplex competence journey that teachers have to deal with and below I describethe most important parts of this model.

The model puts the spotlight on four core components: basic ICT skills,didactic ICT competence, learning strategies, and digital bildung (which is theintersection between the first three components and is not shown in the figure as acomponent in its own right. This term will be discussed later in the article). Thefirst component, basic ICT skills [located in the lower left corner], indicates thatICT (like any other cultural tool) must be “transparent” to enable understanding of

Fig. 1 Digital competence model (Krumsvik 2007a, b)

284 Educ Inf Technol (2008) 13:279–290

how to use it (Lave and Wenger 1991). Mantovani’s thoughts can illustrate the keypoints here:

(…) as soon as a technology reaches the degree of maturity and reliability thatreally makes it usable, attention switches from the technological aspects ofartifacts—which were previously difficult to master and therefore of greatconcern for non-specialist users—to the activities, projects and goals of socialactors using artifacts for their own purposes.

(Mantovani 1996, p. 2).

Compared to the situation under the former curriculum (L-97) implemented in1997, it is obvious that in 2008 modern user-friendly technology and teachers’ use oftechnology outside school (e.g. internet banking, e-mail, home PC, etc.) are makingit easier for teachers to obtain basic technical skills now than 10 years ago. Teachersare therefore more and more “hands on” with the technology and have their ownlaptops in school, which increases the frequency of use considerably. Digitally self-confident pupils (as “guides”) can also be of benefit to the teacher in terms ofdemonstrating basic ICT skills.

The second core component, didactic ICT competence [located in the middle],underlines the dialectic relationship between “hands on” and “heads on” when usingICT in subjects. This component is closely linked to Lee Shulman’s (1987) conceptof pedagogic content knowledge and Mishra and Koehler’s technological pedagog-ical content knowledge (2006). What makes Shulman’s and Mishra and Koehler’sideas particularly relevant in relation to the Knowledge Promotion Reform (KD2006a, b) is their clear emphasis on pedagogical content knowledge, which requiresextended competence on the part of the teacher in terms of seamlessly incorporatingsubject, pedagogy and digital competence. In Norway, teachers have an arsenal oftransparent and tailored subject-related digital learning resources which areaccessible with a mouse click and which focus on subject content and not on ICTskills. This puts epistemological aspects in the “front seat” and technologicalartefacts in the “back seat” in this new curriculum. Lave and Wenger (1991) are alsoconcerned with how the artefacts carry with them epistemic implications in relationto the concepts of access and transparency: “In focusing on the epistemological roleof artefacts in the context of the social organisation of knowledge, this notion oftransparency constitutes, as it were, the cultural organisation of access” (Lave andWenger 1991, p. 102). In this way, they move away from the perception of theartefacts as simply tools and emphasise that the view of them has epistemologicalconsequences.

Therefore, didactic ICT competence implies a strong focus on the epistemologicalpart of ICT for pupils’ learning. Particularly important in this context is the “mentaldigital competence journey”, which begins with the teacher being rather unaware[digitally unaware and incompetent, on the vertical axis] of what he or she can orcannot do in relation to ICT. This is a great challenge for teachers and they havenever been taught (in their teacher education) how to achieve such didactic ICTcompetence. Teachers therefore need support and guidance from colleagues andfurther training in order to raise their awareness of what is required of them in orderto become more digitally literate. As the teacher starts to realise this [digitally aware

Educ Inf Technol (2008) 13:279–290 285

and incompetent, on the vertical axis], a long journey begins to make him or hermore self-aware and literate [digitally aware and competent, on the vertical axis].Krumsvik’s (2006, 2008) studies have shown that it is only when the teacher hasbecome aware of and competent in this “mental competence journey” that he or shesees the value of an extended view of knowledge to capture the screenagers’ digitalknowledge building. So saying, this stands in a dialectic relationship which has greatimportance for teachers’ awareness for teaching and learning in the digitised school.

