13
This article was downloaded by: [University Library Technische Universität München] On: 11 November 2014, At: 22:06 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20 Teacher educators' digital competence Rune Johan Krumsvik a a University of Bergen Published online: 03 Oct 2012. To cite this article: Rune Johan Krumsvik (2014) Teacher educators' digital competence, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58:3, 269-280, DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2012.726273 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.726273 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Teacher educators' digital competence

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Teacher educators' digital competence

This article was downloaded by: [University Library Technische Universität München]On: 11 November 2014, At: 22:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Scandinavian Journal of EducationalResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20

Teacher educators' digital competenceRune Johan Krumsvika

a University of BergenPublished online: 03 Oct 2012.

To cite this article: Rune Johan Krumsvik (2014) Teacher educators' digital competence,Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58:3, 269-280, DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2012.726273

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.726273

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Teacher educators' digital competence

Teacher educators’ digital competence

Rune Johan KrumsvikUniversity of Bergen

This position paper focuses on how the new national curriculum for school and the newgeneral plan for teacher education in Norway change the underlying premises for teachingand learning in today’s teacher education. This has become particularly pressing as aresult of the new educational reform ‘Knowledge Promotion’ in schools, wherebydigital competence is now the fifth basic competence in all subjects at all levels, aswell as in the new teacher education curriculum in Norway. Against this background,the aim of this position paper is to elaborate on how a digital competence model canfunction on a micro level to fulfil the intentions from the national and institutionalpolicy level. The research question considered by this paper is whether (and if so,how) a digital competence model for TEs can function as a model on an individual level.

Keywords: teacher educator, digital competence, ICT, policy documents

It is a common assumption in 2012 that teacher education all over the world has to reflectwhat is going on in the field of practice. Therefore, information and communication technol-ogy (ICT) has to be clearly highlighted in the teacher training curriculum to bridge some ofthe gaps between actual school settings and teacher education. On the other hand, is such anassumption based on solid research findings or on politicians’ eagerness for innovations inour teacher education? And how do such actions influence the epistemological and ontologi-cal cornerstones in teacher education? Is this another example of “technology hype” or is itnecessary in our digitized society? These questions are worth considering as an entry point tothis position paper, because we are still in the infancy of this digitization of teacher education,and in many ways this new pedagogical terrain generates more questions than answers. Thisis partly because the area is relatively new in teacher education and we have too little longi-tudinal research to rely on; therefore, we need more knowledge about this area to make solidresearch-based recommendations. With this reservation in mind, I will argue for some pre-liminary recommendations in this position paper based on the emergent tendencies onecan observe in the Norwegian teacher education of today.

In Norway, the White Paper No. 11(MOK, 2008), about teacher education, and the newGeneral Plan for Teacher Education (Ministry of Knowledge [MOK], 2010) emphasize fivebasic competencies that teacher educators (TEs) and student teachers are required to focus onin their teacher education. As a result of this new teacher educational reform, digital compe-tence has become the fifth basic competence in all subjects at all levels in school (stages 1–13,

© 2012 Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

Rune Johan Krumsvik, Department of Education, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen.This article was supported by a grant from the Norwegian Research Council.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rune Johan Krumsvik, Department

of Education, The Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Christiesgate 13, 5020 Bergen,Norway. E-mail: [email protected].

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 2014Vol. 58, No. 3, 269–280, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.726273

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

22:

06 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 3: Teacher educators' digital competence

6–18-year-olds) (MOK 2006). These new demands in teacher education are based on experi-ences of previous attempts to implement ICT in teacher education. These attempts show thatICT has not been incorporated properly in teacher education (Nordisk Institutt for studier avinnovasjon, forskning og utdanning [NIFU-Step], 2008; Tømte, Hovdehaugen, & Solum2009; Norwegian University Monitor, 2010; Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment [OECD] 2010) or in previous national curricular regulations for teacher edu-cation in Norway (UFD, 2003, 2004). One of the main recommendations from the evaluationof the ICT efforts in teacher education is attached to digital competence: “It is RambøllManagement’s recommendation that each teacher education institution carry out an analysisof teacher educators’ ICT competence” (UFD, 2004, p. 99).

