**4. Discussion**

Even though being on opposite sides of the globe, Norway and New Zealand educate teachers in digitally rich environments. For many years, they have been teaching students with high access to technology and educational resources [21]. However, a noticeable difference is that the two countries have different implementation strategies for digital technology in education. Norway has been exposed to a stronger top-down educational implementation of ICT in schools than have other countries [5].

New Zealand teacher educators appear to be more motivated to work with digital technology than Norwegians [27]. This lack of motivation is one reason that could explain why the application of digital tools seemed less in Norway than in New Zealand. The hygiene factors mentioned were also described in a way that indicated that both policy and work conditions are sources of frustration and dissatisfaction. Norwegian teacher educators explained that the main reason they use digital tools is the top-down implementation of government policy. Only 16% of Norwegian staff respondents moderately or strongly disagreed with the statement 'Society's expectations of the impact of digital tools are exaggerated', while 58% of staff moderately or strongly agreed with the affirmation. Thus, most teachers do not agree with the signals that are communicated in public. Therefore, a fundamental question in the use of digital technology in Norway is the policy related to its implementation; as part of the work environment, politics creates job frustration. Teacher educators in both countries highlighted achievements and policies as the main reasons for using digital technology, but Norwegian teacher educators were especially critical of their own country's policy.

What is even more surprising is that the same trend applies when asking whether there are excessive expectations about the effect of digital tools on academic debates at the Norwegian university. On this question, only 13% of staff responded that they somewhat or completely disagree that academic debates at the university have exaggerated expectations about the effects of digital tools. However, 50% agreed that academic debates at the Norwegian university are characterized by too-high expectations about the effect of digital tools. These figures represent a dual culture in which employees have an attitude towards digital tools, indicating that the majority of teacher education staff do not consider digital tools essential for good teaching. This suggests an internal educational culture that does not correspond to public culture and university policies in general. The Norwegian staff expressed loyalty towards the formal curriculum, but struggled with an inconsistent espoused theory when talking about their own practice.

The figures from New Zealand are more in line with the public culture and with the expressed university policies. The Jordanian data are more difficult to interpret, but seems to be somewhere between the two other countries.

Our regression analysis found that the contribution to digital practice occurs somewhat differently between the countries. The digital practice of the Norwegian staff is dominated by the *professional attitude*, whereas in New Zealand, it is dominated by *PDC*.

Argyris and Schön's theory of action may give us a relevant framework to understand this observation on a deeper conceptual level. The theory emphasizes SLL and DLL learning processes. From the analysis above, we infer that the didactical perspective in New Zealand may be characterized as dominated by conventional SLL processes based on PDC. In contrast, the academic staff in Norway are strongly involved in DLL processes in which their professional attitudes are more concerned. The interactions are illustrated in **Figure 1**. SLL is practical and rational at the default and basic didactical level, whereas the DLL mode is more open to discussions and adaptations and provides more opportunities for alternatives. With political pressure experience, the academic staff will look for new methods when

**11**

*Decoding the Digital Gap in Teacher Education: Three Perspectives across the Globe*

the SLL results in a mismatch between educational goals and the achieved goals. When entering a DLL process and looking critically into the preconditions for the challenges at hand, the Norwegian academics have to enter a systemic double loop. Thus, teachers' independent attitudes and beliefs function as redirectors of the use

According to Elstad [37], political expectations about the modernization of the school system using ICT and the allocation of funds following this policy created agendas which are not compatible with the constraints and operational characteristics within education. If you are presented with an ideology, and this guides the practice, students are more likely to act based on SLL. Experience provides a greater opportunity to evaluate not only policies, but also how policies affect practice. This knowledge is a prerequisite for critical analysis of teaching and for acting based on DLL. Teacher beliefs and attitudes about ICT use and integration challenge institutions to reconceptualize technological infused ways of 'seeing and doing things'. To be a learning organization means to have a culture that involves DLL processes when needed, and to remain resilient against the SLL traps that may emerge in the organization and create tension and dissonance [22]. Because SLL is prevalent in the dominant culture [38], learning organizations such as those involved in teacher training may be susceptible to SLL traps that develop from the dominant societal culture. We interpret the observed tensions on the use of ICT within teacher