The “practical competence journey” consists of adoption, adaptation, appropri-ation and innovation [located on the horizontal axis] and often becomes the explicitpart of the tacit knowledge, know-how, knowing and awareness acquired throughoutthe “mental competence journey”. In the first part of this process [adoption andadaptation, on the horizontal axis] teachers are mostly occupied with basic ICT skillsand obstacles to handling ICT artefacts. At this stage ICT artefacts are nottransparent for the teacher and the importance of overcoming this stage is obvious.Lave and Wenger emphasise the need for technological artefacts to becometransparent for the learner over time so that the learner can understand how theartefact should be used in the context in question: “The black box can be opened, itcan become a ‘glass box’” (Lave and Wenger 1991, p. 102). Even if this is a strugglefor many Norwegian teachers, in comparison to 10 years ago these technologicalthresholds are considerably lower for teachers. This situation is tied to more user-friendly technology and to teachers (in common with other citizens) using ICTfrequently outside the school context. Therefore the shoe pinches first of all in regardto the appropriation phase [3rd phase, on the horizontal axis] and the development ofdidactic ICT competence [in the centre of the model]. This particular part of didacticICT competence presumes that the teacher has basic ICT skills as a premise for“recognising” the value of “invisibility” of ICT in subjects: “Invisibility of mediatingtechnologies is necessary for allowing focus on, and thus supporting visibility of, thesubject matter. Conversely, visibility of the significance of the technology isnecessary for allowing its unproblematic—invisible—use” (Lave and Wenger 1991,p. 103). The pedagogic implications are that the teacher is permitted to use his or herprofessional competence and authority in a way that is not “interrupted” by technicalobstacles and by form over content. Some case studies showed that when teachersreach the point where ICT is transparent to them, they more easily recognise thepotential to acquire a broader view of knowledge (Krumsvik 2006, 2008). The samecase studies also showed that it was when teachers were willing to embrace changeand acquire didactic ICT competence that they managed to develop new local digitalsubject portals, which generated new approaches to assessment forms amongstpupils (Krumsvik 2006, 2008). The interesting part of such findings is that digitallycompetent teachers do not isolate the technology but use it as a gateway to changestructures (e.g. assessment forms) which need to go “hand in hand” with thealteration of the pedagogical terrain in school and out-of-school learning.

The third core component, learning strategies [top right in the model], assumes ameta-perspective on the first two [within the model], but places more emphasis onthe pedagogic implications that an extended view on knowledge will have onlearning strategies in a new pedagogic landscape. Lave and Wenger’s (1991) termsaccess and transparency and Wenger’s (1998, 2001) affordances could be relevantmarkers in the attempt to focus on this issue. Access means the teacher has to ensure

286 Educ Inf Technol (2008) 13:279–290

that pupils have access to the necessary hardware, software and communities ofpractice both in and outside school. Essential to such a narrow understanding ofsituated learning is the collective erection of scaffolding around the pupil’s learningprocess and the quality assurance of the pupil’s access to support in the variouslearning spaces. The symbiosis between the pupil’s access to digital learningresources/net-based support being only a click away at any time and his or herphysical access to support could inject new energy into the collective erection ofscaffolding around the pupil. Yrjö Engeström (1987) captures part of the essence ofsuch collective scaffolding by further developing Vygotsky’s metaphor about thezone of proximal development. Engeström takes a collective view of this zone ofproximal development, and Krumsvik’s (2006) study showed that it is often“communities” and the collective scaffolding that provide energy for the zone ofproximal development and new learning strategies among screenagers today. Themultimodal format, digital teaching materials and Web 2.0 do indeed invite moreflexible learning strategies than the L-97 curriculum (KUF 1996) did when it wasintroduced 10 years ago. This could provide teachers with new approaches inrelation to knowledge and learning, but this presumes that systematic planning,meetings with pupils, differentiation models and school–home cooperation allcontribute towards capturing the pupils’ aptitudes and needs within the framework ofa community of practice.