Despite these recommendations made eight years ago, we still are in a situation whereteacher educators lack sufficient digital competence (NIFU-Step, 2008; Norwegian Univer-sity Monitor, 2010; Krumsvik, Westrheim, Sunde & Langørgen, 2012). There is a dangerof a gap being created between teacher training and the practices that student teachersencounter when graduated, because Norwegian schools have a good technology density(the ratio of computers to pupils is 1:1 in upper-secondary school [Utdanningsdirektoratet,2011] and 1:2.92 in primary and lower-secondary school [GSI, 2011]), and ICT has beenobligatory in all subjects since 2006. The new General Plan for Teacher Education (MOK,2010), however, indicates that now is a time of upheaval, and it has highlighted digital com-petence as one of the five core competencies (as it is in schools). According to the studiesoutlined above, this is an important step, but it appears that the digital competence of TEshas to become a vital part of teacher education and needs to be discussed and elaboratedon in greater depth than before (likewise for teachers in school). Against this background,the aim of this position paper is to elaborate on how a digital competence model can functionon a micro level to fulfil the intentions from the national and institutional policy level. Theresearch question considered by this paper is whether (and if so, how) a digital competencemodel for TEs can function as a model on an individual level.

ICT in Teacher Education

From several policy documents (e.g. OECD, 2010), it is evident that the pedagogical useof ICT in teacher education today depends on one very important assumption: that the TE hasthe necessary digital competence. One of the findings of the PISA report (OECD, 2010) high-lighted teacher competency:

In a number of respects, those who have the responsibility to teach the New MillenniumLearners have to be able to guide them in their educational journey through digital media.Teacher training, both initial and in-service, is crucial for the dissemination of this keymessage as well as to equip teachers with the required competences. (p. 7)

However, the same report found that teacher education institutions in various countries werenot handling this issue properly and that there was an urgent need to improve TEs’ digitalcompetence. At the same time, international research organizations within teacher educationare not paying much attention to the area of ICT:

The 22-page subject index of the report of the AERA Panel on Research and TeacherEducation…has no entries referring to information and communication technologies

270 KRUMSVIK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

22:

06 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 4: Teacher educators' digital competence

(ICTs) and only two referring to computers.…Several chapters remark that teachersshould develop ICT skills, but what this actually means is not discussed to any substantialdegree. (Kirschner, Wubbels, & Brekelmans, 2008, p. 435)

This lack of attention being paid to ICT in teacher education also has side-effects with regardto the kind of research that is carried out:

[T]he mainstream teacher education research does not pay much attention to ICT whileresearchers studying ICT pay little attention to research conducted on teacher education.(Kirschner et al., 2008, p. 435)

In order to address these challenges, Kirschner et al. (2008) have suggested that

[T]eacher education programs should stimulate the pedagogical use of ICT to improveexisting teaching practice and contribute to the development of new, innovative teachingpractices. Pedagogical use of ICT refers to how teachers use ICT to facilitate studentlearning. (p. 435)

However, Twidle, Sorensen, Childs, Godwin, and Dussart (2006) revealed that student tea-chers were rather unprepared to use ICT in pedagogical practice. Many different attemptshave been made to achieve better pedagogical use of ICT in teacher education over theyears, to varying effect. Several authors, such as Kay (2006), have revealed that workshopsand courses that are intended to improve the pedagogical use of ICT in teacher education donot have the desired effect. They found that it was important for student teachers to have rolemodels during their internships so that they could experience how ICT could be used in apedagogical way in classrooms. In regards to this issue, Kirschner and Davis (2003) foundthat it is important for teacher education to focus on digital competence in order to avoidnew teachers having to spend a great deal of time and energy enhancing their digital compe-tence when starting out as teachers in schools. However, some studies have underlined theproblem of TEs’ lack of digital competence, which means that they cannot act as competentmentors during internships (Judge & O’Bannon, 2008). A common finding in several studieshas been the relationship between TEs’/mentors’ digital competence and their ability to useICT both personally and in the classroom (Mutton, Mills, & McNicholl, 2006). In addition tothe presence of role models during teacher education, student teachers also ask for rolemodels in schools during their practicum (Haydn & Barton, 2007).

In order to make improvements in the area of digital competence in teacher education,Kirschner et al. (2008) have suggested a new initiative:

In the case of teacher learning for pedagogical use of ICT this would include getting thenet-generation of student teachers to contribute as digital natives from their knowledgebase on the use of ICT (and thus provide information to established teachers), whileestablished teachers in the community can contribute their vast knowledge of teachingand learning praxis. (p. 442)

This is, of course, a challenge, both internationally and nationally. With regard to the situ-ation in Norwegian teacher education, there is reason to claim that ICT is partly implemented

TEACHER EDUCATORS’ DIGITAL COMPETENCE 271

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

22:

06 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 5: Teacher educators' digital competence

through policies at a national level and an institutional level, but not at the individual level ofTEs (Egeberg et al., 2012). But how can this be realized?