The results of the qualitative interviews [26, 27] revealed that this could be understood as a global concern. It is a concern for deep educational values in many different cultures. Teacher educators were critical to position themselves towards a skills-based learning perspective, and positively towards a competency-oriented perspective. These two perspectives were understood as quite conflicting perspectives, almost mutually exclusive. How can a skills-based and a competency-oriented view be combined in a common understanding of learning? The contradictory elements of this discussion seem to be deeply embedded in the educational culture. Langset, Jacobsen and Haugsbakken [39] stated that, contrary to top-down initiatives, a more horizontal approach supports pedagogical variation and tailored solutions needed in large heterogeneous organizations. The project carried out by Langset et al. [39] focused on local initiative and participation, as well as the feeling of autonomy experienced by the participants. Participants were free to explore new applications at their own pace and decide what new technologies to implement and how to use them in their courses. Their study findings showed that these were important factors supporting the argument for horizontal approaches rather than

A recent study from Uganda [40] found that regardless of the resourceconstrained context and pedagogical challenges experienced by academics, their attitude demonstrated resilience, flexibility and determination to embrace ICT in their teaching practice. This study challenges the notion of academics being passive, 'making do' with what is at hand [41] and claims that academics are resourceful

Our aim was to study university departments of education as learning organizations using a self-designed questionnaire involving Argyris and Schön's SLL and DLL (**Figure 1**) tied directly to the pedagogical application of digital tools. The results were used to discuss the influence of skills (PDC) and attitudes (mindsets and opinions) of the respondents on the pedagogical applications (practice) within the

practitioners, seeking inventive ways to teach more effectively.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96206*

of ICT in their educational contexts.

education as the occurrence of such SLL traps.

top-down implementation.

**5. Concluding remarks**

#### *Decoding the Digital Gap in Teacher Education: Three Perspectives across the Globe DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96206*

the SLL results in a mismatch between educational goals and the achieved goals. When entering a DLL process and looking critically into the preconditions for the challenges at hand, the Norwegian academics have to enter a systemic double loop. Thus, teachers' independent attitudes and beliefs function as redirectors of the use of ICT in their educational contexts.

According to Elstad [37], political expectations about the modernization of the school system using ICT and the allocation of funds following this policy created agendas which are not compatible with the constraints and operational characteristics within education. If you are presented with an ideology, and this guides the practice, students are more likely to act based on SLL. Experience provides a greater opportunity to evaluate not only policies, but also how policies affect practice. This knowledge is a prerequisite for critical analysis of teaching and for acting based on DLL. Teacher beliefs and attitudes about ICT use and integration challenge institutions to reconceptualize technological infused ways of 'seeing and doing things'.

To be a learning organization means to have a culture that involves DLL processes when needed, and to remain resilient against the SLL traps that may emerge in the organization and create tension and dissonance [22]. Because SLL is prevalent in the dominant culture [38], learning organizations such as those involved in teacher training may be susceptible to SLL traps that develop from the dominant societal culture. We interpret the observed tensions on the use of ICT within teacher education as the occurrence of such SLL traps.

The results of the qualitative interviews [26, 27] revealed that this could be understood as a global concern. It is a concern for deep educational values in many different cultures. Teacher educators were critical to position themselves towards a skills-based learning perspective, and positively towards a competency-oriented perspective. These two perspectives were understood as quite conflicting perspectives, almost mutually exclusive. How can a skills-based and a competency-oriented view be combined in a common understanding of learning? The contradictory elements of this discussion seem to be deeply embedded in the educational culture.

Langset, Jacobsen and Haugsbakken [39] stated that, contrary to top-down initiatives, a more horizontal approach supports pedagogical variation and tailored solutions needed in large heterogeneous organizations. The project carried out by Langset et al. [39] focused on local initiative and participation, as well as the feeling of autonomy experienced by the participants. Participants were free to explore new applications at their own pace and decide what new technologies to implement and how to use them in their courses. Their study findings showed that these were important factors supporting the argument for horizontal approaches rather than top-down implementation.

A recent study from Uganda [40] found that regardless of the resourceconstrained context and pedagogical challenges experienced by academics, their attitude demonstrated resilience, flexibility and determination to embrace ICT in their teaching practice. This study challenges the notion of academics being passive, 'making do' with what is at hand [41] and claims that academics are resourceful practitioners, seeking inventive ways to teach more effectively.