Transparency assumes that the combination of pupils’ digital self-confidence andthe transparency of the multimodal format of current technology allows teachers tofind new ways to differentiate. An array of multimodal learning resources—forexample, dictionaries, internet encyclopaedia, spellchecking programmes, e-mail andchat, all only a click away—act as “intellectual prostheses” for the pupils, and adigitally literate teacher can meet the digitally native pupils on their “home ground”.In relation to using transparent technology as an entry point to knowledge building,Lave and Wenger state: “The artifacts employed in ongoing practice, the technologyof practice, provide a good arena in which to discuss the problem of access tounderstanding” (Lave and Wenger 1991, p. 101). They also write that “understand-ing the technology of practice is more than learning to use tools; it is a way toconnect with the history of the practice and to participate more directly in its culturallife” (Lave and Wenger 1991, p. 101). For the first time in history it is possible tovalue, utilise and challenge pupils’ digital competence as entry points to subjectmatter in Norwegian schools. This implies a large pedagogical potential, but thispotential cannot be released without a digitally competent teacher who knows howto utilise it in educational settings.

Affordances (Wenger 1998, 2001) can be linked to the previous concepts butplace more emphasis on the need for the subject content and competence aims to bemade clear to the pupil and the new “digital” affordances to reach them. K-06 (KD2006a, b) puts emphasis on the competence objectives that pupils are expected toreach, but it is clear that in a digitised school without digitally competent teachersform is often given more weight than content. Therefore, to avoid this pupils need to“learn to use” in order to “use to learn” in relation to the subject use of ICT. Thismight be a paradox because of pupils’ digital confidence, but I believe that pupils arenot able and mature enough to handle this alone in today’s digitised schools. Again aneed is identified for digitally competent teachers who maintain a clear subject focus

Educ Inf Technol (2008) 13:279–290 287

in such learning environments and who realise that these competence objectives canbe reached by means of very different learning strategies among pupils because ofthe affordances that ICT and their digital confidence confer. The symbiosis betweenthe increased status of ICT in the curriculum, teachers’ digital competence, a swarmof digital learning resources and pupils’ digital confidence gives quite new “digital”affordances for taking into account different aptitudes, needs and learning strategieswithin K-06 (KD 2006a, b).

The fourth core component, digital bildung (not shown in the model) stresses thatthe teacher should acquire a meta-perspective on the first three components andfocuses on how the bildung aspect is influenced by the digital revolution and thedigitised school. Digital bildung [digital danning in Norwegian] focuses on howpupils’ participation, multi-membership of different communities and identitydevelopment in the digital era are influenced by the digitisation of society. Thisimplies ethical and moral reflections on technology’s role in human development. Inschool settings it implies the need for both teachers and pupils to developcompetence in the critical use of sources as well as an ethical awareness of thesocial implications of being in the digitised society and school.

As a summary of this framework for the digital competence model, one can thussee how important it is that pedagogy, subject and digital competence “mergetogether” in order that the teacher can exploit new trends in the digitised school oftoday. At the same time this shows the complexity of digital competence that eachteacher has to deal with in our digitised school and it goes without saying thatteachers need time to achieve such digital competence.

4 Implications

This theoretical article has outlined a framework for teachers’ complex digitalcompetence as an attempt to capture an increasingly digital reality in today’sNorwegian schools, in which new digital trends influence the underlying premisesfor schools, pedagogy and subjects. The main question posed by the article has been:can situated learning constitute a new pathway for how we view teachers’ complexdigital competence in the Knowledge Promotion (K-06)? The article has highlightedwhether an extended view of knowledge (situated learning) can provide newapproaches to handling digital competence in the Knowledge Promotion Reform(KD 2006a) in Norway, and if so, how. It has also pointed out some of the manypossibilities, challenges and dilemmas that have arisen in the digital world of youngpeople, some of which have been identified by both policy makers, researchers,teachers and parents.