In order to implement more pedagogic and embedded use of ICT both policies and prac-tices have to move beyond basic ICT skills and use of ICT as a tool, to find ways of build-ing the interpretive and creative potential of ICT into teacher training. (Tømte et al., 2009,p. 25)

In order to achieve this, I argue that there is a need to develop both theoretical foundationsand models for a more in-depth understanding of digital competence in teacher education,both internationally and in the Norwegian context. Internationally, a number of importantcontributions have been made to the definition of digital literacy in recent years. Buckingham(2003, 2006), Gilster (1997), Knobel (1999), Lanham (1995), Lankshear and Knobel (2003),and Tyner (1998), in particular, have made contributions to the concepts of computer literacy,media literacy, and digital literacy. Other important contributions have focused more specifi-cally on teachers’ ICT competence. Christensen and Knezek’s (2008) Will, Skill, Tool(WST) model is one such promising attempt, according to which the teacher’s will (attitude),skill level (technology competency), and access to technology tools are vital elements whenintegrating ICT into teaching. One assumption that is shared by the different positions dealingwith digital literacy and ICT competence is that teachers’ (and TEs’) digital competence ismore complex than digital literacy in other occupations and among average citizens(Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991; Hooper & Rieber, 1995; Krumsvik et al., 2012).This requires an awareness of this complexity, and the way in which teachers carry outand experience the pedagogical use of ICT will very often depend on their digital compe-tence. However, recent studies indicate that ICT in teacher education is often perceivedonly as a tool that can be handled with elementary ICT skills (Tømte et al., 2009). Both inteacher education and in school there seems to be a confusion and discrepancy betweenthe concepts basic ICT skills (which means decisive for learning and development andattached to the national curricula in TE and school) and elementary ICT skills (whichmeans a simple, first step of ICT skills). Ottesen and Møller (2010) find that this mismatchis common among teachers in school—especially concerning ICT skills. There seems to besome of the same confusion in teacher education (Egeberg et al., 2012) and it is important toclarify this both for TEs and student teachers. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a peda-gogical framework for TEs’ digital competence and student teacher practices in teacher edu-cation as well as the requirements that they will have to meet in digitized schools as newteachers. The problem with such frameworks is that they lack functionality in the area ofteacher education unless they are operationalized in the context of teacher education. InNorway, for example, it is therefore necessary that TEs’ digital competence is linked tothe demands of the new General Plan for Teacher Education (MOK, 2010) as well as the cur-riculum in school, and therefore the different elements of digital competence for TEs shouldtake on board both pre-service educational aspects and in-service aspects. At the same time, itis almost impossible to give detailed “recipes” about what digital competence means in thesepractices, because this varies in different educational contexts. Therefore, there is a need todevelop underpinnings of digital competence that are linked to policy documents of teachereducation and school, but at the same time have their key contribution on an abstract level.Against this backdrop, I will, later in this paper, present a model for digital competence in

272 KRUMSVIK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

22:

06 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 6: Teacher educators' digital competence

teacher education that may act as a step towards meeting these demands of establishing apossible underpinning of digital competence for TEs on an individual (micro) level.

Digital Competence in Norwegian Teacher Education

Teacher education today needs to consider the pedagogical use of ICT and digital com-petence in order to prepare student teachers for practice, but also in order to develop a nar-rower definition of digital competence on an individual level (micro level) and what thismeans for student teachers’ learning during their teacher education. Despite the importanceof international contributions in providing a conceptual understanding of digital literacy anddigital competence, it is clear that not all of these contributions can be easily transferred to thecontext of Norwegian teacher education. For example, the concepts of digital literacy anddigital competence have both similarities and differences, but digital literacy is more relevantto Norwegian conditions and the Scandinavian perception of the English term competence.As a consequence of this (and other policy conditions), Norwegian TEs under the newnational curriculum for schools and the new General Plan for Teacher Education (MOK,2010) are exposed to a stronger educational top-down implementation of ICT in pedagogyand other subjects than other countries. This means, for example, that ICT-based examshave been permanently implemented in secondary schools, and this structural attachmentof ICT to both formative and summative forms of assessment has made it impossible for tea-chers in schools to avoid the pedagogical use of ICT. Since 2006, this situation has had astrong spill-over effect on teacher education, which is called upon to reflect the situationregarding ICT in schools for student teachers. Therefore, the new General Plan forTeacher Education has promoted digital competence to being the fifth basic competence inall subjects and a learning outcome for student teachers. It is therefore important that attemptsare made to create a Norwegian understanding of digital competence in light of the pedago-gical and didactical circumstances in Norway. This, in turn, might constitute a valuable con-tribution internationally as well.