#### **5. Concluding remarks**

Our aim was to study university departments of education as learning organizations using a self-designed questionnaire involving Argyris and Schön's SLL and DLL (**Figure 1**) tied directly to the pedagogical application of digital tools. The results were used to discuss the influence of skills (PDC) and attitudes (mindsets and opinions) of the respondents on the pedagogical applications (practice) within the

*Teacher Education in the 21st Century - Emerging Skills for a Changing World*

Even though being on opposite sides of the globe, Norway and New Zealand educate teachers in digitally rich environments. For many years, they have been teaching students with high access to technology and educational resources [21]. However, a noticeable difference is that the two countries have different implementation strategies for digital technology in education. Norway has been exposed to a stronger top-down

New Zealand teacher educators appear to be more motivated to work with digital technology than Norwegians [27]. This lack of motivation is one reason that could explain why the application of digital tools seemed less in Norway than in New Zealand. The hygiene factors mentioned were also described in a way that indicated that both policy and work conditions are sources of frustration and dissatisfaction. Norwegian teacher educators explained that the main reason they use digital tools is the top-down implementation of government policy. Only 16% of Norwegian staff respondents moderately or strongly disagreed with the statement 'Society's expectations of the impact of digital tools are exaggerated', while 58% of staff moderately or strongly agreed with the affirmation. Thus, most teachers do not agree with the signals that are communicated in public. Therefore, a fundamental question in the use of digital technology in Norway is the policy related to its implementation; as part of the work environment, politics creates job frustration. Teacher educators in both countries highlighted achievements and policies as the main reasons for using digital technology, but Norwegian teacher educators were especially critical of their own country's policy. What is even more surprising is that the same trend applies when asking whether there are excessive expectations about the effect of digital tools on academic debates at the Norwegian university. On this question, only 13% of staff responded that they somewhat or completely disagree that academic debates at the university have exaggerated expectations about the effects of digital tools. However, 50% agreed that academic debates at the Norwegian university are characterized by too-high expectations about the effect of digital tools. These figures represent a dual culture in which employees have an attitude towards digital tools, indicating that the majority of teacher education staff do not consider digital tools essential for good teaching. This suggests an internal educational culture that does not correspond to public culture and university policies in general. The Norwegian staff expressed loyalty towards the formal curriculum, but struggled with an inconsis-

educational implementation of ICT in schools than have other countries [5].

tent espoused theory when talking about their own practice.

but seems to be somewhere between the two other countries.

The figures from New Zealand are more in line with the public culture and with the expressed university policies. The Jordanian data are more difficult to interpret,

Our regression analysis found that the contribution to digital practice occurs somewhat differently between the countries. The digital practice of the Norwegian staff is dominated by the *professional attitude*, whereas in New Zealand, it is domi-

Argyris and Schön's theory of action may give us a relevant framework to understand this observation on a deeper conceptual level. The theory emphasizes SLL and DLL learning processes. From the analysis above, we infer that the didactical perspective in New Zealand may be characterized as dominated by conventional SLL processes based on PDC. In contrast, the academic staff in Norway are strongly involved in DLL processes in which their professional attitudes are more concerned. The interactions are illustrated in **Figure 1**. SLL is practical and rational at the default and basic didactical level, whereas the DLL mode is more open to discussions and adaptations and provides more opportunities for alternatives. With political pressure experience, the academic staff will look for new methods when

**4. Discussion**

**10**

nated by *PDC*.

organizations. Many governments have been active in inducing and reforming both the school system and teacher education. This chapter has presented findings regarding how this affects teacher educators' attitudes towards their professional position. The Norwegian implementation plan positions digital technology in teaching in a way that activates resistance and creates contrasts between teacher educators' experiences and work-related requirements.

Multiple linear regressions were used to understand the relationships and contributions of SLL and DLL to organizational learning performance. The investigation empirically identified the potential for the development of an SLL and DLL culture to foster positive contributions to organizational learning performance.

Our study found that Argyris and Schön's separation between SLL and DLL in their theory of action may contribute to a deeper acknowledgement of the fundamental challenges which have to be settled in the domain of educational technology. Both processes exist at the same time and may have different actors. Both actors are important and may make valuable contributions to refining the learning process when technology is involved. However, a policy-induced legitimate system (SLL) is not enough and may create the observed dissonance (SLL trap). Employees are motivated to work within a fixed SLL framework, which does not reflect the complexity of reality. Therefore, there is a risk of developing professional tunnel vision, where employees are forced to abandon what is professionally reasonable. However, teacher education requires flexible and functional team thinking (SSL + DLL) to develop the 'noble art of education'. Technology and high ambitions at the structural macro level are not enough; there is a need for local structures at the meso-level.