An implication this article has attempted to communicate is that in today’steaching in schools more consideration should be shown for the digital self-confidence and digital life world of “screenagers” outside school. The five vitalstructures for ICT impact on teachers’ practice discussed in the article combinedwith extensive method-related and local freedoms granted in the K-06 curriculum(KD 2006a, b) give a very good starting point for this in Norwegian schools today.But this presumes that teachers receive the in-service training and support needed toachieve the required digital competence. Firstly, school owners and school

288 Educ Inf Technol (2008) 13:279–290

management must, as Krumsvik’s (2006) study shows, ensure that there are essentialin-service resources to support teachers financially in their striving to achieve betterdigital competence. Secondly, school management and teachers must attempt tocultivate a community of practice perspective amongst teaching staff where “sharingand caring” in the process of acquiring necessary digital competence is afundamental pillar. Thirdly, teachers must take responsibility for reflection on theirICT pedagogy and “digital didactic”, and the digital competence model can be auseful trigger in this process. All this is of course both time-consuming and difficult,and requires systematic local curriculum planning. But the five “steering instru-ments” in the new national curriculum demonstrate quite clearly that there is anurgent need to tackle this now. This also has implications for how we view andassess knowledge in K-06. Giving support and space for teachers to acquire thenecessary digital competence is a prerequisite for carrying out this form ofpedagogic innovation in local curriculum planning in the digitised school.

References

Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Cambridge:Polity Press.

Buckingham, D. (2006). Defining digital literacy. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 4(1), 263–276.Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Erstad, O. (2005). Digital kompetanse [Digital Literacy; in Norwegian] Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Erstad, O. (2007). Den femte grunnleggende ferdighet: Noen grunnlagsproblemer. Norsk Pedagogisk

Tidsskrift, 1, 43–55 The fifth basic competence. Some foundational problems; in Norwegian.Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer.ITU (The Network for IT Research and Competence in Education) (2005). Digital skole hver dag [Digital

school every day; in Norwegian]. Oslo: ITU. Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://www.itu.no/filearchive/Digital_skole_hver_dag.pdf.

KD (Ministry of Education and Research) (2006a). Læreplan for den 13-årige grunnopplæringa (K-06)[The national curriculum for primary and secondary education; in Norwegian]. Oslo: GovernmentAdministration Services.

KD (Ministry of Education and Research) (2006b). Prinsipper for opplæringen [The quality framework; inEnglish and Norwegian]. Oslo: Government Administration Services.

Knobel, M. (1999). Everyday literacies. New York: Peter Lang.Krumsvik, R. (2006). ICT-initiated school development in lower secondary school. Ph.D. thesis. The

University of Bergen. Bergen: Allkopi.Krumsvik, R. (2007a). Ein modell for digital kompetanse for lærarar [A model of digital competence for

teachers] Unpublished paper. Bergen: UoB.Krumsvik, R. (Ed.). (2007b), Skulen og den digitale læringsrevolusjon [The school and the digital learning

revolution; in Norwegian]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Krumsvik, R. (2008). The emerging digital literacy among teachers in Norway (The story of one digital

literate teacher). In R. Kobayashi (Ed.), New educational technology (pp. 105–125). New York: NovaScience.

KUF (Ministry of Education and Research). (1996). Læreplanverket for den 10-årige grunnskolen [Thenational curriculum for primary and lower secondary school; in Norwegian] Oslo: NasjonaltLæremiddelsenter.

Lanham, R. (1995). Digital literacy. Scientific American, 273(3), 160–161.Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). Digital literacy and digital literacies. Nordic Journal of Digital

Literacy, 1(1), 12–24.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2003). Situeret læring. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Mantovani, G. (1996). New communication environments. From everyday to virtual. London: Taylor &

Francis, Ltd.

Educ Inf Technol (2008) 13:279–290 289

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a new framework forteacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.

Paris. (2008) Retrieved 20.04.08 from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/1/38358359.pdf.Pedro, F. (2006). The new millennium learners: challenging our Views on ICT and Learning. OECD-

CERI.Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational

Review, 57, 1–22.Tyner, K. (1998). Literacy in a digital world: Teaching and learning in the age of information. New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge

University Press.Wenger, E. (2001). Supporting communities of practise. A survey of community oriented technologies.

How to make sense of this emerging market, understand the potential of technology and set up acommunity platform. USA. Retrieved 20.04.2003 from: http://www.ewenger.com/tech/.

290 Educ Inf Technol (2008) 13:279–290