It is quite clear when we are dealing with digital competence (or digital literacy) that thisconcept is frequently discussed and debated on a macro level for citizens in society, bothnationally and internationally. However, with the clear demands in the curricula concerningICT, it seems as if macro definitions of digital competence for citizens have a limited contri-bution to make in educational contexts for TEs. And in the new General Plan for TeacherEducation (2010) there is no definition of TE’s digital competence at all, despite the increasedstatus of digital competence as the fifth basic competence. Therefore, there is an urgent needin the Norwegian context to develop more specific definitions, models, and theoretical foun-dations for digital competence on an individual level (micro level) within teacher education.Broadly, one can make a distinction between (1) ordinary citizens’ digital competence in theireveryday lives (Internet banking, SMS, social media), (2) pupils’ digital competence inschools (use of ICT in subjects), (3) teachers’ digital competence in school (pedagogicaluse of ICT), (4) TEs’ digital competence (pedagogical use of ICT), and (5) student teachers’digital competence (the use of ICT in subjects and pedagogical use of ICT). This paper dealswith TEs’ digital competence. In an attempt to bridge the gap between the policy level (macrolevel), the institutional level (meso level), and the TE’s individual level (micro level), I willfocus on the micro level in this paper. To incorporate the implications this will have for indi-vidual TEs’ digital competence, I suggest a definition that describes the digital competence ofTEs who are involved in teacher education: “Digital competence is the individual TE’s

TEACHER EDUCATORS’ DIGITAL COMPETENCE 273

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

22:

06 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 7: Teacher educators' digital competence

proficiency in using ICT in teacher education with good pedagogical judgement and his/herawareness of its implications for learning strategies and the digital Bildung of studentteachers” (Krumsvik, 2012, p. 466). This definition is attached to a visual model (Figure1) of TEs’ digital competence. I will examine this model in more detail later, but first Iwill elaborate the theoretical underpinnings of the model in the section below.

As mentioned above, today there is a need to link macro, meso, and micro levels withinteacher educators’ digital competence. Hence, I will reduce the complexity in this varied areaby focusing on what are considered the most important parameters to understand digital com-petence for TEs. My digital competence model is based on my own and others’ research andtheories and is an attempt to categorize the most important parameters within digital compe-tence for TEs. Categorizing happens with the identification of typical traits of phenomena,and two conditions are considered the basis for making categories. These are commontraits in objects or phenomena and differences to objects or phenomena from contrastingfigures (Rosch, 1978). The consequence is that we develop prototypes as a kind of compro-mise, and this digital competence model is an attempt at this. The prototypes are made expli-cit and hence given a label. The categories “high” and “low” in the model belong to whatRosch (1978) calls the “superordinate level,” the superior level of the category. At the“basic level” we find the prototypes we perceive as “high” or “low,” often personified in a“competent teacher” or “incompetent teacher,” while the more explicit distinctive marks ofhigh and low competence belong to the “subordinate level” of the category. In the modelwe can see that “high” is synonymous with high self-awareness and high practical proficiency(localised in the two axes) and the synthesis of the four levels in the centre of the model(digital Bildung), that in turn are described as the digitally competent teacher. These thusbecome Rosch’s (1978) “subordinate level,”while the popular descriptions at the subordinate

Figure 1. Teacher educators’ digital competence (Krumsvik, 2007; Krumsvik, 2012, Krumsviket al., 2012).

274 KRUMSVIK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

22:

06 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 8: Teacher educators' digital competence

level are built based on experiences with digitally competent teachers as common traits, anddifferences from others are identified.