The political enthusiasm that has prevailed in the field is now, to a greater extent, faced with critical reflections. The ranking of political goals over pedagogical goals hear is mostly contrary to teachers' understanding of teacher proficiency. The observation that digital tools are not successfully integrated into teacher training may be related to optimistic expectations associated with the use of digital technology in our society [42, 43]. In further studies, this technological optimism must critically examined, which has promoted an unrealistic view of the capacity of digital tools in education.

Teacher educators have developed an awareness of how digital technology can be integrated into curricula and the types of strategies that are best suited to help pre-service teacher students gain this knowledge for their future work. According to Ertmer et al. [44], fundamental change to use ICT in constructive ways may only occur if academics' inherent attitudes about the role of technology is concurrent with their practice. The present study raises such awareness while clarifying the content and complicated processes of integrating technology into teaching and learning. Faster, better, cheaper, applied to education, is not a productive concept. It is a false economy, since it is very difficult to have all three simultaneously. This requires educational institutions to be professional learning organizations, with communities of school professionals engaged in an ongoing dialog to promote cycles of development and reflection in students and teachers.

There are several implications of this study for the field of higher education. First, the idea that technology in itself will transform education if teachers are given access to it has been seriously challenged with empirical data. Second, if society want to meet the high ambitions for digital competence, the repertoire of ICT use in didactically meaningful ways has to grow. Third, the pedagogical landscape is complicated, and the development may preferably be done as an iterative process in its meso-level, between the macro and micro structure. We would suggest that instead of generally focusing on ICT in teacher training, teachers should work systematically at the local level to increase the repertoire—not the use itself—of digital learning technologies.

**13**

statements:

teaching.

*Decoding the Digital Gap in Teacher Education: Three Perspectives across the Globe*

The implementation of digital technology and the development of digital competence in education require much more than basic digital infrastructure and an ambitious curriculum. Structures at the national level are not enough. There is an urgent need for professional development at the local level to expand the pedagogical repertoire and the didactic motivation of teachers concerning digital technology. This calls for an iterative progress of work in a social context, and requires education institutions as professional learning organizations, engage in an ongoing dialog to promote development and reflection cycles for students and teachers.

Our updated questionnaire is based on Argyris and Schön's theory and involves three main constructs: *Professional Digital Competence*, *Professional Attitude* and *Professional Applications of Tools*. To gain insight into the respondents' theories in use, the questionnaire contained questions regarding the extent of use of different digital technologies. Professional digital competence is operationalized using Tømte and Olsen [45] and Lund, Furberg, Bakken and Engelien [46]. In accordance with the definition, three defined aspects of digital competence structured the questionnaire statements: pedagogic and didactic understanding, subject-specific understanding, and technological understanding. This definition of digital competence is generally in agreement with resent literature regarding its categorical understanding of digital competence. To illuminate attitudes (espoused theories), statements were prepared based on the OECD report 'Connected Minds: Technology and Today's Learners' [21] and its description of the field's existing attitudes towards technology. In the report, the field is described as characterized by stretching from being technology averse to technology positive. Statements were prepared to identify the respondents' own motivations for using digital tools, the respondents' attitudes towards digital tools' position in the public arena and attitudes towards the

PDC and professional attitude were measured on a five-point Likert-scaled where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = moderately disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = moderately agree and 5 = strongly agree. Professional application of tools was measured based on the reported frequency of use of 16 digital technologies and work methods of the participants in their own teaching in the past year, with 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = often and 5 = extensively. Some items had a reversed scale, denoted by REV (reversal). The main construct of the surveys is illustrated by the version for the teacher educators. However, the survey should be slightly modified for use among teacher students to reflect the differences in their educational context. The constructs were each based on the following questionnaire items:

Decide to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following

• I can use digital tools that are appropriate for the aspects of the subjects I am

• I am familiar with digital tools that can help diversify teaching.

• I am, in general, confident when using digital tools.

• I find it easy to become familiar with new digital tools.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96206*

use of digital tools in educational settings.

*Professional Digital Competence (PDC).*

**Appendix**

*Decoding the Digital Gap in Teacher Education: Three Perspectives across the Globe DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96206*

The implementation of digital technology and the development of digital competence in education require much more than basic digital infrastructure and an ambitious curriculum. Structures at the national level are not enough. There is an urgent need for professional development at the local level to expand the pedagogical repertoire and the didactic motivation of teachers concerning digital technology. This calls for an iterative progress of work in a social context, and requires education institutions as professional learning organizations, engage in an ongoing dialog to promote development and reflection cycles for students and teachers.