According to Hacking (1999), categories are, as in this model, socially constructed, butthese kinds of categories also affect practice. The establishment of “low digital competence”as a category in which researcher-identified traits belong can affect how teachers in this cat-egory are treated, for example given more resources for further in-service education in digitalcompetence. The categories in this model have been developed as descriptions of a phenom-enon from my own and others’ research of practice, but the category also has implications forteachers’ actions, which in turn can challenge the category and inspire adjusted or new cat-egories (Hacking, 1999). As Hacking underlines, categorization and use of categories areuseful both in terms of cognition and communication, in institutions, and for setting thebasis for development of theory. This digital competence model is therefore inspired by asemantic conception of theories (Giere, 1979; Suppe, 1977, 1989). This means that theoriesare not intended to correspond with reality directly. However, semantic conceptions of the-ories still have their origin in practice and can be used to understand practice, for which thismodel is intended. It can be used as a lens to analyze TEs’ digital competence. As a conse-quence of this, the objective of the theoretical underpinning for this digital competence modelis not to describe a phenomenon of digital competence with all its complexity. Rather, it wasdeveloped to characterize digital competence phenomena for teacher educators by means ofselected parameters. This kind of digital competence model therefore presents abstractions ofthe parameters that are seen as most relevant to understand a phenomenon of digital compe-tence in teacher education. A consequence of selection is that parameters descriptive of thephenomenon are not represented in the theory (Kvernbekk, 2005). In the development of thiskind of model based on a semantic theory perspective, I am forced to select out substantiallymore than I select in. The parameters in the model are therefore the building blocks of theunderlying theory perspective.

Though this kind of semantic theory perspective that underpins this digital competencemodel is inspired by practice, it still describes more abstract systems (Kvernbekk, 2005).Suppe (1977, 1989) points to the contra-factual relationship between theory and practice,which means that theory does not characterize actual phenomena, but describes what thephenomenon would have been if the selected categories were the only ones with influence.The solution, according to Kvernbekk (2005), is to be aware of what parameter or categoryis selected and what consequences this has for the validity and the underlying theoryperspective.

With these premises as a backdrop, I will in the following part describe the model indepth. Particularly important in this model is the intersection between a “mental digital com-petence journey” (self-awareness, vertical axis) and a “practical competence journey” (pro-ficiency, horizontal axis). The theoretical foundations of this model were inspired byApple Computer of Tomorrow (Dwyer et al., 1991), distributed cognition (Hutchins,1995) and situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The essence of the model is that cog-nitive processes are continuously offloaded to digital artefacts when we are using computers,and that this kind of learning is situated everywhere in today’s digitized society. In this way,the computer becomes an “intellectual prosthesis” for each and every one of us because wehave access to technology anywhere, at any time.

This “competence journey” begins with the TE being relatively unaware (adoption) ofwhat he or she can or cannot do in relation to ICT, but gradually becoming more awareand reaching the different stages of adaptation, appropriation, and innovation over time

TEACHER EDUCATORS’ DIGITAL COMPETENCE 275

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

22:

06 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 9: Teacher educators' digital competence

(some TEs can, of course, be placed directly into the model at the appropriation stage, forexample, because they already are quite digital competent). This takes time for novices(several years) and is a great challenge for TEs—the majority have never been taught (intheir own teacher education) how to achieve such digital competence, and it has not beena natural part of their professional development. In addition, even if psychological obstaclessuch as technophobia and scepticism have decreased among TEs the last decade, we still findsome tendencies to this documented through the NIFU-Step (2008) study. However, thisseems to be gradually fading away as a barrier in teacher education, as in school.

This “mental” part of the model has to go hand-in-hand with the “practical competencejourney” (proficiency, horizontal axis), which consists of adoption, adaptation, appropria-tion and innovation. This often becomes the explicit part of the tacit knowledge, know-how, and awareness that are acquired throughout the “mental competence journey.” In thefirst part of this process (adoption and, to an extent, adaptation, on the horizontal axis), theTEs are mostly occupied with basic ICT skills and overcoming the obstacles that have pre-viously prevented them from handling ICT artefacts. At this stage, ICT artefacts are notimmediately comprehensible to the TE, and the importance of overcoming this stage isobvious. Even if this stage presents a struggle for many TEs, in comparison with 10 yearsago, these technological thresholds are considerably lower. This is a result of more user-friendly technology, decreased technophobia, and the more frequent use by TEs (like othercitizens) of ICT outside of teacher education institutions in their spare time.

Therefore, the first significant obstacle occurs during the appropriation phase (third phase,horizontal axis). This particular phase presumes that the TE has solid basic ICT skills as apremise for “recognizing” the value of the “invisibility” of ICT in subjects:

Invisibility of mediating technologies is necessary for allowing focus on, and thus sup-porting visibility of, the subject matter. Conversely, visibility of the significance of thetechnology is necessary for allowing its unproblematic – invisible – use. (Lave &Wenger, 1991, p. 103)

This can be related to Kirschner, Martens, and Strijbos’ (2004) concept of real affordance,which means that TEs are able to recognize and utilize the technology’s potential in anoptimal way in teaching, while perceived affordances is often related to TEs’ inability to recog-nize and utilize the technology’s potential in teaching. The pedagogic implications of this arethat the TE has reached the stage of recognizing the real affordances and is permitted to use hisor her professional competence and authority in a way that is not interrupted by technicalobstacles or form over content. Some case studies have shown that when teachers in schoolreach the point where ICT is clearly understandable to them, they more easily recognize thepotential to acquire a broader view of knowledge (Krumsvik, 2006a, 2006b, 2008a, 2008b).There is reason to claim that TEs will have the same experience when they reach this phase.

Until now, I have focused on the two axes of the model—the vertical axis, which is tied toTEs’ self-awareness, and the horizontal axis, which relates to TEs’ proficiency. If we nowfocus on the centre of the model, we can see that TEs distinguish themselves from other tech-nology users by their focus on the pedagogical use of ICT for education and instruction ratherthan entertainment, social communication, etc. In relation to TEs’ qualifications, didactic ICTcompetence (which is related to the pedagogical use of ICT, in the middle of the model)stands in the centre. The crux of this is that the TEs have to possess a double dimensionas an important part of this didactic ICT competence in teacher education. This means that

276 KRUMSVIK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

22:

06 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 10: Teacher educators' digital competence

TEs will, in one way or another, be role models for the student teachers with regard to thedidactic and pedagogical use of ICT. To “teach as they preach” will be an importantguiding star for the student teachers when they go into their practicum (and when theybecome new teachers). At the same time, the TEs must continually make didactic judgmentsthat focus on how ICT can expand the learning possibilities for student teachers on campusduring their teacher education. This double dimension involves didactic ICT competence,which is similar to other occupations, but at the same time it distinguishes itself becauseTEs are preparing student teachers for both a certification in academia (summative assess-ment, exams) and a future practice in the field.

The next part of TEs’ digital competence is the focus on the digital learning strategies thatare required for their own professional development as TEs, as well as for being able to guidethe student teachers towards achieving new learning strategies through the use of ICT. Thepoint here is that the TE has the necessary digital competence to guide and to be a mentorfor the student teachers during their teacher education on campus and also to link this experi-ence to their practicum and to their mentors in the schools. This implies that the TEs mustutilize the student teachers’ basic digital skills as a starting point, but must also maintain astrong focus on the metacognitive aspect, which enables student teachers to delve deeperinto the pedagogical use of ICT as an entry point for developing new learning strategies.

The final part of TEs’ digital competence is linked to ethical considerations with regard tothe use of ICT and digital Bildung. For today’s student teachers in Norway (the majority arebetween 19 and 22 years old), the network society, the media, and technology are importantbuilding blocks in their Bildung journey, as they are digital inhabitants. This, of course, hasan impact on how teacher education should meet and utilize this new reality positively, evenif many TEs are digital immigrants and have witnessed the difficulties of weaving technologyconstructively into their teaching. In many ways, the context of teacher education and studentteachers has changed radically over the last decade, but at the same time, we can see that TEsall over the world are fumbling in their response to this development, remaining static andprotected against technology, even if the student teachers are surrounded by technology intheir leisure time. Teacher education should therefore utilize this situation positively inregard to the pedagogical use of ICT, but, at the same time, should establish debates andreflections on the ethical pitfalls of the use of technology. Such ethical considerations, pit-falls, and dilemmas include, for example, how TEs’ and teacher students’ digital lifestylesaffect how they communicate with each other as well as with pupils in practicum (face-to-face versus virtual communication), how we can use social media positively in teacher edu-cation and at the same time be aware of the ethical pitfalls among pupils (e.g. digital bullying,etc.), and how ethical dilemmas attached to assessment (e.g. “cut and paste”) can be tackledbefore they become a problem for certain pupils. In this way, student teachers can becomemore aware of the ethical dilemmas that they experience during teacher education, butalso of how to deal with them when entering the field of practice as new teachers.

To conclude, the model (Figure 1) is grounded on a semantic conception of theories thatimply that it cannot correspond directly with the reality (practice), but it is inspired by prac-tice and aims to understand digital competence in teacher education on an abstract level.

Implications

The aim of this position paper has been to elaborate on how a digital competence modelcan be implemented on a micro level to fulfil the intentions at the national and institutional

TEACHER EDUCATORS’ DIGITAL COMPETENCE 277

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

22:

06 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 11: Teacher educators' digital competence

policy level. The research question considered by this paper is whether (and if so, how) adigital competence model for TEs can function as a model on an individual level.

The background for this research focus has been the situation in Norwegian teacher edu-cation that shows that ICT is implemented partly through policies at a national level and aninstitutional level but not at the individual level of TEs. Some will say that the reason for thisis partly based on politicians’ eagerness for innovations in teacher education (it goes tooquickly for the employees), while others will claim that there are research-based reasonsfor the need for ICT implementation in teacher education. This position paper has attemptedto discuss and elaborate why and how digital competence of TEs on an individual level(micro level) has been a “missing link” within teacher education in Norway, and thus thismodel inspired by a semantic conception of theories can bridge some of the gap betweenthese three levels (macro, meso, and micro level). This requires both a practical and theoreti-cal awareness of professional development among TEs, and how the pedagogical use of ICTwill be implemented among TEs depends on their own high or low digital competence. Thedigital competence model presented here can therefore be used to understand TEs’ digitalcompetence on an abstract level. At the same time, it is necessary to establish a frameworkfor professional development for TEs within teacher education, in which this model of digitalcompetence can be incorporated systematically on an individual basis. The challenge withsuch frameworks and digital competence models is that they lack functionality in practiceunless they are operationalized and contextualized for both TEs and student teachers. It istherefore necessary that TEs’ digital competence is clearly linked to the TEs’ needs andthe student teachers’ needs during their teacher education (on campus), in the field duringtheir practicum and when they become new teachers.

References

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

Buckingham, D. (2006). Defining digital literacy: What do young people need to know about digitalmedia? Digital kompetanse [Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy], 1(4), 263–276.

Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2008). The importance of information technology attitudes and com-petencies in primary and secondary education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 321–331).New York: Springer.

Dwyer, D.C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J.H. (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices intechnology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 8(48), 45–52.

Egeberg, G., Guðmundsdóttir, G.B., Hatlevik, O.E., Ottestad, G., Haug, J.H., & Tømte, K. (2012).Monitor 2011: Skolens digitale tilstand [The ICT Monitor 2011: The digital condition inschool]. Oslo: Unipub.

Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer.Giere, R.N. (1979). Understanding scientific reasoning. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.GSI (2011). Grunnskolen Informasjon System 2011. IKT. Elever pr. PC [The information system of

primary school]. Oslo: Author.Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard

University Press.Haydn, T.A., & Barton, R. (2007). Common needs and different agendas: How trainee teachers make

progress in their ability to use ICT in subject teaching: Some lessons from the UK. Computer &Education, 49(4), 1018–1036.

278 KRUMSVIK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

22:

06 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 12: Teacher educators' digital competence

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. New York: MIT Press.Judge, S., & O’Bannon, B. (2008). Faculty integration of technology in teacher preparation: Outcomes

of a development model. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(1), 17–28.Kay, R.H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A

review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 383–408.Kirschner, P., & Davis, N. (2003). Pedagogic benchmarks for information and communications tech-

nology in teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(1), 125–147.Kirschner, P.A., Martens, R.L., & Strijbos, J.W. (2004). CSCL in higher education? A framework for

designing multiple collaborative environments. In P. Dillenbourg (Series Ed.) & J.-W. Strijbos,P.A. Kirschner, & R.L. Martens (Vol. Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning. Vol. 3:What we know about CSCL, and implementing it in higher education. Boston, MA: KluwerAcademic.

Kirschner, P., Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans (2008). Benchmarks for teacher education programs in thepedagogical use of ICT. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of informationtechnology in primary and secondary education (pp. 435–477). New York: Springer Science/Business Media.

Knobel, M. (1999). Everyday literacies: Students, discourses and social practice. New York: PeterLang.

Krumsvik, R. (2006a). ICT in the school: ICT-initiated school development in lower secondary school(PhD Thesis, University of Bergen).

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

Krumsvik, R (Ed.). (2007). Skulen og den digitale læringsrevolusjon [The school and the digital learn-ing revolution]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Krumsvik, R. (2008a). The emerging digital literacy among teachers in Norway (The story of onedigital literate teacher). In R. Kobayashi (Ed.), New educational technology (pp. 105–125).New York: Nova Science.

Krumsvik, R. (2008b). Situated learning and digital competence. Education and InformationTechnology, 4(13), 279–290.

Krumsvik, R. (2012). The digital school and teacher education in Norway. In R. Schultz-Zander, B.Eickelmann, H. Mozer, H. Niesyto, & P. Grell (Eds.), Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik 9 [Theannual book of Mediapedagogy 9] (pp. 455–480). Heidelberg: Springer VS.

Krumsvik, R., Westrheim, K., Sunde, E., & Langørgen, K. (2012). “Teach as we preach”:lærerutdannerens digitale kompetanse [Teacher Educators’ Digital Competence]. HögreUtbildning, 2(2), 93–108.

Hooper, S., & Rieber, L.P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A.C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching:Theory into practice (pp. 154–170). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Kunnskapsdepartementet [Ministry of Knowledge, MOK]. (2006). Læreplanverket forKunnskapsløftet (LK 06) [National curriculum for knowledge promotion in primary and second-ary education and training (LK 06)]. Retrieved October 8, 2008, from http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kd/Selected-topics/andre/Knowledge-Promotion.html?id=1411

MOK. (2008). Stortingsmelding nr. 11, Læreren, rollen og utddanningen [White Paper No. 11, Theteacher, the role and the education]. Oslo: Statens Forvaltningsteneste.

MOK. (2010). Rammeplan for grunnskolelærerutdanningen [General plan for teacher education incompulsory school]. Oslo: Statens Forvaltningsteneste.

Kvernbekk, T. (2005). Pedagogisk Teoridannelse: Insidere, teoriformer og praksis [The creation ofpedagogical theories: Insiders, forms of theory and practise]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Lanham, R. (1995). Digital literacy. Scientific American, 273(3), 160–161.Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning.

Buckingham: Open University Press.

TEACHER EDUCATORS’ DIGITAL COMPETENCE 279

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

22:

06 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 13: Teacher educators' digital competence

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Mutton, T., Mills, G., & McNicholl, J. (2006). Mentor skills in a new context: Working with traineeteachers to develop the use of information and communications technology in their subject teach-ing. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(3), 337–352.

Nordisk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning [NIFU-Step] (2008). Digital kom-petanse lærerutdanningen [Digital competence in teacher education]. Oslo: Author.

Norwegian University Monitor. (2010). Digitale utfordinger i høyere utdanning. NorgesuniversitetetsIKT-monitor. Norgesuniversitetets skriftserie nr. 1/2009 [The Digital challenges of higher edu-cation. The Norwegian University ICT-monitor]. Tromsø: Norgesuniversitetet.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2010). Are students ready for atechnology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us. Paris: Author.

Ottesen, E., & Møller, J. (2010). Underveis, men i svært ulikt tempo: et blikk inn i ti skoler etter tre årmed Kunnskapsløftet. Delrapport 3. Underveisanalyse av Kunnskapsløftet som styringsform [Onthe way, but with very different tempo: a look at ten schools after three years with the KnowledgePromotion] (Vol. 37/2010). Oslo: NIFU STEP.

Rosch, E. (1978). Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Suppe, F (Ed.). (1977). The structure of scientific theories. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Suppe, F. (1989). The semantic conception of theories and scientific realism. Urbana, IL: University of

Illinois Press.Tyner, K. (1998). Literacy in a digital world: Teaching and learning in the age of information.

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Twidle, J., Sorensen, P., Childs, A., Godwin, J., & Dussart, M. (2006). Issues, challenges and needs of

student science teachers in using the Internet as a tool for teaching. Technology, Pedagogy andEducation, 15(2), 207–221.

Tømte, C., Hovdhaugen, E., & Solum, N.H. (2009). ICT in initial teacher training. Country report,Norway. Oslo: OECD.

Undervisnings-og Forskningsdepartementet (UFD) [Ministry of Education and Research, MER](2003). Rammeplan for lærerutdanning [National curriculum regulations: General teacher edu-cation], Retrieved February 10, 2008, from: http://www.regjeringen.no/Upload/KD/Vedlegg/UH/Rammeplaner/Lærer/Rammeplan_laerer_eng.pdf.

UFD (2004). Evaluering av IKT-satsningen i lærerutdanningen [The evaluation of the ICT efforts inteacher education]. Oslo: Rambøll Management.

Utdanningsdirektoratet (2011). Gratis læremidler i videregående opplæring [Free teaching aids inupper secondary school]. Oslo: Author, Retrieved July 7, 2011, from http://www.udir.no/Regelverk/Tilskudd/Laremidler/Gratis-laremidler-i-videregaende-opplaring/.

280 KRUMSVIK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

22:

06 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014